Delingpole: ‘Who Drew It?’ Trump Queries IPCC’s $38.4 Trillion Ransom Note

By Paul Homewood

Dellers unveils some of the “top scientists” behind the IPCC’s £38 trillion ransom note:

At the beginning of the week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presented the world with a $38.4 trillion ransom note: pay us da money or Gaia gets it.

President Trump’s response: “Who drew it?”

That is, “Why should I trust these people?”

Trump is a businessman. Businessmen do not hand over sums like $38.4 trillion without doing a bit of due diligence first. (That sum, by the way, is how much the IPCC insists the world must spend – $2.4 trillion per year over the next 16 years – if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change. It’s the equivalent of the half the global economy.) And as it turns out he is more than right to be suspicious.

If you believe the Washington Post, the IPCC report was the work of “ninety-one leading scientists from 40 countries who together examined more than 6,000 scientific studies.”

But as Dennis Ambler notes in the damning special report below, very few of the people who compiled the IPCC’s latest Summary for Policymakers could properly be described as climate scientists. Many are geographers, energy analysts, economists, sociologists, engineers, sustainability experts, and eco-psychologists – often with considerable UN and World bank affiliations.

Ambler’s report is a treasure trove of detail revealing the vested interests and groupthink so prevalent among the IPCC’s Lead Authors. These people are not scientists as most of us fondly imagine scientists should be: dispassionate seekers-after-truth. Rather, they are passengers on the global warming gravy train, shills of the Climate Industrial Complex.

Co-ordinating Lead Author of Chapter 1 is physicist Professor Myles Allen of the Oxford Environmental Change Institute –
Professor of Geosystem Science, Leader, Climate Research Programme, ECI
His list of authored and co-authored publications demonstrates his ardent political campaigning perspective and the names of several others of the “1.5 degree team” are also present.

He is a proponent of the Carbon Budget theory, and there is a website with a dramatic countdown clock heading towards “The Trillionth Tonne”,

He is effectively saying that all anthropogenic CO2 ever emitted is still in the atmosphere and causing warming and catastrophe occurs when the cumulative figure, [from his perspective] hits a trillion tonnes.

He has been pushing “climate litigation” for some time. In 2003 he told the BBC that:

“The vast numbers affected by the effects of climate change, such as flooding, drought and forest fires, mean that potentially people, organisations and even countries could be seeking compensation for the damage caused. “It’s not a question we could stand up and survive in a court of law at the moment, but it’s the sort of question we should be working towards scientifically,”

He was present at the 2012 meeting at La Jolla, when the Union of Concerned Scientists, led by Peter Frumhoff, constructed a strategy to bring prosecutions against fossil fuel companies in the manner of the tobacco class action. A co-strategist was Naomi Oreskes, who has repeatedly attacked non-conforming scientists as “Merchants of Doubt”. Blogger, Shub Niggarath, revealed the story a couple of years ago, complete with photo of the group.

They produced a Climate Accountability Report from that 2012 meeting:

“Myles Allen, a climate scientist at Oxford University, suggested that while it is laudable to single out the 400 Kivalina villagers, all 7 billion inhabitants of the planet are victims of climate change. “Why should taxpayers pay for adaptation to climate change? That is a sound bite that I don’t hear used. Why should taxpayers bear the risk? Perhaps that question alone can help shift public perception.”