Cognitive Dissonance & Global Warming

Whoa there tiger – heavy!

Perhaps Mark Twain had a lighter, more understandable explanation of what is going on at the moment in Global Warming circles.
“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

As the prophecies begin to fail, the global warming glitterati are reacting to the ‘disconfirmation’ of their predictions with classic behaviour.

They renew their efforts to prosthelytise the world as the day of reckoning disappears, once again, into the middle distance. Being surrounded by lots of people who believe what you do – however bizarre – is very comforting.

They make ever more extreme claims. David Attenborough is a case in point, telling the world that Africa’s temperature had risen 3.5 deg C in the last 20 years. With the number of Polar Bears increasing, minimal sea level rise and the antarctic ice pack at an all time high. What else could he do?

To hear scienticians claim that their computer models had always predicted, that with Global Warming we would get more snow and the planet would get colder, is a sure sign they are in trouble. Queue scenes from ‘The Day After Tomorrow’.

As with any failing belief system, there will be some apostates. Perhaps the most well-known is James Lovelock, but he is a rare, though delightful, example.

In the end the only way we are going to stop the alarmists from further damaging the world’s economy, is to take away their grant money and tax payer funded subsidies. The chances of convincing them that they have been fooled are slim to none, and look, who’s that going past the window? Yes, you guessed it, Slim just left town.

Ref. ‘When Prophecy Fails’ published in 1956 – yes that’s right 1956


We burn corn not Witches!

During the Middle Ages climate change had a devastating impact on the world’s population. The Little Ice Age caused famine across the globe, and severely weakened citizens succumbed in their millions to the Black Death and other diseases. In an attempt to understand the problem the great and the good of the scientific and religious communities got together to come up with a solution. Sort of the Medieval equivalent of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The best idea it seemed was to burn witches. This practice continued for several hundred years and in light of the ending of the Little Ice Age around 1850 it could be claimed to have been something of a success.

Our own IPCC believes that if we could only reduce carbon dioxide emissions then we could end a 150 year rise in world temperatures. To those naysayers who would question the collective wisdom, the head of the IPPC (Ragendra Pachauri) has declared their methods “voodoo science” A campaign of burning 4% of the world’s corn production each year (in the form of ethanol), has been initiated, to mitigate a perceived 3% fall in world corn production due to excess carbon dioxide. Perhaps in a few hundred years we will see whether this has worked. Who know such methods have appeared to be effective in the past.

Source article


IPCC 5AR – Unfalsifiable

One of the fundamentals of scientific research and the scientific method is the need for the falsifiability of a particular hypothesis. For example I might claim that for every 500 feet rise above sea level, the temperature falls by 1 degree C. This is easily tested. If the temperature instead increased by half a degree for every 500 foot rise above sea level then my hypothesis would fail.
Now, the latest report from the IPPC (5AR) claims that humankind is causing both global warming and global cooling ipso facto their hypothesis is unfalsifiable. This strikes at the very heart of the nature of the IPCC. It does not act in the manner of a scientific institution therefor its pronouncements on things scientific have no validity.
This smacks of desperation. In the face of 17 years of world temperature stasis, these charlatans have nowhere else to go.

Source article


David Attenborough’s Legacy?

My interest in the environmental movement dates back to my childhood. Basically as far as I can remember. David Attenborough, Hans and Lotte Hass and Jacques Cousteau were the highlight of the single black and white BBC channel that was all that was available in our remote corner of Derbyshire. So it is with great sadness that I perceive that one of these pioneers of wildlife filming, namely David Attenborough, is beginning to tarnish his once sparkling reputation for factual reporting.
The rot started to set in some years ago when he buckled under the pressure of the BBC to tow the warmist line and drop in references in many of his transmissions to the ‘evidence’ of Global Warming. Just a few weeks ago he blotted his copy book (in my eyes) when he described humanity as a plague upon the Earth. Then to my utter amazement in the last episode of his wonderful series on Africa (transmitted in glorious HD and Dolby 7.1) he made the astonishing claim that Africa had warmed by 3.5℃ in the last 20 years. Oh David what has happened to you?
They say you should never meet your heroes. I think I have just got to close to one of mine. Where is the David of the stunning fact, the carefully researched data? I suspect he is just a little tired these days and is relying on some sloppy researcher, who as Leo Hickman of the Guardian opined (yes you heard it right – the Guardian) “You get the sense that they simply Googled “African temperature rise” and went for the first thing they found.”
Please David come back. Is there any chance of a Damascene road conversion as we witnessed with James Lovelock? I do hope so, there is still time.
Source article


Wind Turbines Spin

You might think that this is a rather obvious statement, but that is not what I mean. Whenever statistics about wind turbine output or unit energy costs are given out by government or the renewable energy industry – there is always a large element of spin. Generation capacity is always given on the basis that the turbine is generating electricity 100% of the time. They have simply adopted the norm for the energy generation industry. The  same would hold true for a gas, coal or nuclear plant, so what is wrong with that? I’m sure you’re way ahead of me here. Yes of course, coal, gas, nuclear and hydro power plants average 85% output in one year. Germany estimates that it will get just 30% of its wind turbine capacity in actual power generated. Very naughty – just over a third of the power generated by conventional means. But it gets worse. That is what Germany estimated they would get. In actuality, over a ten year period all they got was 16%. That is why they are building 23 new coal fired power plants, that and of course the fact that wind generated electricity is 50% more expensive than the cost of conventionally produced energy. But here again that is not the whole story. When conventional backup power (remember wind power is only available 16% of the time) is included in the cost and when extra power transmission costs from disparate remote areas and power loss over long distances are taken into account the real cost is almost three times that of the most efficient new gas plants.
Just like any other information you get from politicians or vested interests, wind energy figures have been spun to death.

Source articles

Source articles


US government over reacting to … AGW say ex NASA employees

The following article reminds me of a question I asked at last year’s climate conference hosted by the Heartland institute. It was addressed to the ex NASA employees (including an astronaut) on the panel and I asked them why only old ex NASA employees put their heads above the parapet when it came to being sceptical about global warming. This elicited laughter from the panel and the explanation (which I already guessed) that careers would suffer if any existing employees dared to voice dissent.
This article shows once again it is only old and retired scientists whose career’s cannot be affected who can afford to take a contrary view on Global Warming.
It appals me to think that politics in manipulating science in this way. Oh for a white knight to lead a charge against the darkness of politically imposed ignorance.

Original article


Victim & Darling of Global Warming

A couple of my heroes of the environment movement are the two Davids, Bellamy and Attenborough. Bellamy came late to the party and left early or should I say, was asked to leave for voicing his opinions and then sticking to them. I love them both but of late Attenborough has disappointed me. Unlike Belllamy he succumbed to the pressure of the BBC to tow the line and get with the global warming program. Can I blame him. I’d like to think in the same circumstances I would have stood up to them and said “hang the career” but who knows. Bellamy has paid the price for his obstinacy. Calling global warming “poppycock” pretty much ended his career at the Beeb and signed his own death warrant with the mainstream environmental organisations.

Read the following two articles (coincidentally published in two different papers on the same day) and muse on how differently their careers might have been had they chosen to speak out or shut up.

Bellamy article Attenborough article

PS Attenborough has gone seriously Malthusian. Another false prophet.


The Money Tree

The following article gives a very good over view of the workings of carbon trading. It also highlights the pitfalls for anyone tempted to get into this get rich quick scheme. Me thinks the smart money is already on the way out and looking for the next main chance. Snake oil anyone?

Source article


28GATE

I am astonished at the lack of airtime given to the BBC’s 28Gate debacle. Once again Auntie has been caught peddling dubious information to the public and by the usual suspects – who have now ‘stepped aside’ for reasons other than pumping out biased reporting on Climate Science. What does it take to get the press interested in a story that contains accusations of media bias, waste of public funds and the gang of four caught up – yet again.

Come on Press Land give it some coverage. Where are you Sky News when we need you?

Source article


Global Warming Warning – From ‘New Scientist’

At 09.47 GMT this morning I received a ‘Global warming warning’ from New Scientist Weekly – I kid you not! With some trepidation I opened the e-mail to discover that ‘Five years ago, we were warned that the climate change outlook was bad. In this week’s cover feature, read the seven reasons why it’s even worse that we thoughtsic

I read a blog yesterday that expressed surprise that there was so little Global Warming Alarmism coming up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference COP18. Well better late than never. It always amazes me that the alarmists trot out the same old line – ‘it’s even worse than we thought’ but in their hurry to sound the alarm they couldn’t even get that right. (Spot the typo?)

So let’s go through the list – for the Nth time;

Arctic warming – ‘…If current trends continue…’ but they don’t the Earth’s climate runs in cycles.

Extreme Weather –‘…it’s becoming more extreme than anyone predicted..’ no it’s not. Tornado and Hurricane activity is declining. Even the IPCC have said that extreme weather events are nothing to do with Global Warming.

Food Production – ‘…food prices are soaring as the effects of extreme weather kick in.’ Please see previous line plus of course food prices are rising ‘cause the US is turning its corn into fuel. (See previous posts)

Sea Level – ‘Greenland’s rapid loss of ice mean we’re in for a rise of at least 1 metre by 2100, and possibly much more’ That Chestnut. Last year the world’s sea levels actually fell by 5mm. (See previous posts)

Planetary Feedbacks – ‘The planet currently absorbs half our CO2 emissions. All the signs are it won’t for much longer’. And what signs would those be?

This is tedious. Clearly the article is meant for the Global Warming Faithful and those yet to be converted.