JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

IPCC ambit demands tithe of 10% of everything

Who is in charge of arithmetic at the IPCC?

As Graham Lloyd points out, in March the IPCC Working Group II estimates the cost of a 2C temperature rise as being between “0.2 and 2.0 per cent of income.”

So how much should we spend to prevent 2% damage to our GDP? The IPCC Working Group III says “10%”.

Remember it takes millions of dollars of your taxes to come up with something this inanely stupid. Only a large government funded committee could suggest that spending 10% to save 2%* is an idea worth writing in actual words on actual paper. A private organization would have binned it at the back-of-the-envelope stage, the IPCC took it all the way through multiple drafts of multiple reviews of multiple meetings and sent it to every media outlet they know.

Too much money is never enough

This is pure ambit. The IPCC ask for 10% of everything in the hope that they’ll eventually get 1% and then instead of being grateful for that massive and entirely unnecessary funding they can feign how “poor” they are, how badly they’ve been treated, and why the answer is even more money.

The masters of PR

Notice too, the IPCC have perfected the technique of getting more media. Instead of releasing all three working group reports as one big release, they know that splitting them into three separate reports will generate more headlines, and they know that by leaking a draft, then releasing the draft, then by releasing the final, they get three shots for each of those three parts to get headlines. It’s the constant media drip feed that matters.

The aim of course, is not about reaching the right conclusion, it’s about being a media machine. How else could anyone explain why such nonsense could make it through so many supposed layers of expert review? Judge the IPCC as a scientific committee and it’s a rolling joke, but judged as a marketing tool, it was a monster success. (Until reality bit back…)

IPCC = Interminable Propaganda for Climate Change

 

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (90 votes cast)
IPCC ambit demands tithe of 10% of everything, 9.6 out of 10 based on 90 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/qz5zgkl

61 comments to IPCC ambit demands tithe of 10% of everything

  • #
    John Gardner

    Interesting article, Jo. BTW – apparently the Labour(Gillard)government slid through a deal that saw 10% of the Carbon Tax go to the UN for “climate related” activities. Not much follow up of this, although the opposition Libs asked this question at the time, and Julia failed to answer it. Can’t wait for it all to tits-up!

    80

    • #
      scaper...

      I’m pretty sure this government will give the climate junkies nothing.

      A lot of the rubbish will be cut (CSIRO included) because of the “budget emergency”.

      I’ll check and report back.

      50

      • #
        scaper...

        Checked and received a reply. There seems to be some confusion. I will attempt to be coy…”No pledges will be honoured under a government I lead.”

        However, there was a $3B fund that was going to the UN to fight so called climate change and it has been ruled out by the government, the carbon junkies will have to get their fix from other countries.

        This government will not be contributing to (the UN) socialism masquerading as environmentalism in any monetary form whatsoever!

        220

      • #
        Carbon500

        Talking of climate junkies, I looked up how much the European Union is spending on so-called climate change. In a press release from Warsaw on 19th October 2013 (easily accessed via the internet) they state that “at least 20% of the entire European Budget for 2014-2020 will be spent on climate-related projects and policies, following the approval today of the 2014-2020 EU budget. The 20% commitment triples the current share and could yield as much as 180 billion Euros in climate spending in all major EU policy areas over the seven year period.”
        180,000,000,000 Euros wasted on a fantasy ‘threat’, when it could be spent on any number of genuinely worthwhile causes.
        What an utterly stupid waste of money.

        120

    • #
      Steve

      Yeah but their worth to us is zero…..so 10% of nothing is….nothing.

      The UN has always wanted a way to be a global govt , but a govt is nothing
      Without a tax income – hello climate change tax!

      Juliar was happy to set up australia to be have our pockets rifled through by her commie comrades…..

      60

  • #
    Bones

    The masters of PR

    G’day Jo,if PR is for Public Ripoff,then the ipcc realy are masters of the game.A lesser group with a little integrity would be back peddling a little,but the arrogance of the ipcc has them full steam ahead.What does it matter if there is no warming lately,no worldwide climate disaster,we should be just happy that we are being saved from ourselves.

    40

    • #

      Climate lunes have already said on several occasions that the changes they want to make to society would be a good idea, even if they are wrong about climate change. Bit of a giveaway…

      130

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        ‘Bit of a giveaway…’,I don’t think so! Let us assume you have car insurance. Well you could, if the law allowed not have any. But in general that is not a good idea! Even if you don’t make a claim during the year, well you could say, ‘that was a waste of money’. But in fact what it means, you were more than likely not to have had an accident. Which is good considering the damage that could have happened, but you can’t rely on never having to make a claim. The problem with AGW, is that there is no get out cause, that car insurance would provide!
        [Logical Fallacy: Non Sequitur -Fly]

        07

        • #
          Kent F

          The same old precautionary principle/ insurance argument. There has to be a credible risk, and the more our politicised IPCC blunders on with doomsaying the less credible it appears. For any insurance to be worthwhile the premium has to commensurate to the risk. To continue your vain analogy, would you think it worthwhile to insure your old Holden for $2million? These UN turkeys appear to many of us to have an underlying agenda of saying to western countries, “Just hand over everything to us and we’ll redistribute it, because we know what’s best”.

          If you really think there is some risk inherent in the world getting slightly warmer or colder, a much more sensible and cost-effective approach seems to be to prepare to adapt to it. Most of us who post on this website are tired of reading about one supposed GW catastrophe after another that never comes to pass.

          40

  • #

    If it is negotiation they want, offer 10% of all virgins over 40 y/o, and budget it for 2030. Better sill (hold off as a further offer) make that homosexual virgins as they will be even more valued by then.

    52

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    In his current mood I can see Joe Hockey agreeing to this, can’t you?

    Giving them 10% of the Carbon Tax is OK if we abolish it. That gives them what they deserve.

    80

  • #
    ExWarmist

    10% aye…

    I’ll just put a -ve in front of my disposable income.

    Or they can damn well get in line – it’s getting kinda crowded with all these financial seagulls pecking at my wallet.

    50

    • #
      Angry

      All that is left in my wallet is MOTHS thanks to the enormous cost of living INCREASES caused by the carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax and the renewable energy target………..

      30

  • #
  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    It has always been a combination of propaganda – sowing fear, uncertainty, and depression; and public relations – selling the “services” provided by the IPCC, and the Climate Shamans, in managing the above.

    The problem with propaganda, is that a point is always reached, where people start to see it for what it is, and it looses its impact. This happened in Eastern Europe where, over a generation, people went from believing in the future workers paradise, to being cynical about everything the Government, on behalf of the Oligarchs, did and said.

    The same applies for advertising and PR, when the message is repeated over and over, people no longer buy the benefits. They just shut it out.

    Faced with an increasing proportion of sceptics in the world population, the IPCC is doing the only thing it can. It is having one last throw of the dice, and going for broke.

    So now would be an excellent time for Australia to be seen as leading the way in saying, “I don’t think so”, in no uncertain terms.

    I would like to think that New Zealand would significantly support such an Australian effort, but while the Trade portfolio, and the Climate Change portfolio, rest with the same Minister, I can’t see it happening. Which is a pity.

    100

    • #
      Angry

      IPCC == SPIVS & SHYSTERS !!

      20

    • #
      scaper...

      Rereke, I see it happening. All it takes is one leak in the dam wall to create the flood of change and I nominate Australia to be the lead.

      Read an interesting quote from Barnaby the other day.

      “The Greens will come up with a sideline distraction which will cause us immense damage in its public ventilation while they sit in manic monkey cafe of inner suburban Bananaville,” he said.

      FromThe Australian.

      I love the reference to BANANA. First heard it from Mark Steyn.

      “BANANA-Build Anything Nowhere Anywhere Near Anything.” Classical warmist!

      50

  • #
    handjive

    United Nations spends 10 x more on tackling Global Warming than Ending World Hunger
    According to the Reuters analysis of the Summary for Policymakers of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report, due to be released this April, the UN is calling on the world to invest an extra $147 billion a year in wind, solar, and nuclear power from 2010 to 2029.
    If we add that figure to CPI’s measure, the UN wants us to spend approximately $506 billion a year to mitigate global warming,

    According to the UN, this amount would end world hunger for nearly 20 years.

    The United Nations estimates it would cost $30 billion a year to end world hunger.

    110

    • #
      Winston

      So, the UN spends 10x more on promoting world hunger than ending it. How surprising…..not.

      91

    • #
      tom0mason

      Not surprised.
      The UN is about employing more and more bureaucrats, and not about taking action.
      The UN is about publicizing and advertising difficulties and not taking any definite action until all 666 committee meetings for the difficulty have all reach a ‘no conclusion’ verdict.

      Action is for NGOs.

      20

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Well, it has been clearly demonstrated the IPCC’s conclusions have to be activist and politically approved, as the actual science has become increasingly irrelevant.

    Activist organisations like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are past masters of how to extract funding from the green and the gullible. So presumably, they are the ones behind drip feeding the concept of imminent Thermageddon in order to achieve maximum impact.

    If you look at some of yesterday’s media hysteria, especially the BBC, it seems to be a tactic which has worked. In the UK, Red Ed Milliband responded by shrilly committing to much greater levels of green energy investment. Red Ed was the original architect of the UK’s current disastrous energy policies and regularly demonstrates he is economically challenged. So the idea of spending $10 to save $1 obviously appeals to the likes of him, not to mention the rest of the green/goofy community.

    How many years will the ‘pause’ have to last to convince the alarmist faithful the fantasy stories of imminent Thermageddon are no more than just that, pure fantasy? My guess is at least 30, by which time the western world’s economy will have been well and truly gutted, if the green and goofy get their way.

    As you say, “Hate to see a good civilisation going to waste.”

    50

  • #
    vic g gallus

    IPCC = Interminable Propaganda for Climate Change

    You’re too kind, Jo.

    10

  • #
    motvikten

    Roughly:
    40% of global electricity production comes from coal power stations.
    To replace it with nuclear to 2050 means building 25 nuclear power station per year for 36 years.

    It will not happen.
    IPCC suggests the world to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, with methods that does’n work.

    I suggest scrapping of the IPCC and replacement with EfA, Electricity for All.

    80

  • #
    Michael P

    Replace them with the NIPCC as there latest report as their latest report puts the facts down in black and white. From
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/13/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-131/

    A graph prepared by Nir Shaviv shows there has been no advance in the official scientific understanding of the impact on temperatures from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 since the Charney report to the National Academy of Sciences in in 1979. Except for a slight bump in the lower range in the IPCC AR4 (2007), since changed back, the estimates remain the same: 1.5ºC to 4.5ºC, about 3 to 8ºF. Studies ignored by the IPCC indicate that any increase in temperatures may be far less.

    Clearly, there is something wrong with the assertion (hypothesis) that CO2 has a significant impact on temperatures or the procedures (methodology) used by the IPCC, or both. [It is probably both. The IPCC mandate is to understand the human influence on climate and it has attempted to do so without first understanding the natural influences on climate. The mandate coupled with the failure to conduct proper hypothesis testing has consistently led to overestimates of the human influence. The IPCC is in a bureaucratic trap (gilded cage) of its own making and it cannot effectively back-down and admit it has been wrong.]

    Also, Haapala pointed out that in FY 2013 about 85% of the US expenditures on climate change go to agencies and programs that pretend they can stop climate change, which has been ongoing for hundreds of millions of years.

    Fittingly, Craig Idso presented the star of the show – the 1,000 plus page report citing thousands of scientific studies showing that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a tremendous benefit to plants, the environment, and humanity. This tome stands up to the bureaucratic science of the IPCC and the contrived notion that invisible CO2 causes harm. Much of the research of possible harms relies on models that use the upper end of possible values of warming from a doubling of CO2, the use of which cannot be justified given the clear failing of these models.

    110

  • #
    handjive

    IPCC WG3:
    Reaction as UN launches third climate report (via rtcc)
    Views from John Kerry, Christiana Figueres, Ed Davey plus leading NGOs and business groups

    Quote John Kerry: “Denial of the science is malpractice”
    . . .
    And I think you are despicable, John Kerry.

    40

  • #
    realist

    To paraphrase Anzac Day next week, Lest We Forget. For those not in Australia, this is our national day of remberance for the fallen who died in all past wars, particularly World Wars one and two to save this country from a foreign invasion and to enable a free and civil society to prosper in liberty. I suggest our fallen didn’t forsee us being invaded white-anted from within, by some of the very people they sacificed their life and liberty for, to facilitate future generations the opportunity to prosper in a free society.

    While sceptics rightly focus on dismantling the AGW argument and countering climate alarmists with empirical science and objective argument, let’s not forget the fundamental agenda of the climate change “global emergency” is part of a UN-sponsored and authored scam aimed at everyone (well, most) in order to fund their intended implementation of Agenda 21, World Government, etc. A classic engineered Problem; Crisis; Solution created by the UN and it’s useful idiots.

    The UN could otherwise be known as Leftie Heaven, or Salvation by/for Sociopaths, where the collectivists can gradually and anonomously implement their philosophy for a totalitarian regime without accountability, redress or removal. All couched in an argument of saving the world, of course. But why, what for, and who for? That’s the question everyone should ask. Lest we forget what the underlying agenda beneath “climate change” is all about. The climate “problem” is a both an attempt at progressing and a useful distraction from the main game.

    70

  • #
    Truthseeker

    The traditional religious tithe is 10%, so this is just another religion getting in on the act.

    Nothing new to see here. Move along …

    40

    • #
      Mark D.

      A tithe is something done voluntarily. Taxes aren’t voluntary. This is more like theft by swindle than tithing.

      20

  • #
    Rogueelement451

    The Aga Khan receives voluntary donations from his devotees usually around 10% of earnings , if this is to be the case with the IPCC , can we expect them to be opening horse stables anytime soon.
    They certainly already have sufficient Equine waste to deal with.

    40

    • #
      Bones

      Voluntary donations from devotees,makes it sound very religious,does’nt it,or would it be a cult.

      10

    • #
      Winston

      If the IPCC start their own racing stables, I have the perfect name for their first racehorse- “Recursive Fury”- it’s a winner!

      20

  • #
    Robert JM

    Mitigation wastes 96c in the dollar under the best case scenario.
    That’s $100 dollars spent to fix a $4 dollar problem,
    Except $4 dollar problem was overestimated due to a misplaced decimal point in the stern reports,
    And then the problem was overestimated due to Global warming being overestimated by a factor of three,
    And lets not forget they didn’t include the benefits of increased CO2,
    IPCC = International Parasitic Corruption Committee!

    60

    • #
      the Griss

      “Mitigation wastes 96c in the dollar under the best case scenario.”

      Sorry, Robert,

      I think you will find that is 97c in the dollar….. ie 97%

      That is what the response to climate change wastes… 97% !!!

      41

  • #
    pattoh

    global tax = global government.( & Kevvy wants to run it – God help us!)

    30

  • #
    Carbon500

    Here in the UK The Observer newspaper (Sunday 13th April) has a headline screaming out ‘UN urges huge increase in green energy to avert climate disaster’.
    Apparently the report’s called ‘Mitigation of Climate Change’, and (I quote) it’s written by ‘the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a panel of 200 scientists’.
    I’m curious know to know how many of the people behind this report are genuine scientists, and how many are hangers-on, activists from various eco-organisations and so on.
    Apparently we’re facing a climate crisis, and the report’s (and again I quote) ‘an urgent wake-up call to nations to commit around 1-2% of GDP in order to replace power plants that burn fossil fuels, the major cause of global warming, with renewable sources’.
    Given the amazing (fractions of a degree over the years plus the current 17 year stasis) lack of warming so far measured in the real world and the increase from 315 to 400ppm of CO2 since measuring at Mauna Loa began (a 27% increase), I continue to be amazed at the gullibility of the press, and the laziness of politicians in looking at what’s really going on.

    30

    • #
      PeterK

      It’s time that everyone started writing to their MP’s and demanding that we withdraw from the UN…PERIOD. No more funding to this organization. If countries wish to help the less fortunate nations, this can be done by direct action by each country (and this will probably give us a bigger bang for our buck by not going through this wasteful organization).

      20

  • #
    Richard111

    The IPCC are so wrong with their climate math as the whole enterprise seems to be based on a fallacy.
    Hat tip to John Ray of GREENIE WATCH for this link.

    http://www.omsj.org/science/is-kirchhoffs-law-valid

    “Kirchhoff’s law of thermal emission (formulated in 1860) is presented and demonstrated to be invalid. This law is crucial to our understanding of radiation within arbitrary cavities. Kirchhoff’s law rests at the heart of condensed matter physics and astrophysics. Its collapse can be directly associated with 1) the loss of universality in Planck’s law (Planck’s constant and Boltzmann’s constant are no longer universal in nature), 2) the collapse of the gaseous Sun as described in Standard Solar Models, and 3) the inability of the Big Bang to act as the source of the microwave background”

    If Planck and Boltzmann are invalid what price validity of AGW claims?

    60

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      If this is correct, then think of the implications.

      All of that research, in multiple fields, that was based ultimately on Kirchhoffs Law, will need to be reassessed.

      Lots of reputations will be at stake.

      Much better to try and debunk the work of Pierre-Marie Robitaille, than admit ones own work failed to pick up the flaw.

      There will not be enough popcorn to go around.

      20

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      In his conclusion he relies on Kirchoff’s law being correct to argue the temperature of the universe cannot be measured, but in an adjacent sentence he argues Kirchoff’s law is wrong because it doesn’t apply to everything. So Kirchoff’s Law is both wrong and essential to his argument. Tchya!
      Throw in the evidence-based critical responses from astronomers (“We’ve sent probes to other planets, measured their temperature and compared it to our knowledge of the blackbody emissions”) and Lubos Motl (“the CMB is actually the most perfect natural blackbody curve we have ever observed”) and the short answer is clear: the guy’s a crackpot.

      As for his latest panhandling move, that emissivity of CO2 decreased with higher temperature, he has more awkward explaining to do. The outgoing radiance from CO2 decreased between 1972 and 2006 during a time of both increased temperature and CO2, which is consistent with his hypothesis, but at the same time the radiance from other neighbouring spectra dominated by water increased overall. So CO2 is now a special molecule which decreases in emissivity, but water and every other gas experiences no decrease in emissivity. This despite all evidence to date showing all gases behave like blackbodies.

      Well this is the contest of the crackpots. We have some that argue that water is incapable of warming in response to IR, so water is the exceptional case in the universe, and we have others arguing CO2 emissivity decreases with temperature, so CO2 is the exceptional one. If only theses crackpots could get together under one roof and contrive a cohesive story… oh wait that’s what P.S.I. is for.

      30

      • #
        Richard111

        I am a complete layman on this subject but very, very interested as it affects the quality of my continuing retirement – cost wise.
        I have learned that CO2 has some 3,800 lines of absorption/emission over the 13 to 17 micron band. This sounds fantastic but is essentially misleading. RADIATION IS TEMPERATURE DEPENDANT. CO2 will radiate effectively over those bands if the local temperature is ABOVE -50C !!!
        It is statistically possible for CO2 to absorb a photon from the surface over that band but it will almost immediately be re-emitted. CO2 CANNOT ABSORB AND TRAP ENERGY OVER THAT BAND FROM THE SURFACE TO THE TROPOPAUSE. The next absorption band for CO2 is at 4.3 microns which will need radiation from the surface at a temperature in excess of 100C !! Not a temperature normally encountered on the surface of this planet. Lastly, the 2.7 micron band might have a few photons around if the radiating surface is in excess of 500C. Also not possible from the surface.
        There is one source that provides consistent radiation over the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands and that is the SUN. CO2 will absorb those very energetic photons and warm up the surrounding air which dutifully expands and rises. That energy never reached the surface. That is a cooling effect.
        The CO2 in the atmosphere WILL NOT reradiate in those two bands because it will be nowhere near the radiation emission temperatures of 800C or even 400C (peak emission temperatures of the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands). The CO2 in the atmosphere is unlikely to even be near 100C to emit the odd 4.3 micron photon. BUT, the CO2 will certainly increase the overall emission of the 13 to 17 micron bands and half that radiation does reach the surface.

        I will say it once more, any body at a temperature that allows a specified band of radiation CANNOT absorb that same band of radiation from any other source.

        To summarise; CO2 does absorb energy from sunlight and warm the air but that energy never reached the surface. That is a cooling effect. At night CO2 is continuously radiating over the 13 to 17 micron band and cooling the air. Any of that radiation reaching the surface has no effect BECAUSE THE SURFACE IS ALREADY RADIATING OVER THOSE SAME BANDS (and more). There is NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT FROM CO2 in our atmosphere. Q.E.D.

        I look forward to learning what is wrong with the above.

        10

        • #
          MaxL

          Hi Richard111
          I can’t tell you what’s wrong with your explanation because I don’t think there is anything wrong with it.
          However, I’d like to add that there are a few other effects which apply to radiation that I think many people overlook.
          1. It can be reflected by an opaque object.
          2. It can be refracted by a transparent object.
          3. It can be diffracted.
          4. It can cause interference patterns.
          But most importantly,
          5. It is subject to the inverse square law.

          Radiation itself has no temperature. Just as visible light is invisible until it impinges upon an object.
          Radiation cannot be “trapped”, it can only excite an electron to a higher energy shell. This disturbance of the electrostatic pattern can cause the atom to oscillate/vibrate. To appreciate the power of electrostatics, it’s the electrostatic patterns of atoms which prevent one object from passing through another even though both objects are 99.999999999% empty space.

          So, the radiation is converted to kinetic energy.
          How long will that excited atom or molecule continue to oscillate? Actually, it doesn’t really matter, if all we are concerned with is the “accumulation” of energy.

          I have a few questions; given an excited atom (an object at some temperature) is that object now opaque or transparent to an external source of that resonant frequency? If it is opaque, can it reflect the incoming radiation? Is it possible for a molecule, or an atom, to have two or more such agitated electrons? If it is transparent then it can only refract and or diffract and cause interference patterns, but never subtract from the available radiant energy.

          In any case, I liken the so called greenhouse effect to somebody believing that by going out on a cloudless, moonless night, they expect to get a tan from the countless millions of suns (stars) that are radiating to them. The inverse square law doesn’t seem to have occurred to them. Sure, the stars are emitting energy, but don’t expect that you’ll feel any warmer as a result.

          Like you, somewhere I am wrong and I would appreciate learning why I’m wrong.

          00

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          I will say it once more, any body at a temperature that allows a specified band of radiation CANNOT absorb that same band of radiation from any other source.

          The absorption coefficient of water at 122mm radiation is approximately 1.0 cm^-1 [ref Segelstein 1981, via Fig 2.10]. Since emission and absorption spectra both have a common origin in quantum vibrational modes, that absorption figure is also a relative indicator its emissivity at that wavelength.
          In relative terms, the coefficient of water at 122mm is about 1 million times weaker than water’s peak emission coefficient at 65nm, but is 5000 times stronger than water’s emission coefficent at the 420nm wavelength.

          By the Stefan-Boltzman equation, at 5 degrees Celsius approximately 1.9% of a water sample’s radiation is in the band 121mm to 123mm. Therefore the water is emitting radiation at 2.45Ghz.

          Under these conditions, your hypothesis predicts that a microwave oven operating at 2.45Ghz cannot heat a cup of water.

          00

          • #
            Richard111

            Thanks for the pdf link Andrew. This is really pushing me into unknown realms.

            I have a problem with this statement:
            “Under these conditions, your hypothesis predicts that a microwave oven operating at 2.45Ghz cannot heat a cup of water.”

            I understand there is a very LARGE difference between a single molecule in the gaseous state and a collection of molecules in a liquid state. The liquid state of water is quite close to BLACK BODY performance whereas a single gas molecule is limited to the IR ‘fingerprint’.

            Can I refer you to Perry’s Chemical Engineering FIG. 5-21 Spectral emittance for carbon dioxide and water vapor after RADCAL. The temperature is 1500 K and shows clearly how water vapour performs in relation to CO2 in the short wavelength regions of less than 1 micron.

            In the liquid state kinetic transfer ensures all the multiple water molecules and dimers are heated by conduction.

            00

          • #
            Richard111

            Andrew, your microwave example doesn’t hold water. :-)

            http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2007/TatyanaNektalova.shtml

            “Like in the 1970′s, the microwave oven still consists of a high voltage transformer, a cavity magnetron, a magnetron control circuit, a wave guide and a cooking chamber. It works by passing microwaves through the foods that is in need of heated. The food in question absorbs the microwave radiation through a process called dielectric heating. The microwaves create an induced field and the molecules in the food rotate and try to align themselves with the new electric field around them. The constant rotation creates heat as molecules constantly bump into each other, consequently making your food hot.”

            01

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Where have I seen that 10% before. Hmmm……Maybe tithing? And anyone is going to argue it is not a religion? The IPCC is just trying to replace the Vatican.

    30

  • #
    tom0mason

    The correct amount should be in the same proportion to the percentage of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere.
    That is
    (GDP)-(National Debt) x (Fraction of total atmosphere as manmade CO2)

    And to help the poorer nations the amount will be paid out in a poor countries currency denominations. e.g. UK pays in Lebanese lira,(or Argentine peso), Australia in Burundi franc, USA in Cuban peso (or Vietnamese dong, or Somali shilling) etc.

    IPCC= International Protection Cash Collectors.

    10

  • #
    john robertson

    Bless me father Gore for I have sinned.
    forgive my doubt, my cynicism …. sarc off.

    Time to cull some parasites.

    Bureaucracy unchecked will always create greater bureaucracy.
    The IPCC is proof.
    Totally nonessential persons have combined their unsavoury pastimes to create a super bureaucracy that answers to no-one.
    Now all they desire is unlimited and unfettered by accountability access to other peoples money.

    I call the IPCC CAGW , proof that our governments are fully infested (some say staffed) with fools and bandits. (As defined by the 5 laws of human stupidity)

    People inside government forget that the very best effort of government produces mediocre results, OK those with out private industry experience never knew, time has shown that everything govt takes over grinds to a halt.
    This is why we allow them to handle defence, wars get slowed to a crawl.
    Currently the ratio of parasitic person to productive person is as low as 1:4.
    Do the math.

    20

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Too much money is never enough

    All your money will never be enough. If we can’t behead this monster it will suck every drop of blood it can from everyone before tossing aside the dead carcasses. And it will only die when there are too few left to support it. Witness the Japanese war machine at the end of WWII. Only after being convinced of certain destruction at the hands of The United States did it surrender. Up until the second bomb hit Nagasaki they were willing to spend the lives of every man, woman and child to hold off the inevitable. The IPCC is a front for the UN and the UN shows every sign of the same attitude Japan had from the time they started their crusade of conquest down the western Pacific for the glory of the Emperor. Only it’s now conquest of the world by the UN under the guise of “saving mankind from itself” for the glory of the UN. They are on the same kind of divine crusade that sent the crusaders south to invade the home of the Muslim — something Islam has never forgotten.

    It’s of no matter to the UN that the consequences of achieving their goal will be far worse than whatever we may muddle through on our own.

    I hope Tony Abbott is up to his challenge. I fear that Barack Obama is not only not up to his but is in bed with the enemy.

    30

  • #

    Note that Working Group II and Working Group III of the IPCC do not talk much with each other. The comparison of costs and benefits, assumed by Jo, will be part of the Synthesis Report, to appear in September.

    Needless to say, the 2 degree target of EU and UN does not pass the cost-benefit test.

    40

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Three groups working on the same wicked problem don’t talk to one another? What could possibly go wrong?

      00

  • #
    Ross

    Remember all those millions and millions promised at Copenhagen. How much of that was actually given to the organisation it was meant to go to ?? My guess, very little.

    00