Tallbloke notes that the headline judgement of the Third Assessment Report (2003) was
“Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”.
And the Fourth Assessment Report (2007) was
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Yet the Fifth Assessment Report’s 2012 draft is the agnostic
“Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.”
Almost certainly the Policy Makers’ Summary will toughen this up but the scientific community is clearly preparing an exit strategy from the great greenhouse hoax it initiated in its 1990 first assessment report.
One upshot is that politicians will rebadge the greenhouse inspired measures they introduced just as they did the previous energy-saving policies that were inspired by Club of Rome notions that resources were approaching depletion. They are already doing so in the regulations like those covering the phase out of incandescent light bulbs, where consumer ignorance (and politicians’ informed expertise) is cited as the rationale.
In their retreat from some of the cost impositions they introduced, politicians will doubtless seek to lay the blame on scientists, most of whom will have retired following their elevation in fame and fortune, which the greenhouse scam provided . Politicians will argue that they were only following the best expert advice available.
But, of course, this is not the case. It was the politicians who appointed the scientists and selected those, like our very own Flannery and successive leaders in the CSIRO and the Met Office, who would provide them the advice they wanted to hear. The scientists themselves fully understood the symbiotic nature of the relationship by publishing material that fanned the flames and emphasising greenhouse effects in the grants they applied for.
As we progressively recognise the negative value-added this public funding created it would be wonderful to see a sharp reduction in the funding. Sadly, this is unlikely. Public funding creates its own constituents who will spend a considerable share of their loot in seeking to keep the tap open. As with spending on arts, sport, regions, industry, foreign policy and other areas of waste, Ministers will, as always, be the champions of their departmental expenditures and resources. Scientific funding will be switched to the Next Big Thing.
It would take a political leader of Thatcherite courage coupled with an economy in tatters to bring any real change. And, notwithstanding the slowdown in Chinese demand, union militancy, taxation and regulatory impositions, and bloated expenditures, the Australian economy has developed a considerable resilience. Unfortunately, our system of government allows for surges of increased regulation and spending but we have yet to devise a means of dramatically reversing these.
Any government program of this scale requires massive resources to push it along.
For sure, once going (and it is) the sheer momentum will carry it for a while.
But like a rolling mining truck with no engine, once it has stopped, it will be impossible to get moving again. There will always be a vocal minority pushing at the wheels, imploring others to help them get it moving again. But with that engine gone, it’s just a museum piece.
The engine for the Climate Change scare runs on taxpayer money. It’s a large engine, and a thirsty one. But even the academics can sense a change in the wind. Once the largesse grants run out, then they will start hunting for new pastures. They cannot create value by themselves, so they must attach themselves, remora-like to something that does.
Peak renewable subsidies are already behind us, and incoming governments are having no trouble at all dismantling the programs.
The answer is in your own text:
The real economy isn’t great. The worse the economy is, the less Thatcherite you need to be. You only need a very strong leader when you have to convince people to open their eyes. When their eyes are already open, it’s not hard to point out the lack of clothes on the emperor.
The climate change scam is already dead. It’s just slowly rolling to a stop. Will there actually be a IPCC 6th Assessment report? Doubtful.
brc
20 Sep 12 at 9:05 am
Laframboise has noted the paucity of expert advice at the IPCC in its reports; AR4 was a disgrace, audited by the IAC, it was found to have about 50% of its science written by bodies like the WWF and Greenpeace, so-called grey literature, while the other 50% was defective in respect of its confidence levels and degrees of certainty which its conclusions were based on.
In short, it was junk.
cohenite
20 Sep 12 at 9:15 am
A summary of Laframboise on the IPCC for people who missed it the first time (or two.)
Poor Old Rafe
20 Sep 12 at 9:45 am
Hey guys, we are moving into an El Nino cycle, so now that expect the usual suspects to conveniently confuse weather and climate in dramatically worded news bulletins.
Token
20 Sep 12 at 9:51 am
The temperature record over the 20thC is explicable in terms of ENSO, the variation between El Nino and La Nina conditions.
ENSO is predicted by the Southern Oscillation, SOI.
cohenite
20 Sep 12 at 10:00 am
The sceptic cause is only kept alive on way-out blogs like this one, JoNova, WUWT, Bolt et al. Sceptics gained confidence during the recent La Nina, when some dams filled and temperatures in part of the world held steady and in a small number of cases, fell. It is they who confused weather with climate.
Meanwhile the evidence of anthropogic clmate change kept mounting and is stronger than ever.
hammygar
20 Sep 12 at 10:08 am
Found that tropospheric ‘Hot spot’ yet, Hammygar? No Hot Spot, No CAGW (from the Warmists’ own models).
Cold-Hands
20 Sep 12 at 10:17 am
All true, but watch Flim-Flam and the crew try their usual tricks when the temperature hits 40 and we get the annual batch of bushfires.
Token
20 Sep 12 at 10:23 am
hammy
The Greenhouse effect exists. However, it doesn’t exist the way alarmists said it did 20 years ago. The earth is radiating more heat away. It’s going into space. I think other have posted links to studies showing this. The heat simply doesn’t get trapped like a convict at the supermax.
.
20 Sep 12 at 10:31 am
“AR4 was a disgrace, audited by the IAC, it was found to have about 50% of its science written by bodies like the WWF and Greenpeace, so-called grey literature”
It’s like our last conversation on this didn’t even happen. You persist in making misleading statements because it suits your ideological agenda. I know it’s fruitless, as you’re completely close-minded, but I’ll repost what I said last time.
Jarrah
20 Sep 12 at 10:55 am
The flannywankers will keep taking money as long as jooLIAR giLIARd and the useless uniwankers hold power ,we have to FORCE the next shower of uniwanker pollies to DO AS THEY ARE BLOODY TOLD,or throw the useless bastards out and start a REAL PEOPLES MOVEMENT.
Borisgodunov
20 Sep 12 at 11:02 am
Quote Alan Moran:
And here is shadow treasurer, Joe Hockey, 19/9/12, saying how much tax payer funds the conservatives will WASTE to ‘control climate’ with their fraudulent cO2 Direct Action Plan.
Answer: $10 Billion. (6.14 minutes into video)
$10 Billion+ dollars WASTED in what we know will be a failed attempt to stop the climate from changing by attempting to regulate carbon dioxide with sunbeams & sea breezes & renewable energy targets.
Let your liberal party member know this is an unacceptable waste of money.
They are as bad as the GreenLaboUr.
Egad! $10 Billion (and counting). Egad!
handjive
20 Sep 12 at 11:04 am
I noticed an increase in the use of population bomb argument again last year and suspect it will take the place of global warming for the alarmists who feel it is there destiny to control the rest of mankind (for our own good, of course.)
Ellen of Tasmania
20 Sep 12 at 11:10 am
Dot is correct. Atmospheric CO2 is rising and there is a greenhouse effect, but its impact will be nowhere near what the IPCC predicted back in 2007 and earlier. As some said at the time, and have now been vindicated, those predictions were based on imperfect computer models and flawed assumptions. The IPCC is now starting to get it.
But humans love moral panics and there will be plenty more. The difference is how we respond. Authoritarians always want to exert control and don’t need much pretext.
DavidLeyonhjelm
20 Sep 12 at 11:25 am
I agree, your mind is closed, or non-existent.
I don’t have an ideology and I don’t make misleading statements; fuckwit.
Complete and utter bullshit. The IPCC reports are marketed as scientific reports, peer reviewed, of the highest scientific standard. Read the fucking IPCC charter, you arrogant dipshit; it says:
The IPCC assumed AGW was real and was to use “available scientific information”. Instead it has used WWF, Greenpeace and other green sources; it has censored dissenting opinion, been continually found wanting, corrupted the scientific process [yes, let's discuss the emails], plagarised, and diverted vast amounts of funding which could have been productively spent elsewhere.
Really, anyone who supports the IPCC is either making money out of this scam, fucked in the head, or both.
cohenite
20 Sep 12 at 11:34 am
IPCC is a creature of the UN. The UN has announced, via Ban Ki Moon, that they see education worldwide as their primary device for getting their desired social, political, and economic transformation policies. Because of the Orwellian Newspeak used in ed and how long this has been going on, the assumption is that the next Generation of voters can be so changed in its guiding emotions, values, attitudes, and beliefs that the UN will get its goals by stealth in a fait accompli.
http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/targeting-student-values-attitudes-and-beliefs-to-control-future-behavior/ explains how it works. The Transformational Outcomes Based Education and systems thinking have thoroughly infiltrated Australia as well.
Donna did a great job calling out the IPCC report. Why push it when ed will do most of the job and the UN’s Future Earth Alliance goes operational in 2013. Just pretend you are reforming.
Especially until after the US election. The electorate would really not care for either his real Climate Change or Ed Agenda and how it matches up with UN policies at better than a 95% fit.
Robin
20 Sep 12 at 11:48 am
I’m afraid you don’t understand how the IPCC works. The tactic is to produce a draft version which is mostly fair and reasonable. That version goes out to the scientific reviewers. Then when the final version is produced, it is hyped up with exaggerated claims, see for example
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/yet-another-example-of-ipcc-advocacy/
James
24 Sep 12 at 7:28 pm