This is just asinine:

The science on climate change is indisputable so the world must now act to limit greenhouse gas emissions or face “abrupt and irreversible” change, the head of the Nobel prize-winning U.N. climate panel said on Sunday.

But Rajendra Pachauri, head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said the industrialized world did not have a moral right to force poorer nations to slash emissions that may stunt their growth.

Only a politician looking for a Socialist paradise would have the gall to say that the world is facing “abrupt and irreversible” change unless we reduce greenhouse gas emissions but that developed nations don’t have a “moral right” to ask
less developed nations to do anything to avoid this catastrophe.  

Soooooo transparent.  It seems to be more of a policy to harm developed nations rather then saving the earth.

Of course the whole IPCC report is full of it so the matter is mute:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) new Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of its Synthesis Report (SR) should be taken with several chunks of salt.  The summary itself is a political document that downplays assessments of uncertainty from the scientific reports written by the main body of the IPCC, which themselves are far more subjective than the IPCC would have one believe. Equally important, both the IPCC’s summaries and main reports omit much contrary evidence. In several cases, the SR disagrees with the reports on which it is based, and it fails to take account of cautionary publications in the scientific literature that were available early enough to have been incorporated into the SR. Climate change and climate policy are key issues for future human welfare, but that concern should translate into sober analysis and actions that are likely to do more good than harm. The people of the world should not let themselves be steamrolled by a report that reflects the IPCC’s interest in promoting climate change fears, rather than in conveying the weight of the scientific evidence.

~~~

In general, the three working group reports do an admirable job of reviewing and evaluating an enormous body of scientific work and are well worth careful reading.  A careful reading, however, will disabuse any fairminded reader that many important aspects of climate science are “settled” and beyond argument.

It is nowadays considered at best an act of bad faith to inquire about “uncertainty” in our understanding of climate change and its potential impacts on human welfare, yet the terms “uncertain” and “uncertainties” appear more than 1,300 times in the 987-page full report of WG I (The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change). In other words, the term “uncertain” or its equivalent (such as “limited” or “incomplete understanding”) appears on average more than once per page. The seventy-four-page Technical Summary of WG I alone identifies fifty-four “key uncertainties” in our scientific knowledge of climate change. These acknowledged uncertainties often concern key points that bear directly on an assessment of the likely magnitude of future climate change and therefore have great relevance to policymakers in terms of policy choices and implementation time scales.

In fact, the IPCC does not develop its certainty or uncertainty estimates in any scientifically rigorous way. Rather, the IPCC polls the very authors who write the reports and asks them to state their personal opinion about how confident they are that what they are saying is correct.

I’ll translate the whole IPCC report for you - “Shut up and give us your money!”

UPDATE

These people are just insane: (h/t Weasel Zippers)

A WEST Australian medical expert wants families to pay a
$5000-plus “baby levy” at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800
a child.

Writing in today’s Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor
Barry Walters said every couple with more than two children should be
taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated
over each child’s lifetime.

Professor Walters, clinical associate professor of obstetric
medicine at the University of Western Australia and the King Edward
Memorial Hospital in Perth, called for condoms and “greenhouse-friendly” services such as sterilization procedures to earn carbon credits.

Um…..yeah.  Not much more I can add to that.

Wow.