Well, as the IPCC Summary for Policymakers is prepared for release tomorrow to trumpeting from the hype merchants, the BBC can be relied upon to once again try to convince an increasingly cynical population that mankind IS driving global warming …sorry..I mean climate change. By way of balance, may I commend this essay? Brace yourself for what lies in store tomorrow.
THE GLOBAL WARMING HYPE IS HOTTING UP
Bookmark the permalink.
It started at 06h15 with the Business Report on the Toady programme
The climate models are nothing more than models, or simulations, of the CAGW hypothesis. It is impossible to use a model of a hypothesis, to validate a hypothesis. Anyone claiming otherwise is not acting in the name of science. They are engaging in politics, or religion or selling snake oil.
The only way to scientifically validate a hypothesis, is through comparing what the hypothesis predicts, with experimental or observational data gathered empirically. In fact the discipline of the scientific method demands it.
I care not how many Phds academic papers, awards or seats on prestigious science panels one may have, if they are no abiding faithfully with the scientific method, they are NOT conducting science. It is as simple and as boolean as that!
Given that ALL the climate models can do is tell us what the hypothesis predicts, then the only way to validate any of them is to compare the output from the hypothetical models, with empirically gathered data collected from measuring the real world and determine if there is a strong correlation. This does not prove the hypothesis, merely ensures that it remains valid, until disproved by empirical data. If the real world empirical data does not correlate with the hypothesis generated data, then the hypothesis MUST be rejected or amended accordingly.
The empirical data gathered by the global climate temperature data sets, (UAH, RSS, HADCrut et al…) actually does not correlate strongly with the data generated by models of the hypothesis, and in some ways, is the opposite to what the hypothesis predicts. For example, the CAGW hypothesis predicts that if we do not stop emitting CO2, that warming will accelerate and it is impossible for the temperature to pause. It further posits that if we were to stop all anthropological emissions at once, that warming due to the already emitted CO2 would still continue for between 50 and 3000 years (depending on the model)…
In reality the opposite has happened over the last 20 years. CO2 has been rising fast worldwide and yet, the earth has stopped warming for almost 2 decades and global sea level rise has slowed significanly. That is a direct contradiction of the CAGW hypothesis.
The additional fact that all but 2 of the UN IPCC models predicted that the currently measured global temperatures are physically impossible shows how far away from correlation the empirical data and hypothesis data are. Clearly those models (and the underlying hypothesis) is flat out wrong!!! It is falsified, it has passed on! This hypothesis is no more! it has ceased to be! it has expired and gone to meet its maker! It is a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! It should be pushing up the daisies! It has kicked the bucket, it has shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!!
THIS IS AN EX-HYPOTHESIS!!!
(Apologies to Monty Python)
The scientific method demands that we reject the CAGW hypothesis. I do not care if you are an uneducated road sweeper, or a white-labcoat wearing professor emeritus with hundreds of peer reviewed publications, Nobel awards and seats on the most prestigious scientific panels on earth. If you maintain faithful and disciplined adherence to the scientific method, you are doing science. If you depart from the scientific method, you are doing politics or religion or snake oil sales. It really is as simple and as boolean as that.
This real world empirical data clearly falsifies the CAGW hypothesis. Only people who are committing scientific fraud would attempt to push the lie that CAGW is in anyway valid..
The CAGW scientists are clearly pining for the fjords.
The most annoying thing about this misinformation is that it’s unnecessary, and in fact more likely to just make people reject the importance of environmental health because they won’t know who to trust. Just tell people that we should look after the planet a bit more and that fossil fuels are finite and most people will hopefully still care. Holding to a set of beliefs that are either highly selective, rely on conjecture, haven’t been tested or in some cases are just flat-out factually and theoretically wrong doesn’t help anybody in the same way as claiming a spliff will turn you into a psycho doesn’t make people any less likely to smoke it because they know it’s bollocks.
Contrast this with the BBC’s items on the same report : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2434367/Global-warming-debate-Is-evidence-green-taxes-cash-drain.html
On this morning’s Today (27/09) they had a pundit who explained that part of the reason why the public (poor fools) didn’t really buy the AGW “narrative” was that the media is always keen to give balance to arguments so they would invite dissenting voices to debate the issue with the scientist (who ALL agree that they are right) thus giving the mistaken impression that their arguments might carry some weight.
In fact at the beginning of the piece the BBC journalist explained that they couldn’t find a single scientist who would dispute the IPCC findings – definitely not a question of knowing which side their bread is buttered.
She was a toxic individual. Essentially she was saying that the Quisling Broadcasting Corporation was not doing their duty by closing down the debate sufficiently.
I would suggest that people are more skeptical because of the already one sided nature of debate, and also as a reaction to previous hysterical claims falling flat. Furthermore, I’ll take man-made climate change seriously when scientists, environmentalists go back to living in mud-huts.
By the way the toxic woman was called Connie St. Louis from City University, who is Director of an MA programme in science journalism. No indication of any significant scientific background, but she did work for the Quisling Broadcasting Corporation for around 16 years.
‘No indication of any significant scientific background, but she did work for the Quisling Broadcasting Corporation
A level of cause/effect inherent to that.
The problem as I see it, is the ‘Precautionary Principle’, see link.
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/consumer_safety/l32042_en.htm
It has infected everything. From politics, too science and media. In its crudest form, it allows small but well organised groups like Greenpeace, to influence debate and National and Supranational governance, in key policy and law making without real need or fact based research.
They create the perception that something bad will happen and if no did anything, governments would be held accountable. In effect, it creates fear amongst the administration and populace. And fear, whether it be real or imagined, can be a great motivator of people, as we have seen.
The problem is, everybody has gone so far down this road they simply cannot turn back. And that is the real clever thing about it. They do not need to prove whether it is real or not. The Monster has taken life and form of its own and can generate and express it own will. In short, it generates it own agenda and needs little input from elsewhere.
Yes, indeed. The climate deceivers were out in force on the Today programme this morning. And prior to that, yet again the mantra was intoned on the Farming Programme. Yesterday, the BBC’s favourite from the Iona Community got it into his ‘Thought for the Day’. The BBC seems to be unaware that there are hundreds of thousands of us listeners who read all the science, and keep abreast of the subject, and know that what they tell us is scandalously one-sided. Harrabin, notably, is an advocate, not a journalist in any sense.
We do not KNOW if they are ‘deceivers’ there is evidence for and against, and the weight of opinion is for.
Where I fall out with the BBC is the hypocrisy in encouraging mass immigration when we could be faced with such terrible problems in the near future due to climatre change.
Surely if this is what awaits our children and grandchildren we should be battening down the hatches, reducing our population, becoming food and energy sufficient and building up our defences against future invaders.
Newsnight even more shamefull than usual in its climate scare bias. Not one non-believer interviewed