Strangely echoing the titles of both my last book (great for your Kindle!) and the book of my first boss in D.C., Britain’s Global Warming Policy Foundation has released a new report entitled “The Really Inconvenient Truth Or ‘It Ain’t Necessarily So’.”
What makes this report especially interesting is that its author is Lord Turnbull. Not only was Lord Turnbull the United Kingdom’s Cabinet Secretary from 2002 to 2005 (the most senior civil servant in the land, working intimately with then–Prime Minister Tony Blair) but he was also Permanent Secretary (head of department) at both Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Department of the Environment. Indeed, he was head of the Environment Department when the Kyoto Treaty was negotiated. This gives him unique insight at the highest level of government into the politics, economics, and science of global warming. Al Gore could only dream of having this experience.
Lord Turnbull concludes:
The Really Inconvenient Truth is that the propositions of the IPCC [Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change] do not bear the weight of certainty with which they are expressed. However, the purpose of the paper is not to argue that there is another truth which should become the new consensus, but to point out the doubts that exist about the IPCC viewpoint and serious flaws in its procedures. It is also to question why the UK Government has placed such heavy bets on one particular source of advice.
Even if the IPCC scenarios were correct, the impacts are frequently selective and exaggerated. The economic policy choices being made will not minimize the cost of mitigation. The paper concludes with a call for more humility from scientists, more rational reflection from politicians, and more challenge from our parliamentarians.
Let us hope governments listen to his lordship now as much as they did when he was advising them full-time.
From the report, which was unavailable, had to search for it at the Global Warming Policy Foundation website:
"The UK Government has created a powerful structure through the Climate Change Act 2008. Its opening clause creates a legally binding obligation:
'It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that that the net carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 80 percent lower than the 1990 baseline.'"
Eighty percent lower? That is insane. They don't have the technology yet, perhaps an energy breakthrough will occur in the next 40 years, but this sounds like turning the lights out and killing off 80 percent of humanity will be the only methods available... I could think of more, but genocide of mankind is bad enough. There seems to be a lot of self-loathing in the Global Warming community, even self-hatred. You do actually see some people deciding that they can't continue to live if they are contributing to the problem. Sounds like the UK is not helping that conclusion to sound unreasonable. Maybe Logan's Run IS in our future.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere is where I found the link to that report now:
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf people took the time to really research this issue, and not just what the scientists put out, but what they say behind closed doors (climate gate) as well as the obvious evidence in front of them, most people would conclude that the climate scientists are clueless. They speak with the utmost of certainty about issues which they admit they don't fully understand.
When you look at how these people have manipulated the data to get their desired results over and over again, you can only conclude, at the very least, that we don't have a clue how exactly climate changes, only that it does, and that C02 has little, if any impact on it. Not at all.
We do know one thing. What heats the Earth? The sun. Is the sun a static entity that spits out the same amount of energy every day? Pfft, not at all. Just as the earth goes around the Sun and we experience cycles, just like we have a day and a night every day, the sun has its own cycle, and we KNOW that that cycle has a tremendous impact on the planet. That's why we had super warm weather in 2007 and super cold in 2008, 2009 and here in Wisconsin we're having record cold temps for this time of year. We had our biggest snowstorm on record for the month of April last month. The sun's peak activity was in 2007 on its 11 year cycle. What happens after the climax of that activity? It goes into the quiet part of the cycle, which is what we've been going through.
We also know that the Earth has been warming for a long period of time, predating the industrial revolution. Why did the Earth heat up before the industrial revolution? Why does the Earth go through periods of extreme cold and extreme heat as it has done since the beginning of the Earth?
These are questions that the climate scientists don't like to talk about. That's why they tried to destroy the medieval warm period by fixing the data, adjusting historical data down, and modern data up, and then destroying the historical data forever.
Man made climate change is the biggest hoax of the modern era. It's unbelievable how people have fallen for it. You don't even need to probe very far with most people who believe in man made climate change to find that 99.99999% of them haven't got a reasonable, or logical explanation for why they believe it. They believe it because the same scientists who fixed the data told them to believe, but more, because their political party told them to. Politics being interwoven with science is what has completely destroyed this field of study to the point where the data coming out is laughably meaningless.
If there is man made climate change going on, we will have no way to know it from the clowns at East Anglia, and the political activist/climate "scientists" like Michael Mann.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCO2 is a plant food.
CO2 has little to no affect on temperatures.
We need more CO2 in the atmosphere, not less.
Certain alarmist types are panicing because the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280ppm to 350ppm, with the possibility that in the next 100 years, it might get to 500ppm.
Give it a rest people. There are many times in the earth's history when CO2 levels were between 2000 and 5000ppm. Not only did life not suffer, but these periods were the times when life flourished the most.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse