Marx on Monday: IPCC

Last week when parts of the IPCC’s much heralded “Climate Change Report” were leaked to the press I, as much as any liberal, found myself despairing at some of its findings. No global warming for 16 years; record levels of sea ice; so many polar bears that the UN was proposing a humane cull to limit their numbers; no extreme weather conditions like hurricanes and typhoons – and – worst of all – the computer forecasts were wrong and there was no global warming! I felt like I did when as a child I found out that there was no Santa Claus!

Thank goodness, therefore, for the IPCC – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. When I was a young boy I remember going to the theatre to see Peter Pan. I, along with the rest of the children, became very upset when Tinkerbell was dying, but Peter Pan saved her life by encouraging the audience to chant along with him, “I do – I do – I do believe in fairies.”

And in like fashion the scientists of the IPCC, when faced with the evidence of their own scientific research that Global Warming was the stuff of fairy tales, simply stood in a circle, held hands and chanted, “we do – we do – we do believe in Global Warming.” And miraculously, just like Tinkerbell, Global Warming was brought back to life.

And thank goodness it was. Unless you are a Liberal or a Democrat you cannot begin to understand what it would mean to live life without Global Warming. It would be like a Christian being presented with undeniable evidence that there is no God – only worse!

The genius of the IPCC is best encapsulated by statistics. 95% of papers written on global warming agree that not only is it happening it is manmade. The beauty of that statistic is that exactly 95% of papers written on Global Warming are written by those who have a genuine liberal conviction that it is happening – as well as a financial interest in perpetuating the splendid liberal myth of Global Warming.

What I find astounding is that 5% of scientists persist in being climate change deniers – in spite of being cast into purgatory for daring to denounce it. Don’t those idiots realise that the correct answer is that not only is Global Warming happening it is manmade? Why do they insist on bucking the trend by carrying out objective experiments and coming to objective conclusions?

It’s the same with journalists. If you want a busy career in journalism you’ve got to be on the winning team. Forget the facts! Stick to the propaganda! Climate change deniers like James Delingpole who approach the subject objectively and cast doubt on the IPCC’s conclusions deserve to be gagged – and his book “Watermelons” deserves to be burned in a modern “sauberung” action against the un-global warming spirit. If Delingpole had lived in Nazi Germany no doubt he’d have insisted, in his pathetically objective, fact-based, way, on writing articles claiming that Jews were not untermenschen – in spite of the fact that well over 95% of papers written by German scientists on the Jewish question agreed that the Jews were. Like German journalists who cast doubt on the scientific consensus that the Aryan race were superior to the rest Delingpole and other climate change denying journalists would have been shot!

Yet we Global Warming liberals are still forced to suffer objective journalism which casts doubt on what we know to be true in spite of the evidence – that Global Warming is a clear and present danger!

When I first read the news casting doubt on Global Warming I was so upset I needed a stiff drink, so I headed off to New York’s most exclusive bar “Los Americanos” for a cocktail. There were no seats so I stood at the bar and ordered a “Cuzco Humming Bird.” There was a rowdy crowd sitting in the booth behind me so I sipped my drink and listened in to their conversation.

“I’m telling you Elvis isn’t dead,” one of them proclaimed, “he was fed up with being a rock star so he’s re-trained as a scientist and is working at the Area 51 research laboratory experimenting on the alien life forms who crashed at Roswell.”

As a liberal I found these theories strangely compelling and plausible so I walked over and asked if I could join them.

“Pull up a seat Kevin,” one of them smiled, and I took a backward step in surprise as I recognised the man as Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC.

“See if you can settle an argument Kevin,” said one of the other scientists, who I recognised as Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University, “Rajendra thinks that Hitler is still alive and living in a condo in Palm Springs with Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden – where they are planning to destroy the world by burning fossil fuels around the clock”

“As Hitler was born in 1889 I think that’s highly unlikely,” I replied, “that would make him 124 years old.”

“I told you so,” Katharine scoffed at Rajendra, “Hitler is dead, it’s just Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden who are burning fossil fuels in Palm Springs.”

“Never mind about Saddam and Osama,” I interrupted their scientific musings, “tell me about this so-called evidence that there is no Global Warming.”

“It’s a storm in a tea cup Kevin,” Rajendra replied, “or it would be – if there were any storms.”

“Storm in a tea cup?” I shrieked, “I thought your research had concluded that all of your computer climate predictors were hopelessly wrong.”

“Not hopelessly wrong,” a man I recognised as climate expert Dr John Harte responded, “just wildly wrong. They had predicted temperature increases which would have turned the river Hudson into the river Styx but our revised figures show a possible increase of as much as 2 degrees celcius over the next 10,000 years – if that prediction comes true, and we’re as certain that it will as we were about all the things we’ve got  wrong in the past, think of the catastrophic consequences for your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren.”

“But what about the fact that we have record levels of sea ice?” I persisted.

“They are not record levels,” Rajendra put me straight, “there was much more sea ice during the last ice age.”

“Okay then,” I played devil’s advocate, “what about the fact that there has been no Global Warming since 1998?”

“We’ve considered that carefully,” Rajendra fixed me with a steely glare, “and approached it on the basis that there is Global Warming and that we need to fabricate evidential theories to explain away the fact that there actually isn’t any.”

“So what have you come up with?”

“My theory is that Global Warming is being swallowed up by the Bermuda Triangle,” Katharine replied, “and the heat is being used for cooking by the citizens of Atlantis.”

“That just sounds silly,” I shook my head.

“Of course I won’t put it that way,” said Katharine, “I’d dress it up in scientific gobbledygook so that people wouldn’t be able to understand me.”

“So what would you say?” I asked.

“That the natural variability of the climate can account for considerable fluctuation in global temperatures year on year, in spite of an overall upward trajectory and over relatively short, non-climate timescales these patterns of natural variability can lead to all kinds of changes in global and regional near-surface air temperature: flat, increasing, or even decreasing trends,” Katharine replied, “and this short-term variability reflects natural patterns of heat and energy exchange between the different components of the Earth’s system. Only over climate timescales do the long-term trends emerge that reflect the influence of changes in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.”

“Trying to make sense of that,” I said, “you seem to be saying that Global Warming has happened over the last 16 years, but there has been no actual increase in temperature because non-human made natural weather conditions have made the earth cooler and cancelled it out.”

“Precisely,” Katharine smiled.

“And is there any evidence for this?” I asked.

“Absolutely none,” she replied, “but it’s the only pro-global warming theory I could come up with that fits the fact that there has been no global warming for 16 years.”

“Are none of you worried,” I continued to play devil’s advocate, “that the world has spent trillions of dollars to counter the threat of Global Warming, as predicted by your computer programmes, but they have all turned out to be100% wrong?”

“What do you mean wrong?” Rajendra protested.

“Didn’t you predict that all of the glaciers in the Himalayas would have melted by 2035?” I retorted.

“Which would of course,” Katharine interjected, “destroy Bigfoot’s natural habitat.”

“And then in a humiliating climb down,” I continued, “you had to admit that you were wrong and that they weren’t melting at all.”

“We were only wrong about the date,” Rajendra protested.

“But isn’t that rather important?”

“People are often wrong about dates,” Rajendra replied, “when Warren Jeffs, the president of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, predicted from his prison cell that the world would end on December 23rd 2012 and it didn’t he didn’t give up – he simply accepted he was wrong and changed the date of the apocalypse to December 31st 2012.”

“But the world didn’t end then either,” I protested.

“But it will end one day,” Rajendra assured me, “and Jeffs will have the last laugh, just like the IPCC will when the Himalayans glaciers melt one day.”

“So you don’t feel at all foolish,” I asked him, “making unsubstantiated statements that the Himalayan glaciers were melting – based on no evidence whatsoever?”

“Foolish?” Rajendra laughed in my face, “let me tell you something Kevin – I am the director general of a company based in New Delhi called The Energy and Resources Institute. After my claims about the melting Himalayan glaciers the European Union and America paid my company millions of dollars to study the Himalayan so-called melting glaciers – do you think we’re in this for nothing?”

“What do you mean?” I was shocked.

“All of our livelihoods rely upon the international community believing that Global Warming exists,” Rajendra replied, “for decades now we climate scientists have been making out like bandits. You don’t think that we are going to let a small matter like the truth de-rail that gravy train do you?”

“But what if they find out you are a liar?” I asked.

“What do you mean a liar?” Rajendra looked affronted.

“Didn’t you pretend to have two PHD’s,” I challenged him, “when you only have one?”

“I put the fact that I had one PHD into my climate change prediction computer,” Rajendra replied, “and it predicted that I had two.”

“And in 1996 didn’t an Indian High Court conclude that you had “suppressed material facts” and “sworn to false affidavits?”

“Only in the interests of justice and climate change,” he replied, “if I was corrupt it was a noble cause corruption.”

“And didn’t you claim that IPCC reports are the consensus of 4,000 scientists,” I pushed him, “whereas the last one was written by only 1,200 – over two thirds of whom were unqualified first year science students?”

“There’s actually only one 0 difference between 400 and 4,000,” he protested, “you’re just nit-picking now.”

“And didn’t you claim that the IPCC report was peer reviewed,” I put to him, “whereas only 23 out of 44 chapters were – and even those were reviewed by peers who had helped write the report?”

“You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs,” the President of the IPCC shrugged.

“So you accept that you’re a liar?” I put it to him straight.

“We don’t like to use the word liar,” he winced, “we prefer the term liberal climate scientist.”

16 comments on “Marx on Monday: IPCC

  1. Simon Roberts
    September 30, 2013 at 9:38 am #

    One of the best yet. Fantastic.

  2. concretebunker
    September 30, 2013 at 10:32 am #

    Its warmed up for me- i saw the sun this year and got a bit of a tan!

  3. therealguyfaux
    September 30, 2013 at 12:54 pm #

    Lost in all this Global Warming/Climate Change are some very simple questions which must be answered before anything is undertaken. Otherwise, we’re just being buffaloed into action by those who, as your article shows, need to have their motives and financial interests questioned:

    What temperature is the Earth SUPPOSED to be?

    How did you determine that number?

    What temperature would the Earth be absent man’s input to climate, and what variation would there be, if any, from previous eras?

    Assuming arguendo we COULD do anything to abate the “warming” you say is taking place, how could we insure we weren’t liable to go too far the other way– swatting the fly on the baby’s forehead with a sledgehammer?

    Assuming we achieve “optimal” temperature, how do we maintain it there, or will that be subject to variability? What to do then?

    What sort of review process or infrastructure do you propose to make sure it can never happen again, it being such a disastrous thing– and what to do, about natural phenomena that create carbon release which (a) cannot be accurately predicted in advance and (b) the effects of which may not be susceptible of accurate measurement in the short term?

    Excuse my impertinence for asking such questions, oh great Climate Controllers.

    • kevinsmith2013
      September 30, 2013 at 7:01 pm #

      If hypothetically, we were, as a scientific control, to factor out the sun as a contributory factor (no solar radiation), then rapidly the surface of the earth would plummet to somewhere near absolute zero (-273C), would that make the IPCC happy? Assuming of course all their bodily functions had not frozen solid.

      Oh sorry forgive me, according to the IPCC the Sun is not a factor – silly me.

      If they operate their simulations retrospectively (backwards in time), the results are completely way out on what we actually experienced, does that not tell them something? Again I’m being naive, of course they are much better at predicting the future than they are at reporting the present or near future. No-one would get a Nobel prize for predicting the past.

  4. Honey Badger
    September 30, 2013 at 1:43 pm #

    My favourite is how heat is being transferred to the deep oceans. Indeed, it is a well-known thermodynamic fact that heat mostly rises in a fluid. I just want them to explain to me the mechanism whereby heat is transferred downwards (which I accept will happen) without an accompanying increase at the surface. At the moment their theory is defying the laws of thermodynamics IMHO.

    • dr
      September 30, 2013 at 4:14 pm #

      Honey Badger,
      The temperature at the bottom of the oceans is around 4 C or so. At the top it is typically anywhere from 15 C to 25 C.
      The scientists aren’t arguing that there is a temperature inversion, where the lower layers are warmer than the top layers, they are simply claiming that the bottom layers have warmed up a bit, say to 4.1C or so. There goes the missing heat.
      What stinks about this whole idea, is that data for ocean temperatures below 700m is truly diabolical.
      Since around 2005 a system called Argo, has provided near real time data on ocean temperature versus depth and salinity. As far as I know, it is an excellent system. Prior to Argo, there is only isolated data for small regions of the ocean. Basically, no one knows what was happening temperature wise in the deep oceans during the 20th Century or before. We don’t know if they were warming and cooling the atmosphere or cooling and warming the atmosphere. Scientists have tried to find proxies for this data, but it is fraught with difficulties.

      • Honey Badger
        October 1, 2013 at 11:42 am #

        dr,

        I don’t think I phrased my question very well. Allow me to explain my thinking. If the surface temperature is 15C and the depths are 4C then there is a gradient from the bottom right to the surface where the fluid above is warmer than the fluid below. All I am saying, is that to transfer 0.1C from the surface right down to the deep ocean every single “layer” of fluid needs to have increased in temperature to avoid the very inversion that you point out can’t happen. My point is that if you want to get heat down to the bottom then you should certainly see an increase in temp at every level on the way down.

  5. jazz606
    September 30, 2013 at 9:41 pm #

    So climate change is a gravy train as well as a bandwagon.

  6. Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
    October 1, 2013 at 8:24 am #

    Reblogged this on The View From Here and commented:
    An amusing take from someone who must have read Donna Laframboise’s The Delinquent Teenager, and Into the Dustbin (and you should ,too, if you haven’t already!

  7. kirk elder
    October 1, 2013 at 8:27 am #

    could someone direct me tyo the papers where the effects of undersea volcanoes are quantified?

  8. Mat
    October 1, 2013 at 8:47 am #

    Couldn’t stop smiling all the way through,this is more believable than the ipcc ‘facts’ !!

  9. john miller
    October 1, 2013 at 6:19 pm #

    Bugger it.

    I’ve been saving and saving and saving to get my first windmill and now it looks as though it’s unravelling

  10. David
    October 1, 2013 at 8:07 pm #

    So all of this…piffle…..

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rog.20022/abstract

    ftp://kakapo.ucsd.edu/pub/sio_220/e03%20-%20Global%20warming/Levitus_et_al.GRL12.pdf

    http://www.nature.com/news/tropical-ocean-key-to-global-warming-hiatus-1.13620

    etc etc 1000’s more….

    Is the equivalent to Nazi eugenic propaganda?
    Nature, Science, in fact all scientific journals worldwide are implicated in this conceit – the equivalent of Nazi psuedo-science claiming the natural inferiotity of the Jew.
    All academic institutions as well?

    Yet, from what I understand all J.D and his flock have done is take ‘the pause’ – of which there have been many and more severe in the past and said – “there its stopped”.

    So he has taken the “junk science” he rejected – its all lies and propaganda – to refute thier own claims – which they err admit to – but which he cant use anyhow because its junk?

    The science is useful / junk depending on wether it supports your ideas. How can global warming have stopped if it never happened?

    And why do people ask incedulous questions about thermal mixing on oceans on sites like this, its like they can’t type in “how does global warming effect the sea” into google?

    Read. Make up your own minds.
    Google will bring up both sides of the debate – there is no need to read pantomimes like this.

  11. Donal Corrigan (@BigDon62)
    October 2, 2013 at 2:31 pm #

    Top Marx for this blog Kevin ! Although it’s a pity you didn’t bump into Donna Laframboise when you were in The Big Apple. Am sure she would have told you about all those delinquent teenagers associated with The IPCC. It’s interesting that there appears to be a 95% consensus on Anthropogenic Climate Change according to The IPCC pertaining to that you mentioned the likes of Adolf Hitler & Saddam Hussein. In the three out of four so called elections & or referenda held from 1933 to 1938 Adolf Hitler received between 92 & 99% of the vote. The two Presidential referenda of 1995 & 2002 saw Saddam Hussein gain 100% of the vote, those chaps expected not only their own people to believe those figures but the wider world too, I’m not saying The IPCC has the persuasive or manipulating powers The Nazi or Saddam’s Ba’ath Party had, but when I see a voting consensus of 95% I feel a little suss ! You also made mention that Hitler would now be 124 years old, didn’t you know that in April 1945 The Odessa spirited Old Adolf out of The Fuhrerbunker & had him cryogenically suspended. (Gagging of course) Would hate to think what the fellow might do if his cryogenic cylinder thaws out due to global warming. Anyway a new ice age is coming best to embrace CO2 we want far more of that beautiful gas in our atmosphere, not less & to keep Adolf in his cylinder ❄☃❄

  12. Climatism
    October 2, 2013 at 5:07 pm #

    Reblogged this on CACA and commented:
    The IPCC spend billions of dollars of other people’s money drawing together 30 pages of conclusions in “Summary For Policymakers” to pressure policy makers, with a 95% certainty, to go and spend $95 billion more dollars, of other people’s money, to try and stop a planet warming that hasn’t warmed in 17 years. 

    For a lot less money and only 5 minutes of their precious time, they could just as easily read this divine piece from the Marxist, for the same effect….only this time get the painful truth! ;p

    I’m lovin : 

    “Rajendra thinks that Hitler is still alive and living in a condo in Palm Springs with Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden – where they are planning to destroy the world by burning fossil fuels around the clock”

     “It’s a storm in a tea cup Kevin,” Rajendra replied, “or it would be – if there were any storms.” 

    Gold.

    Great read Kevin, TQ.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Bookmark recommendation: Bogpaper.com « Australian Climate Madness - October 1, 2013

    […] And the regular satirical column, Marx on Mondays, this week on the subject of the IPCC: […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: