More Climate Claptrap
#11 The Irrational World Blog 2011

3 Scientists Don't Panic About Climate Change
- Video of 3 scientists explaining clearly the Global Warming panic situation On the Andrew Bolt prog

- Andrew Bolt is Australia's most popular blogger at 2 million visitors a day, who has become even more popular after the court found guilty of racism after he question the phenomenom or white partially aboriginal people using the aboriginal card for political advantage. Since the judge found that discussing the matter is racist it makes Andrew Bolt look like "a victim".

- The coral expert that far from suffering from Global Warming the Great Barrier Reef is doing OK, as he expected it would as the same coral grows even faster in PNG where the water is hotter . Also coral is recovering from sea level fall thousands of years ago cos when coral is below the middle tide level it dies.

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
-, good summary

- In conclusion, this NIPCC report falsifies the principal IPCC conclusion that the reported warming (since 1979) is very likely caused by the human emission of greenhouse gases. In other words, increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for current warming. Policies adopted and called for in the name of ‘fighting global warming’ are unnecessary. It is regrettable that the public debate over climate change, fueled by the errors and exaggerations contained in the reports of the IPCC, has strayed so far from scientific truth. It is an embarrassment to science that hype has replaced reason in the global debate over so important an issue.

Obamas favourite solar company Solyndra has declared bancruptcy

- and fired 1100 workers... The US government seems to have lost half a billion dollars in loans it made

Another Global Warning thing proved wrong

- "Jim Hansen in 1988 predicted a 10 foot (3m) sea level rise putting parts of NYC underwater in forty years? He probably felt safe with such a long-term prediction. In any case, we’re more than halfway there, and since 1988 the sea level in NYC has gone up by 2.5 inches (6 cm). Would you buy a sea level prediction from Jim?"

- "He is a climate astrologer not a scientist. His computer models have been hard wired to give the results he wants." ... interesting take climate panic scientists being like astrologers telling their customers what they want to hear.

oncoming Thermageddon

scientists kicked out for being Non-Consensus

Some skeptics adopt “true believer mode”
- when it comes to Catastrophic Climate Change. Critical thinking applies to everything, use reason & evidence and when we don’t know we don’t know.

1 234 5 6 7 8 9 10
V impressive : Matt Ridley's speech to the Royal Society
- I don't write about Climate anymore .. it's a waste of time ..True believers live in a fantasy world ..and life is too short to counter them point by point's enough to say their ridiculous extrapo;ations and maths are BS..but here is something good

- V impressive : Matt Ridley's speech to the Royal Society in Edinburgh on Confirmation Bias and Scientific Heresy audio soon ? no

has image slides

Confirmation bias helps explain "green mathematics"

- Matt Ridley's very good presentation it made me think about Confirmation bias. Seems in Climate Science there is too much unknowns and we weak human beings don't like uncertainty, so emotion leaps to fill in the gap and that's where the confirmation bias comes in. We need to be strong and stick to the science

- "Climate Science" = science + emotion => confirmation bias => irrational extrapolation

- Confirmation bias helps explain "green mathematics", whereby any negative is "certain to be the worst" i.e. temperature rise, sea-level rise etc. And any positive also is certain to be at the extreme end.. apparently windfarms and PV solar are incredibly efficient and will make us lots of money.

- The problem is when emotion is added onto it. With climate science it is often difficult to separate out what is science and what is emotion.

- We like science, science is good.
... Make a theory take measurements;
.. try to destroy your own theory.
...Test test test
.. does it reproduce ?

- The theory of "Greenhouse effect" that's science,
- comparing in a controlled way temperature measurements at specific points from year to year that's science
.. putting it all together into models which don't produce reliable reporoducable results is not science,
- adding on emotion and extrapolation on extrapolation is not science.

- rephrasing :( - emotion leads to confirmation bias ..the key thing is to stick to the science and keep the emotion out of it emotion leads to confirmation bias ..
- The problem is often when we should have the strength to say "we don't know" emotion leaps to fill it the void.... Be strong )

IPCC, 30% not from Science, but from Greenpeace

- Rajendra Pachauri himself made that claim in 2008, saying*: “we carry out an assessment of climate change based on peer-reviewed literature, so everything that we look at and take into account in our assessments has to carry [the] credibility of peer-reviewed publications, we don't settle for anything less than that.”

- full 30% of IPCC claims originate from non peer reviewed data

- IPCC report came straight from Greenpeace, which were not peer reviewed ... Then BBC reports it all as fact

- IPCC climate science is the new eugenics

a Stew Green Opinion

10% chance of 7C warming by the end of the century
- I really try to stop talking about climate, but the BBC keeps pushing errors in my face

- I think it was on BBCws The Forum , the website version appears end different to the prog I heard, so maybe somehow it was followed by a climate edition of "over to You"

- At the end an activist slipped in a comment. ",An new MIT report says there is a 10% chance of 7C warming by the end of the century. Wow truly shocking
When a statement is made right at the end of the program it's has significant impact ?
... is that what the report said ? "new" adds impact, but is it ?
- It's a repeat of an old misquote are you going to correct it or just let it lie ?
- The "Centre for Global Climate Change" came out in 2009 and was occasionally erroneously reported by journalists misreading the figures.
- The report looked at different scenarios. In a “policy scenario,” where CO2 reducing measures are taken they say there is a 10% of a "disaster" scenario change of between 3.5 and 7.4 degrees C i.e. that there is a 90% chance of a rise below 3.5C
- In a “no policy scenario.” no reduction in CO2 policies implemented it concluded "a nine percent chance (about one in 11 odds) that the global average surface temperature would increase by more than 7°C (12.6°F) by the end of this century, compared with only a less than one percent chance (one in 100 odds) that warming would be limited to below 3°C (5.4°F). "

- from last para of washingtonpost. article

1 234 5 6 7 8 9 10

- The Misquote was picked up by the
- I can't see a new report on the website
the 2009 report is

- I don't want to go into the politics, but even the stats the report published are torn apart on many critical blogs e.g. the-mit-global-warming-gamble the essential point is that although probabilistic projections are used in mathematics their use is not appropriate in this circumstance ( No one can predict 100 years ahead with 90 % confidence) , such predictions are based upon a false assumption and strange how they managed to produce rises double that of their earlier report of 2003,

- The quoted figure 7 degree was so obviously out of the ball park people with a basic feel for maths should have felt have spotted it straight away. It's like your Mum has just come back from the supermarket and says a loaf of bread has gone up to £95 it's just not in the bounds of possibility

- can we please have real science not emotion "manmade Tsunamis" was a second comment I heard
- I heard the prog for 2 minutes & heard 2 cringeworthy things that the BBC should not be allowed tro mention without correcting.
- The job of media is BS detecting not BS injecting

- you don't have to go to all the hard work of taking apart a bunk report, when the press reports the findings say something clearly completely ridiculous to peole with a basic feeling for maths. You just go back and see what the report actually says

a Stew Green Opinion

NEXT -->