READER COMMENTS ON DISCREDITED IPCC CRANKS

"cohenite replied to nellie
Sun 20 Mar 11 (07:58pm)

NO CARBON DIOXIDE TAX; Indeed.

Piers (Akerman), I saw you on Insiders this morning and you were hemmed by the 2 alarmist groupies either side of you who, along with Cassidy, both agreed with Gillard’s arguments; those arguments in support of Gillard’s carbon tax are from authority and consensus and secondly on the basis of risk management.

The argument against authority and consensus is to note the IPCC is the source of both; all other science academies and organisations like the CSIRO and BoM rely on the IPCC for legitimacy. In 2010 the IPCC was audited by the premier global scientific auditing body, the InterAcademy Council [IAC].

The IAC found the IPCC’s science was flawed in 2 respects; firstly it had 50% of its so-called peer reviewed science written by such bodies as Greenpeace and the WWF.

Secondly, the IAC found the IPCC’s standards of certainty about its predictions were biased in favour of the worst outcomes. This shows a deep misunderstanding of what scientific certainty is; this is illustrated by Popper’s swan example. For instance if your hypothesis is that all swans are black and you send out 100 researchers who return with 99 black and 1 white swan, it does not mean your theory has been proved to a 99% certainty; what it means is that your theory has been disproved to a 100% certainty.

Global warming [AGW] only needs one white swan to be disproved [and there are many]; so far it hasn’t even produced one black swan!

Risk management is even less scientific; even if you assume AGW is real, risk management must look at the value of your investment as against the risk; if the risk is both small of anything happening and if something does happen that it is only minor than you are better not paying the insurance risk premium. Lomborg has looked at this and because, if AGW is real, not all the effects will be bad, in fact a lot of them will be beneficial, calculated that the best return is not spending anything on AGW but enjoying the benefits and adapting to the costs.

This idea that all effects from AGW will be bad is just one of many lies spread by the AGW industry."