IPCC Global Warming Report

The climate apocalyptic got another booster shot as The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its latest six year doom and gloom report about "global warming". The United Nations pays for this report so clusters of bureaucrats, activists and scientists who want to make sure they are on the right side of the governments who give them grant money to study global warming and anything else they fancy have signed up to be associated with the report.

This group of climate geeks say that computer models are nearly infallible in predicting man's 22nd century demise due to rising oceans.  This report says that if emissions from human activities remain high, the IPCC report predicts that the world is on track to warm by more than 2C, and possibly by more than 4C, by 2100. Wow! Such expertise. I wonder when those geniuses will be able to tell us if it will rain two weeks from when we ask. No, they are the fortune tellers who read far into the future, not the immediate.
The report adds it is now ''extremely likely'', with a 95 per cent certainty,  that humans rather than natural variations, are the dominant cause global of warming. But if humans are so powerful and can control nature why can't someone shut up Justin Beiber?

But the computers IPCC uses have failed to predict what is now a 15 year lull in global warming itself. This does not necessarily mean global warming is a hoax, the IPCC intolerant true believers maintain. But as an explanation/excuse for the decline in global temperatures the report, says “with high confidence” that a slow down in warming in the past decade was because the ocean has absorbed 90 per cent of the extra heat generated by human activity between 1971 and 2010. Hmmmm, not sure if "a high confidence" is part of the scientific method.

As a theory, global warming was never crippled by fabrications, by pronounced professional incivility or by unscientific hostility to contrary opinions. Rather, the problem with the global warm proponents is its outlandish pessimism and overwrought certainty about the "high probability" guesses made. They do avoid addressing many questions about their pronouncements. For example.... Would global warming be nothing but calamitous? Do sunspots or other solar activity play a role? How do you conduct experiments on the deep ocean or on clouds or the role of water vapor over a body like the Pacific? Why is it moral for the living to make enormous sacrifices today because of a hypothesis about what may happen decades down the road? The global warmers refusal to even consider such questions in good faith and to paint anyone who raises them as dangerous heretics  has always made it seem as much a political theory as a scientific one.  

For one thing, the IPCC is filled with rigid environmental activists who see doom for the environment in every human behavior. IPCC research and position papers seem to be generated with an eye toward more fundraising and political influence as much as they are in disinterested scientific research. Any climate scientist who dares to disagree (and there are many prominent ones who do) is treated as a quack who wants to see the world turn to fire. The world should view the IPCC with skepticism.  Look at the way the delegates have spoken recently about the lull in rising temperatures and you will see there was actually much debate over whether the IPCC should even admit this decline in temperatures because any mention of contrary evidence to global warming was considered traitorous and unacceptable politically.

Of course we won't know just how accurate IPCC reports are until the evidence is in at the end of this century. That doesn't sound like a very solid foundation on which to base decisions that will have real consequences for the living. That's the real problem with global warming alarmists: their solutions. Many of the restrictions on developed economies would do little to solve the problem, given that nations like India and China aren't about To do the same to their own flourishing development.

In the end, global warming isn't really about science. It's about guessing.  whether the warmer temperatures the earth has seen in the past 50 years or so are a trend or a normal climate fluctuation. And, what can humans do about climate? I suggest not much, including controlling it. Seems to me that until there is real scientific evidence that the earth is warming because of man made activity, the best thing to do about the global warming theory is to just live with it.