As we read (and publish ourselves) report after report exposing the whole global warming / climate change fear and panic mongering exercise as a multi-billion-dollar scam that has made domestic fuel so expensive that poor people, even in developed countries like Britain are having to choose between eating and warming their homes. Meanwhile fat, evil bastards like Al Gore, Bill Gates, George Soros and inevitably the Rothschilds are making big money, industrialists in India like Mittal and Tata are coining it by manufacturing windmills and solar planels, people who have wind farms on their land are shovelling the green subsidies paid out of our taxes into their bottomless pockets and the crooked lying scientists who have kept their piggy snouts in the trough by producing results to order have done very nicely thank you.
The other big winner is the international organisation explicitly set up to make predictions of what would happen in the future based on mathematical models of a reality that only existed in computer memory and the fervid imaginations of sociopathic mad scientists (I'm on a hyperbole trip today, alright?) The worst thing that happened for us was that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) got its first set of predictions nearly right. When I say nearly, that's a scientific nearly of course, it allows a plus or minus forty nine per cent margin of error.
The IPCC predictions, made in 1990, were of global temperature rises: the argument over man-made climate change.
Bearing in mind that “right” is a relative term, they predicted a rise of about 0.55C, and it’s gone up by about 0.39C: hardly pinpoint accuracy, but within the margin of error. Now we have grounds here to ask those "the science is settled" tossers how can a discrepancy of 0.16/0.55 be within any meaningful margin for error? That is an error of over 29% which is pretty big. WTF is the margin?
You might not realise, having heard lots of confident statements about hurricane patterns in the Atlantic, or the Office for Budget Responsibility’s claims that Britain’s GDP will grow by 2.8 per cent in 2017 that statistical prediction is not an exact science. But what's decimal place or two, we are talking serious science here and how can scientists be taken seriously when their old predictions are so wrong.
For example, the Office of Budget Responsibility’s predictions for growth in 2012 (based on computer models of the economy) were revised from 2.8 per cent to -0.1 per cent. Isn't this enough to discredit the business of predicting economic results? you might well ask. Actually no, by the time the revised figure is announced the original highly optimistic number has done its job and grabbed splah headlines hailing the economic recovery. The much more realistic revised figure gets hardly any media coverage. Well - "economic scientists screw up again," is hardly news is it? On the other hand, as I said, "right" is a relative term and as you can see, compared to the economic predictions, the climate scientists were "nearly right".
While there’s no doubt in the minds of those who make a living or a fortune from spreading fear and panic about global warming that the world is warming at an accelerating rate (despite it's not having shown any empirical evidence of warming for almost twenty years) there is serious disagreement in the scientific community over the accuracy of the models used to predict that warming and its side effects. In my Little Nicky Mschiavelli blog I reported that American Warmageddonist scientists have again been caught manipulating data to make the empirical data on temperatures agree with the higher figures predicted by the mathematical models (Is This The End For The Climate Science Scam).
So really it is the climate scientists and their obsession with mathematics and statistics to the detriment of reality who have given us the best argument for climate change rejectionism.
Climate modeling has an even worse track record than economic modeling, and this isn't down to methodology and mathematics but ontology and epistemology*. The social world is too different from the natural world to assume you can get the same reliable results.
To get back to the fraud, predictions of the consequences of a 0.39 degree increase would presumably have been quite different from those from a 0.55 degree increase. It simply isn't acceptable to say that "we predicted A, but it turned out to be off by 30%, but as that's not a million miles away we will say we were sort of right all along". And it is even less acceptable to say, when challenged, "You're not a scientist so you don't understand how science works." I can be a tad pedntic you see so when I see some Church Of Scientism fanatic babbling about scientific precision and then a few days lates saying "Twenty nine per cent out, that's close enough for jazz," I know I am dealing with a phoney, a fraud and a fuckwit.
For all I know, 0.39 over 20 years may not be out of line with (or within 30% of?) longer term trends. I don't know. All I know is that you can't seriously argue that an almost 30% error is marginal and if that is what the Warmageddonists are trying to tell us, they as I have suggested many times, they are a troupe of clowns.
*Somebody is bound to try and tell me that ontology and epistemology mean the same. They don't. Ontology refers to the study of the existence, nature, or being of a certain entity. It answers the question ‘what is’?’ Basically, ontology involves the existence and presence of a certain topic, such as, a certain disease condition.
On the other hand, epistemology refers to the body of philosophy that involves with the presence of knowledge. To make this more simple, epistemology indicates that we know about something occurring because of the knowledge that we have about it. It answers the questions that begin in ‘how’ or ‘what’.
Statistics, Graphs and Hockey Sticks
Read more on: climate >> science global warming CO2
Here’s A Snippet From A Brilliant Article On Climate Change
Green Energy Poverty Week
As the climate science research grant phishers, brainwashed socialist idiots, tree hugging, rope sandal wearing weirdie-beardies, and green energy subsidy troughers prepare to celebrate Earch day, supporters of the common sense lobby named the week following Earth day as Green Energy Poverty Week to show respect for those plunged into fuel poverty by green energy taxes levied to fund the wind farm and solar energy subsidy millionaires.
Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [ Tumblr ] ... [ Ian at Minds ] ... [ The Origninal Boggart Blog] ... [ TSU ]
Global Warming Is Not Causing Any Polar Ice Cap Meltdown Says NASA
Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.
It Looks As If Carbon Credits Scam Has INCREASED CO2 EmissionsIt Looks As If Carbon Credits Scam Has INCREASED CO2 Emissions
As the climate change scare becomes more and more exposed for the money making fraud it always was, they green weirdie beardie, rope sandal wearing tree huggers get more hysterical and stupid in their arguments that we must all return to medieval lifestyles, the billionaires like Al Gore who hope to profit from it keep flogging the dead horse and the angrier and more vicious the left wing hate mobs become in their witch hunts.
Why the war on CO2 has done far more harm than good
Warmageddonists send a lot of time screeching and scaremongering about the potentially catastrophic outcomes of increased atmospheric CO2 levels, exaggerating their claims wildly in order to frighten people into supporting their war on the oil and coal industries. Policies formulated to tackle the imaginary threat of anthropogenic climate change have ...
UN IPCC Climate Change Report Will Warn Of 'Severe, Pervasive' Effects Of Global Warming
After various leaks of draft version showed the latest IPCC Climate Change report had at last admitted that the real world behaviour of the global climate showed the mathematical modelling based scaremongering of the climate science lobby to be at odds with the real world evidence, the final published report seems to have been rewritten line by line by the Warmageddonist lobby and their political and corporate masters. Unfortunately the cat is out of the bag and nobody trusts the buggers any more.
Funny How A Few Days Good Weather Brings The Warmageddonists Out
Over the past few scorching hot days I have seen several members of the alomst defunct Warmageddonist society plugging their tired, discredited old "science" and trying to claim that mathematics proves that what is observably not happening is actually happening but only scientists are clever enough to understand that ... Hmm, is that so?
What if man-made climate change is all in the mind?
The science is settled right? WRONG! The mathematical models (the science) on which the predictions of catastrophe were based have been discredited, the now infamous hocky stick graph has been reduced to matchwood and its creator discredited after it was proved he simply ignored any data which did not contribute to the result he wanted or needed to keep the research grants flowing. So was climate change a fantasy created by scientists to serve their interests
About three years ago we reported it was water rather than carbon dioxide that would pose the biggest threat to western civilisation in the twenty first century. Those of us fortunate enough to live in developed societies are profligate in our use of water, forgetting that while we can drain reservoirs and aquifers quickly it takes a ling time for nature to refill them. Las Vegas is the first city in the drought is south west of the USA to dry up, other heavily populated areas will follow quickly
Climate change is a theory for which there is "no scientific proof at all" says the co-founder of Greenpeace
As the science behind the great global warming scare is exposed as a complete fraud, the zealots of The Church Of Climate Science are getting more fanatical in trying to impose their crackpot religion on the gullible and weak minded (aka politicians). Trouble is nobody trusts either politicians or scientists so all that is achieved is to keep attention focused on the bullsit of a bunch of crooks a bunch of and liars while serious environmental issues are ignored.
Warmageddonist Intolerance Increases As The 'Science' Their Case Was built On Collapses.
This publication has always denounced the scaremongering that surrounds the climate issue and the blatant lies being told by scientists and politicians. Even thoght the global mean temperature has not risen for hearly twenty years, climate scientists and green activists claim rate of increase is accelerating, catastrophe is almost upon us and huge tax increases are required. It's all bollocks of course, but that does not stop the witch hunts.
Emperor Obama To Destroy American Economy With One Executive Order
President and Emperor Barack Obama is moving forward with a central component of his climate-change agenda, as the Environmental Protection Agency announced Monday that carbon emissions must be reduced by 30 percent at fossil-fuel-burning power plants by 2030 to fend off the devastating effects of a changing climate.
The plan is actually set to take effect next year, but EPA administrator Gina McCarthy says the administration has a “moral obligation to act.”
A reflection on the way we have treated the world. I am not convinced by 'the science' that the main threat we face comes from carbon dioxide emitted by human activity, in fact I think that is just a diversion to steer attention away from the serious harm we are doing to our planet through many other human activities.
Global Cooling, the climate truth
Climate Change: The IPCC Political Agenda
What Happened To The Missing Climate Change Refugees
Climate Change And The Totalitarian Agenda
Climate Change Menu