IPCC: For entertainment only

New rules come into force this week requiring British fortune tellers to declare that their services are for entertainment purposes only because their prophecies are "not experimentally proven".

So whether you're an astrologer writing in a daily newspaper or a crystal ball gazer working in a carnival tent, you are required to emphasise that what you are doing is just a bit of fun and that your prophecies are not guaranteed.

It's a shame the same rigorous standards aren't applied to the IPCC or the likes of George "Moonbat" Monbiot. Just like a bunch of carnies these people have been pushing their computer generated "projections" as genuine, but are unable to prove them experimentally.

They promised ever increasing temperatures year on year, but for 10 years the global temperature has remained stable and actually even fallen. They promised longer and more droughts, more and more hurricanes, but they were unable to prove it experimentally - if anything, experiments and evidence proved them wrong time and time again.

The big question is why should such rigorous standards be applied to a carnival side show while doomsayers like the IPCC, Stern, Gore, Monbiot and the rest of the alarmists can say what they like without ever having to offer the experimental proof?

Computer models are not proof - the modellers themselves admit that - but based on their predictions western governments are falling over themselves in a rush to strangle their own economies.

The truth is that there is no evidence that climate change is caused by mans CO2 emissions. There is no "experimental proof". All we have are a bunch of very powerful and politically motivated soothsayers who can no more guarantee their predictions than a tarot card reader can.

But the models the IPCC use to predict the future are incapable of seeing the past let alone what is to come. They can not be made to retrospectively match past climate behaviour and yet we are supposed to believe their forecasts?

If you went to a medium who told you that you will only have 2 children, break your arm when you are 27 and die before you are 30 - but you actually have three children, you're already 36 and never had a fracture- then you'd rightly treat their predictions with a considerable degree of scepticism.

But we're supposed to just accept the IPCC computer model predictions even though they are unable to retrodict the past?

And unlike a palm reader, the alarmists aren't even mildly entertaining.