Even a Climate Scientist finds the Alarmist IPCC Report too Alarmist

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 6th, 2014

Week in Review

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently released a new climate report.  And based on that report we’re all doomed.  Melting sea ice, thawing permafrost, floods, droughts, heat waves, cold waves, rain storms, blizzards, etc.  In other words, weather.  Weather the IPCC apparently believes is unusual.  Caused by manmade global warming.  Of course one wonders what they would say caused the glaciers to recede back from the equator to the poles long before man was even around to cause warming.  Or why ice at the poles now is normal when they were once ice-free.  Man wasn’t around polluting the planet back then.  But you know what was around back then?  The sun.  Sunspot activity could have been causing the Pacific Decadal Oscillation back then as it is now.  But one thing is for sure.  Man couldn’t have melted the polar ice caps completely.  For we’d have to discover fire before that could have happened.

An IPCC insider pulled his name from this report as he did not like the alarmist nature of it.  And the fact that they were very selective with their climate modeling (see IPCC Insider Rejects Global-Warming Report by Alec Torres posted 4/3/2014 on National Review).

Richard Tol, a professor of economics at the University of Sussex in the United Kingdom and an expert on climate change, removed his name from the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. While he considers much of the science sound and supports the underlying purpose of the IPCC, Tol says the United Nations agency’s inflammatory and alarmist claims delegitimize the IPCC as a credible and neutral institution.

“In the SPM [Summary for Policymakers], and much more largely in the media, we see all these scare stories,” Tol tells National Review Online. “We’re all going to die, the four horsemen of the apocalypse . . . I felt uncomfortable with the direction [the IPCC report] was going…”

He took his name off of the final summary because he felt the IPCC did not properly account for human technological ingenuity and downplayed the potential benefits of global warming…

One prediction has it that crop yields will begin to fall dramatically, a statement “that is particularly not supported by the chapter itself,” Tol says. “What it completely forgets is technological progress and that crop yields have been going up for as long as we’ve looked at crop yields.”

Beyond misleading statements on agriculture, Tol says the IPCC report cites only the maximum estimate for how much it will cost to protect against sea-level rise associated with current climate-change predictions…

The report also stresses that global warming will cause more deaths due to heat stress, but ignores that global warming would reduce cold stress, which actually kills more people than heat stress each year.

Tol is far from a conspiracy theorist, but he nonetheless thinks the IPCC has built-in biases that keep it from adequately checking alarmism.

First, there is a self-selection bias: People who are most concerned about the impact of climate change are most likely to be represented on the panel. Next, most of the panelists are professors involved in similar academic departments, surrounded by like-minded people who reinforce each other’s views. Those views are welcomed by the civil servants who review the report, because their “departments, jobs, and careers depend on climate being a problem,” Tol says.

This is the problem with climate ‘science’.  It is not very scientific.  Science is the competition between theories.  And the never-ending attempt to disprove previously held theories.  This is what makes good science.  For theories that hold up to every attempt at disproving them leave fewer and fewer theories that could possibly explain the data and experimental results.  But when you exclude those opposing theorists from the process the ‘science’ is decidedly one-sided.  And the ‘scientists’ are more cheerleader than scientist.



Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Climate Scientists prove Weird Weather is Due to Manmade Global warming with Assumptions and Computer Models

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 7th, 2013

Week in Review

Every night during the weather report I watch they show the high and low temperatures as well as the average and record for each.  And even though we are supposedly suffering the ravages of global warming those record high temperatures often reach back a long time well beyond the Nineties when talking about global warming became all the rage.  After the coming ice age became so yesterday’s apocalypse.  Some of these records go back close to a century.  So this being so hot is not a new phenomenon.  As it’s been really hot before.

In fact, it was once so hot for so long that it pushed back the glaciers from near the equator back to the poles.  Where they are now.  Now that’s some global warming.  And that was from 850 to 630 million years ago.  During the Cryogenian period.  Which was before Henry Ford mass-produced the automobile.  Before John D. Rockefeller made gasoline cheap and plentiful.  Before James Watt improved the steam engine and gave us the Industrial Revolution.  Before Abraham left Ur for Canaan (if you’re religiously inclined).  Before man began using stone tools.  Even before the human and chimpanzee lineages split (if you’re evolutionarily inclined).  Putting the greatest period of global warming (based on the melting of glaciers) long before any manmade global warming existed.  Yet the leading climate ‘scientists’ tell us manmade global warming is causing climate change like never seen before (see Study finds global warming raised likelihood of about half of last year’s weirdest weather by The Associated Press posted 9/5/2013 on CP24).

A study of a dozen of 2012’s wildest weather events found that man-made global warming increased the likelihood of about half of them, including Superstorm Sandy’s devastating surge and shrinking Arctic sea ice.

The other half — including a record wet British summer and the U.S. drought last year — simply reflected the random freakiness of weather, researchers with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the British meteorological office concluded in a report issued Thursday.

The scientists conducted thousands of runs of different computer simulations that looked at various factors, such as moisture in the air, atmospheric flow, and sea temperature and level.

The approach represents an evolution in the field. Scientists used to say that individual weather events — a specific hurricane or flood, for example — cannot be attributed to climate change. But recently, researchers have used computer simulations to look at extreme events in a more nuanced way and measure the influence of climate change on their likelihood and magnitude…

All 12 events — chosen in part because of their location and the effect they had on society — would have happened anyway, but their magnitude and likelihood were boosted in some cases by global warming, the researchers said…

The different authors of the 21 chapters used differing techniques to look at climate change connections, and in some instances came to conflicting and confusing conclusions…

Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, said the study provides “compelling evidence that human-caused change was a factor contributing to the extreme events.”

Have you ever seen the classic movie Office Space?  A movie that makes fun of the corporate workplace?  In it some hardworking computer programmers lose their jobs thanks to some efficiency consultants.  So they come up with a plan to slowly steal from the company.  By modifying the code used in the finance department.  Whenever they rounded off any financial transaction any amount that was less than a penny would drop into a bank account they set up.  The corporation would never see these fractions of a penny disappearing from the books.  And when these guys approached retirement these fractions of a penny will have added up by that time to help make their retirement more comfortable.  With the added bonus of knowing that they got back at the company that so cruelly got rid of them.  A brilliant plan.  But checking the bank account shortly after putting their plan into action instead of a penny or two in that account there was over $300,000.  A number so large that the company could not NOT notice it missing.  And indeed did notice it missing.  What happened?  The guy that wrote the program put a decimal point in the wrong place.  A mistake he said he always makes.

Funny.  But believable.  For who hasn’t made a decimal point error in their life?  Especially computer programmers.  Who create very complex computer models.  That crunch an enormous amount of data.  People have spent hours trying to debug an Excel spreadsheet that isn’t working correctly.  Imagine trying to debug a complex computer program that models climate.  Where there are no ‘right’ answers.  Just a bunch of ‘what-ifs’ programmed with ‘nuance’ to produce the results they want to see.  This is what passes for science in the global warming community.  Which is more wishful thinking than science.

I have a friend who deals with construction contractors.  And he always hated dealing with the controls contractors when their stuff didn’t work.  Delaying project completion.  Because he was at their mercy.  No one but they knew what was happening inside their programs.  And these people would blame anything and everything but their programming.  To avoid getting hit with costly liquidated damages.  So they had to spin their wheels eliminating all those other possibilities.  Until all of a sudden things started to work correctly.  No one could explain what had happened.  Why things just started to work.  But my friend thought the controls contractor just finally debugged their program to make it work correctly.  But he couldn’t prove it.  No one could.  For what happened inside that box that held their program might as well have been magic.   It was just indecipherable to anyone who didn’t write it.  I think about this when I hear about these climate models.

No one can possibly know what is going on inside the boxes that contain these climate models.  It is for all intents and purposes magic to the layman.  And probably black magic at that.  Input a thousand variables and the model tells us manmade global warming is destroying the planet.  But between those inputs and that output are a lot of assumptions in the program.  And all of those assumptions and programming are proprietary information.  We’re not allowed to see it.  Or understand it.  No.  We’re just supposed to accept their conclusion.  And change the world we live in because of it.

Greater climate change happened before man ever impacted the environment.  And computer programs can tell you anything you program them to.  While taking a lot of debugging to get them to produce the ‘right’ answer.  As determined by the people looking for a specific result.  This is not science.  This is politics.  On a grand scale.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

People fed up with Poor Weather Forecasting want to Fine those Forecasters whose Forecasts are Wrong

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 15th, 2012

Week in Review

Climate forecasting is a very difficult thing to do.  For there are so many variables.  And there’s so much that we still don’t understand about our weather.  Because climate trends typically take decades to track.  Or centuries.  It just isn’t like forecasting tomorrow’s weather.  Something simpler by far (see Netherlands councillors call for fines for wrong weather forecasts by Martin Banks posted 7/15/2012 on The Telegraph).

Local councillors in the Netherlands are calling for weather forecasters who get their predictions wrong to be fined…

It follow claims that wrong forecasts in both the Netherlands and Belgium are damaging outdoor attractions as day trippers cancel plans to go out because of poor weather prospects…

Pieter van Cutsem, who runs a small hotel in Hoek van Holland, agrees that forecasters should be “punished” for incorrect predictions,saying: “Despite having more forecasting tools than ever before they often get it wrong.

Interesting.  With more forecasting tools than ever they still often get tomorrow’s forecast wrong.  People are so furious they want to fine these horrible forecasters.  For you can’t believe a thing they say they are so bad at forecasting tomorrow’s weather.  Yet we’ll change our very lives based on their climate forecasts.  As they scare the bejesus out of us for what will absolutely happen in 10 years if we don’t enact a carbon tax.  A carbon emissions trading scheme.  If we don’t shut down all our coal-fired power plants.  Or replace all of our gasoline-powered cars with plug-in electric hybrids. 

No.  They can’t get tomorrow’s weather forecast correct despite having more forecasting tools than ever.  But we’re to believe everything they say about their forecast of the weather for the next decade out.  That they can get right.  Even if they can’t forecast tomorrow’s weather accurately.  Amazing.



Tags: , , , , ,

Australia’s New Carbon Tax is Raising Prices and Government Dander

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 8th, 2012

Week in Review

The carbon tax has arrived in Australia.  It’s raising the cost of doing business.  And raising prices.  Surprisingly, there’s not a whole lot of love for this new tax (see ACCC to probe Brumby’s for advising stores to ‘let carbon tax take blame for price rises’ by Lanai Vasek posted 7/4/2012 on The Australian).

LABOR has accused the Brumby’s bakery chain of “reprehensible” behaviour after the company advised franchisees to “let the carbon tax take the blame” for price rises.

The consumer watchdog will investigate after Brumby’s managing director Deane Priest advised store owners in her June newsletter to “take an opportunity to make some (price) moves in June and July”.

“Let the carbon tax take the blame, after all your costs will be going up due to it,” she said…

“This sort of behaviour is reprehensible. Anyone who is found to have been jacking-up prices unnecessarily and blaming the carbon tax will be subject to enforcement by the ACCC…

“Businesses are entitled to increase their prices as they see fit. It is business as usual, so long as any claims or representations made about the impact of the carbon price are truthful and have a reasonable basis…

If a business is found to have made a false or misleading claim regarding the carbon tax, the ACCC’s website says the watchdog has the power to issue infringement notices of $6600 for a corporation (or $66 000 for a listed corporation); take legal action against a business for breaches of the ACL; seek court-imposed penalties of up to $1.1 million for serious breaches of the ACL or injunctions to stop a business from making certain carbon price claims.

The controversial tax came into effect on Sunday with an initial starting price of $23 a tonne. It will move to a floating price emissions trading scheme from 2015.

My, the government appears a little testy about their carbon tax, don’t they?  Probably because they know what a fraud it is.  The people don’t want to pay it.  The businesses don’t want to pay it.  And paying it won’t do a thing to save the planet.  It’ll just transfer a lot of wealth from the private sector to the public sector.  Which is why governments like the carbon tax.  Well, that.  And the fact that you can say whatever you want about the good the tax is doing to save the planet.  I mean, if they say that the tax is responsible for preventing a 0.7 degree rise in global temperatures how are you going to argue against that?  There is no way to measure this.  There’s just no way to connect empirical observations of temperature to fiscal policy.

Weather is a whacky thing.  America just suffered through a week-long heat wave following a warm winter and a dry spring.  Proof the global warming alarmists say of global warming.  Yet Britain is suffering their coldest and wettest summer since they began record keeping.  So whatever is happening with the weather isn’t happening globally.  And it’s not climate change.  It’s just the weather.  Sometimes it’s hot.  Sometimes it’s cold.  Because there are a lot of variables that create our weather.  With sunspot activity and volcanic eruptions being high on the list of influencing factors.  While man is farther down that list.  Much farther.

That said few governments can pass up a new tax.  Especially one that has such a noble purpose.  Such as saving the planet.  And they don’t take kindly to businesses telling their customers how much the new carbon tax will cost them.  For no business ever pays a tax.  Their customers do.  And every time the government raises taxes business have to pass it on to their customers in their prices.  Because they have to cover all of their costs in their prices to remain in business.  And taxes are a cost of doing business.  As far as raising their prices higher than the carbon tax?  Well, their competition will tend to that.  That’s the beautiful thing about free market competition.  It always makes a business’ price the right price.  For if it’s too high they will lose business to their competition.  And that will happen without any government investigation. 

It is a beautiful thing.  Free market competition.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Europe could use a Little Global Warming this Winter as Record Frigid Temperatures and Snow Continue

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 11th, 2012

Week in Review

Europe has some of the most stringent environmental policies in place in all the world.  They are taxing carbon.  And eliminating carbon sources of energy (i.e., fossil fuels) and trying to replace them with clean green sources of energy.  Such as windmills.  And solar power.  Because man-made global warming is killing the planet.  And man (see Ice grips Europe’s waterways as deadly cold lingers by Laura Smith-Spark posted 2/10/2012 on CNN).

Europe remained gripped by frigid temperatures and snow Friday, with the icy weather closing much of the Danube River to shipping and disrupting travel across the region.

Central and Eastern Europe have borne the brunt of the unseasonably bitter weather, which has led to hundreds of deaths and thousands of cases of frostbite and hypothermia.

Twenty-two countries have posted warnings for extreme cold temperatures and accumulating snow, CNN meteorologist Brandon Miller said…

The situation has improved, he is quoted as saying, since the government declared a state of emergency in 38 municipalities. Authorities are now focusing on getting food to people in the worst-affected areas, the news agency said.

Five more people died of hypothermia overnight in Poland, according to the Interior Ministry, the website of the publicly funded Polish Radio reported, taking the total number of cold related deaths there to 97…

In a sign of the extreme weather conditions, the city hospital in Split, Croatia, has used two years’ supply of plaster in only five days; a result of treating the high number of fractures caused by slips on the snowy and icy terrain, Miller said.

Then again when temperatures rise people don’t tend to suffer from frostbite, hypothermia or freeze to death.  They don’t slip on ice and break bones.  They don’t go hungry because shippers can’t get food to them because major commercial waterways freeze.  And speaking of food, when it’s warmer you even have a longer growing season.  In the hot and humid southern part of Asia the growing season is so long that they can get in two rice crops per growing season.  That’s one thing you can say about warm weather.  It isn’t trying to kill you.

Pity man can’t create global warming.  Just think of the lives we could save if we could.  But we can’t.  So the people in Europe must suffer.  And live at the mercy of Mother Nature.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Global Warming is Conjecture, Consensus and Anything but Science

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 20th, 2011

Week in Review

What’s that sneaking up behind you?  Could it be global warming?  Probably not.  But a whole lot of scientists with a vested interest are saying it is (see Weather disasters to increase report warns, climate change signal slow to emerge for some extremes by Jason Samenow posted 11/18/2011 on The Washington Post).

A report from 220 of the world’s leading climate scientists cautions climate change may bring “unprecendented extreme weather and climate events” in the coming decades.

The report by the United Nations Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change makes clear that warm weather extremes and heavy precipitation events have increased, most likely as a result of manmade climate change. And it projects with a high degree of confidence increasing hot weather and heavy downpours in the future…

But the “Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation” (SREX) is somewhat guarded about the links between manmade climate change and hurricanes, floods, droughts and weather disaster losses. And some of its findings are more conservative and characterized by greater uncertainty than the major volume released by the IPCC in 2007, known as the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

What other science reports their findings using words like ‘may’ and ‘likely’ and a ‘high degree of confidence’?  I’ll tell you what kind.  Bad science.  Good science knows that if you raise the temperature of water to 212 degrees Fahrenheit at standard atmospheric pressure it will boil into a gas.  And there’s no ‘may’, ‘likely’ or a ‘high degree of confidence’ necessary in the report documenting this.

Science is not consensus.  That said, there isn’t even a consensus in the scientific community studying climate.  One says it’s definitely man-made global warming.  While another is saying there may not even be a link between man and rising temperatures.

The equivocal nature of some of the report’s scientific findings demonstrates the difficulty in drawing conclusions from a patchwork network of weather observations. It also illustrates the challenges in identifying a human fingerprint in data that is inherently noisy due to the highly variable nature of climate and weather, not to mention the challenges in modeling its future behavior.

The report is clear that when it assigns “low confidence” in observed changes, it doesn’t mean the extreme hasn’t changed or won’t change in the future. It simply conveys lack of data and/or knowledge. For some extremes, it seems to be the case that more we learn, the more we recognize we don’t know.

Climate is complex.  It’s far more complex than predicting tomorrow’s weather.  And we all know how often the weather people get tomorrow’s weather wrong.  And if it’s the case that as we learn more the more we recognize we don’t know, then it’s a safe bet that the global warming alarmists are wrong.  They were, after all, wrong about the coming ice age back in the Seventies.

Perhaps it’s time we ask them how do they know what they’re telling us.  I think you’ll be surprised by what you hear.  For it’s all a lot of guess work with some elaborate man-made computer models.  Not hard science spent in a laboratory.  Or study of empirical data going back a few ice ages or so.  It’s just conjecture.  And consensus. Which is anything but science.



Tags: , , , , , ,