If You Still Believe in ''Climate Change'' Read this.....

If any business were to submit a prospectus as patently false and deliberately dishonest as ones used to advance the cause of the global warming industry, its directors would all be in prison by now. Does that mean Ed Davey should be thrown in the slammer for his claim on BBC Daily Politics the other day that in ''a recent analysis of 12,000 climate papers...of scientists who expressed a view  97 per cent said that climate change was happening and that it was human-made activity.'' ?

Not quite, unfortunately, because nothing Davey has said there is technically untrue. A better candidate for prison, actually, would be the one who tweets under the name @BarackObama. When he tweeted: ''Ninety-seven per cent of scientists agree; climate change is real, man-made and dangerous'' he was surely promulgating a demonstrable untruth. No one has ever doubted that climate changes. Pretty much everyone -- probably more than 97 per cent, even -- agrees that there is a degree of anthropogenic input, even it's barely measurable contribution of beef cattle farts or the heat produced by cities. But the dangerous bit?  No one has come even close to demonstrating it, there is no reliable evidence for it, and very few scientists -- certainly far fewer than 97 per cent of them -- would ever stake their reputations on such a tendentious claim.

The background to all this -- and the ''97 per cent of climate scientists say....'' meme -- is expertly covered in a new paper for the Global Warming Policy Foundation by Andrew Montford. In a sane world it wouldn't have needed writing. An obscure green political activist called John Cook and a few of his eco-cronies produced a pseudo-scientific paper so riddled with flaws that it ought to have tossed straight in the bin. Instead, it was hyped up by a compliant mainstream media, a desperate and propaganda-hungry green industry, and by the ignorant U.S. President as a vitally significant meta-analysis offering indisputable proof of the scientific ''consensus on climate change.

Montford (left) concludes;  ''The so-called consensus as described by the survey, is virtually meaningless and tells us nothing about the current state of scientific opinion beyond the trivial observation that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent. The survey methodology therefore fails to address the key points that are in dispute in the global warming debate.''  So how do the bastards go on getting away with it? Jamie Whyte provides a fascinating, erudite answer in his new paper for the Institute of Economic Affairs.

In it, he exposes the ''rhetorical bluster'' used by the climate alarmist establishment to make their case sound stronger and more trustworthily ''scientific'' than it really is. He is especially sceptical of those who try to advance their cause with the weasel phrase ''evidence-based'' policy. He writes:

          ''They are partial in their accounting for costs and benefits; they ignore substitution effects; they pretend that mathematical precision is evidence; they confound risk and uncertainty; and they exaggerate the certainty warranted by the available evidence. Having committed such errors, they obscure them with grandiose irrelevancies about peer-reviewed publication, consensus among scientists and the proclamations of official scientific committees.''

None of the projected disastrous effects of climate change exists in the present but only in an imaginary future (which may never come to pass, judging by no appreciably warming in the last 17 years). Remember, these are only unverifiable computer model ''projections.'' So we ought, when considering our expensive prevention/mitigation policies, factor in the key point the ''future generations'' are going to be richer than we are and therefore better able to pay for any problems that climate change may cause them. That includes the very real predictions by Russian scientists this year that there is a very real possibility that with no warming over 17 years and the last two showing a cooling curve associated with a quiet Sun, that we could have another mini-ice age in the next 100-200 years. This prediction was seriously presented on the cover of TIME magazine in 1977 with a scientific article to back it up well before the myth of global warning was developed.


But the alarmists cannot afford to admit this, their noses are too deep into the government grants trough, for to do so would be fatally to weaken their case that the time for action is now and that any delay will be fatal. Their emphasis on their imminence of catastrophe is designed to preclude rational analysis, so as to railroad through policies before more temperate heads notice their flaws. In order to give this catastrophism more credibility, alarmists are wont to appeal to the authority of the ''consensus.'' Which is why of course, the warmist   establishment  drags out Al Gore to rant, rave and curse at the first sign of public opinion waning.

The idea that the catastrophic climate change industry can derive any authority from real science is an insult to real science, especially now with the admission from the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change saying that forecasting computers have not taken enough notice of the natural  variability in the climate, therefore exaggerating the effect of the increased carbon emissions on world temperatures. I'd love to hear a convincing answer to this from the numerous well-known ''sell-your-name-for-a-grant'' scientists who have used their prestige or their presumed expertise to help push the great climate change scare all the while seeing chart after chart with each year showing no warming after 1997, while Carbon Dioxide increased by 25 per cent.


The Way I See It.....if you want further confirmation, you might care to read this superb recent essay about Dr Richard Lindzen, top Atmospheric Scientist at M.I.T. University (left) via The Weekly Standard   ''Richard Lindzen: the Unalarmed Climate Scientist (January 13, 2014)  He argues that mainstream climate science is currently akin to Lysenkoism, pertaining to the Russian T. Lysenko who twisted science to please Lenin.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/28/the-disgraceful-episode-of-lysenkoism-brings-us-global-warming-theory/  and that its adherents have more in common with religious zealots than scrupulous seekers-after-the-truth.

To summarize: Scientists have now discovered (which I was the first to post a couple of years ago, on July 30, 2012)) that between 950 and 1250 AD, before the Industrial Revolution, when the Vikings were running around in short pants, raping and pillaging, it was 3 degrees warmer for decades at a time, as they are now. That's when the Vikings discovered Greenland (it was GREEN) and they colonized it with 80 self-sustaining settlements until 1250 when they had to leave as the winters were getting longer and harvests were not productive anymore.

Lindzen adds:
 ''Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory, as Trofim Lysenko did, to accommodate politically correct positions. How can one escape from the Iron Triangle of  ideology (Politicians, Media, and corrupted Scientists) when it produces flawed science that is immensely influential and is forcing catastrophic public policy on an ignorant citizenry for no relative good.''