... "I want to save my children from a the planet destroyed by Global Warming"
- Save your children from a future where instead of decisions being made rationally they are made on "of course thinking" dogma and they are not free to say "I don't know or I don't believe ".

Every time Climate catastrophe theory is mentioned it's accompanied by mountains of irrationality.

I see a lot of parallels between the irrationality of religion & the huge amounts of irrationality that accompanies any talk of Climate catastrophe theory.

For my own amusement I outline some parallels. We can have simple black and white view of world of or the real technicolour one which is a pain in the ass to explain : more

I learnt some amazing things

Yes ice is melting in the Northern Hemisphere. This is 15% of the world's ice. 85% of the world's ice is in Antarctica, which is increasing.

The media reported "today the Northern Ice is at the lowest point EVER recorded" They didn't report : 1. by ever they mean the last 28 years AND 2. ice height on the same day at the south pole ice reached it's highest ever height ! 85% of the world's ice is at the South Pole !

VIDEO - Penn and Teller helped by Patrick Moore US the disillusioned Greenpeace Founder made Climate Alarmism Hippies look pretty stupid Penn and Teller Global Warming

They looked at a big Earth day event in washington

1. Not one questioned the petition against Dihydrogen Oxide.
2. When questioned even the top speakers were shown not to really understand what they were talking about - Frankly after the buzzwords .. they couldn't explain what they meant. And looked like shallow people who like to bang drums and dance.
3. Penn and Teller were able to make it look like the Hippies are being manipulated by organsations who have a Anti-capitalist Agenda

It's amazing how many people I see at green festivals saying "Man, we really have to do something about airpollution..big corporation etc etc", whilst at the same time they are smoking a ciggy, throwing pollution straight into their bodies and mine
- Will smokers give up any thing for CC ? If they won't give up anything to save their own lives, why would they worry about other people.

Stott and Lawson had to speak at a fringe meeting not the main conference at the 2007 conservative Party Conference
My notes from listening to the Audio

"I cannot believe that my party and the whole of British politics have been gripped by this madness !"- Nigel Lawson - Long time Cabinet Minister. He's not stupid and doesn't sound senile.

Global warming has stopped : Hadleigh Centre in Nature Magazine 2007 - admitted no warming this century, they didn't predict this so they changed their models and 2009 will resume.

- man can adapt can live 5C to 27C see Helsinki and Singapore

- IPCC economic model is crap - shows no adaptive capacity - no better technology

- Kyoto is Crap - We can't have sanctions so can't enforce limits

- Uk pledged made a law 2050 cut by 60%. The only country, yes only one stupid enough

- Stern crazy, but UK government has policy “In order to manage risk, you must scare people”

"There is no greater threat to the people of this planet than the retreat from reason we see all around us today."

Stott's speech is Excellent : Very powerful speech manages to say a lot in a short time. A page I did with details of Stott's and Lawson lectures

- Stotts warns about environmental correspondents now they are crusading priests so won't print criticisms !

Stott before this particpated in the NPR debate using the same arguments to win see notes below "Debate Audience converted to Skeptism"

My thinking about this - this idea makes a lot of sense. yes there is something fishy about being so certain about the figures, cos you are not measuring something which easy to measure. In fact there is nothing more difficult to measure. Measure the amount of water in a bottle yes you can measure it. The idea is flawed in many many major ways

1. One 365.25 day period will not be the same as the angle of the Earth and place in the solar system will not be the same
2. this article saves me the work from sciencedaily .. 18/1/08 even this OU Profressor agrees

The thing is now If next year is 0.2 degree cooler it doesn't prove Al Gore wrong and skeptics right, it's a result of the maths.
So even a series of 30 rising numbers doesn't prove the Earth's temp is rising. It would seem probable, but large series of numbers you do sometimes get strange patterns.

It's a guessing game The temperature might not be rising at all. OK but we know CO2 has risen a lot don't we ?

2. SYSTEM of measuring CO2 rise is flawed.
If Skeptics said this CO2 thing why don't we ...
- 1. throw out the results before 1958
And 2. Just measure todays in only one place.
And 3. have this place above an active volcano.
you would say they are mad, but unbelievablely this is what the the IPCC does ? I'm sure they are right as they experts. Only 2 people disagree a Polish scientist and a German teacher.

i. How do we know CO2 was much lower before ? Cos that's the observations of 2 teams of scientists. Trouble is 20 teams of scientists got different patterns, but their data was thrown out. Many of these guys got past averages higher than today.

ii. How do we know it's rising now ? CO2 is just as variable with time, day and place as temperature, so it's difficult to make an assessment of the average. So they don't sample lots of places they sample ONE place in the world. I guess they check this against other places. So you should be able to see a trend unless it's on a 30 year cycle or something

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner for peer review

When you see the graphs remember to check what it says on the axis .. they seem to show rising climate, but might say something like deviation from expected.

Why do scientists worry about CO2 more than water vapour ? The argument is that the CO2 in atmosphere causes more water vapour. OK that's possible. Gray contadicts this he says yes water vapour is by far the largest greenhouse gas, but you can't measure it so they just ignore it and assume it stays the same.

- Richard Black's answer seems to be to do a shallow and as you say generalising piece ,saying "skeptics.. there aren't many of them they'll all nuts, so see we are right to just report IPCC line"

- No mention of the Dr Vincent Gray the IPCC scientists and his vehrment criticsm of the IPCC - nor the bad info we get like the BBC reporting this week the NW Passage opening for the first time , when it has the same headline in 2000

- In quoting Lovelock and Lindzen he failed to show any awareness of Lovelocks recent work "Reducing emissions could speed global warming" as reported in the Telegraph

As I said BBC can say "yeh, we've dealt with skeptics" now back to churning out the scare stories

- INFOTAINMENT I think you need to understand that the BBC these days is not about educating and informing the public Green is cool it's gets rating thats what it's about

If they wanted truth they'd get more people qualified and real world experienced in what they are reporting. Instead they get English literature or Media Studies grads to do the reporting.

- 1. Global Average Temp is a totally meaningless concept - so you can't extrapolate anything from it and anyway there's so much data and so many errors. (Surely when you such a large set of data the margin of error should be big ?)

2- The Idea of an annual mean energy balance is rubbish. Secondly the way they use a thermometer which records the lowest and higest temperature in the day, then they take the middle and say 's the day's average, well of course it isn't. Also they've made the non linear average maths error.

3 Detail of Hockey sick graph fabricated to wipe out MWP and Little Ice Age

4. IPCC doesn't accept idea of Oscillation temp - claims in a year energy should be the same.

5 Grayclaims like av temp CO2 values vary very much between places & times. Beck shows this at least 280 ppmv and 400pmm and maybe varies more Beck's Index. Most people say yes you can ignore pre 1960 data (maybe C monoxide contamination skews) and yes ice core which gives a "too good to be true" straight line are good only a Polish scientist disagrees

In the past people tried to show that CO2 was rising and causing warming, but they were unlucky with the time frames they picked cos mean Global Temp actually fell

claims Becks figures are suppressed

6 FALSE CAUSE AND EFFECT - assumption between CO2 and temp - no evidence

7 - models are not scientifically validated instead they are person evaluated "looks pretty good to me" - huge financial interest in saying they work earlier guesses didn't work out so now they never check own predictions afterwards.

Ideas of Future economics extremely open criticsm.

have to call them projections not predictions. - models are not scientifically rated, but rated by experts expressing an opinion this is an 80% this is a 90%, this is just a guess 9 - Concludes : IPCC reports are garbage.

- quoted Tom Lehrer, “Don’t be scared be prepared”

Benny Peiser - essay on BBC Website

says be a - Climate Optimist.
- Don't follow societies habit of expecting disaster
- vested interest to be pessimistic
- democracy - prevents war

Winston Churchill who famously said: "An optimist sees an opportunity in every calamity; a pessimist sees a calamity in every opportunity."

It does seem that people are using lies, hype, dishonest unbalanced reporting, & emotional blackmail to support a catastrophe theory and this makes me doubt it.

If I went to buy a car and the choice was a blue or red and the salesman would only talk about the red, sing it praises putting in a couple of lies, then you'd probably buy the blue car. Or would you buy the red car cos everyone else has a red ?

The strongest argument against catastrophe is that those scientists who push it, have remained silent when lies and distortions have been used to push it. If they won't own up to the obvious lies why should I believe the rest.

That kind of vagueness is unacceptable

Climate system unstable ? What's that mean ? Will it be hotter in winter than in summer ? sorry not possible is it ?

For one place you'll get ahigh reading one year a lower one the next. So it a long time series you'd get many different patterns like 30 warming years, 30 cooling. They might argue that if today it's raing in place A, then even if in 365 days time it's fine in place A in place B it will be raining, but that's just a guess. The law of averages applies, but if you get small variations that's not a trend. All it's good for is showing up huge differences i.e if it varied a degree in a year.
4. Position of Sun, Moon, planets and Earths tilt is not the same each year, never mind sunspots, volcanoes etc. So I would expect only an approximate match from year to year.

The Science Daily article reads: "It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says,

"does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate.’”

"That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book."

I guess what counts is your local situation : if it changes negatively like you can't grow the crop you normally do, then that's a significant change. Even then can you adapt by growing something else. Change does happen, weather patterns change. I suppose there's an argument if change happens too rapid to make plans that's a big plan.

There was Olaf farming his wheat and cows in Greenland, when suddenly everything starts to freeze up. For him it was a catastrophe, did Greenpeace come along and say lucky Olaf you're going back into the normal climate pattern ?

Could some cotton farmerin Africa sue US polluters ? Could they in turn se a sugar producer in Brazil who is experiencing increased yields. No systems are too complex to apportion blame. It would only take one small volcano to blow to surely confuse things.

Gray argues the same very strongly :

Temperature doesn't matter. What does count is local climate changing 1. negatively and 2. at a rate you can't adapt to. Has this happened anywhere ?

Another peer reviewed document says same
"Physical, mathematical and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming. While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of local temperature data, an infinite range of such statistics is mathematically permissible if physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them. Distinct and equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. A given temperature field can be interpreted as both “warming” and “cooling” simultaneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed. Short title: Global Temperature? 1"

"The IPCC Chapter on Sea Level is one of the more dishonest. It practices two important deceptions. First, it completely fails to mention the fact that many tide gauges are situated close to cities where the land is subsiding because of erection of heavy buildings, or removal of ground water, oil and minerals. It so happens that the island of Hawaii is one of the more heavily populated Pacific islands where the sea level is "rising" because the land is "falling" Another reason for upwards bias is Port Adelaide, Australia, where they decided to increase the water level in the harbour to allow for larger ships, They dredged and built a bar on the harbour. Unsurprisingly, the level rose on the tide-gauge. Corrections for these upwards biases in tide-gauge measurements have never been permitted to be discussed by the IPCC ."

Measuring water around endangered islands .. "Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16 years. In 2006, Tuvalu even rose." ... why did they abandon it ? story from Gray's Site