Latest Stories .. most recent first ... I Imagine a team of expert climatologists are locked in a room working feverishly. The Political Mafia is outside saying give me an answer. They reply "We don't know we need more data"

Investigations expected to be a whitewashes turn out to be whitewashes.. no surprise Checking into the 3 Climategate Investigations.

..I put the notes on the same page as my comments on SGU disccussion that provoked it Irrational World : #4 SGU speaking about Climategate report : leads me into thinking about "True Believer" psychological behaviour

Calling People Denier is a low down dirty trick

- This tactic of name-calling is a low down dirty trick as it detracts from the real argument by forcing us to prove that we are not liars before we can start out argument. It's like Obama and a Republican were debating healthcare and the Republican said "we don't have to listen to you cos you are a racist thief".. The correct reply for Obama would be to say "I'll ignore the insults... now let me explain my healthcare position" - The BBC could be sued for libel- BBC correspondents use the term without thinking...but actually the term clearly usually means liar and Climate skeptics are just expressing another rational opinion not lying. (The dictionary says it means disagree, but I think the common usage is lie)

SGU Shows the Madness of Crowds

- The SGU podcast normally carries the flag for skepticism and scientific reasoning, but they have " a case of "the emperors new clothes" when it comes to their attitude to Climate and Climategate I can't believe how it was such an obviously bad argument, so I was staggered the vast majority played along and only a few of us pointed it out. - full anlaysis ....my letter to SGU

We had this debate 6000 years ago

I see an anology between the believers position today and the believers position 6000 years ago. - "The world is ending and it's all our fault.. the only way to stop it is for us to punish ourselves and make big big sacrifice ! - The rains failed and 50% of the people said "I don't know why" and the other 50% said "I know, the gods are punishing us". The latter looked to the priests who said "you prayed and believe, but you didn't do it hard enough .. now you have to really show the gods " ... so they sacrificed a virgin ... and if the rains come it was a good decision and if they didn't they said "see we didn't sacrifice enough virgins" - The smart people would have "I don't know" and just moved to a different area.

The Dichotomy in the debate is boring "If you don't believe in catastrophe you are a denier"

- The Climate debate is getting a bit boring. I listened to the radio 4 You and Yours phone in the other day and it was interesting how there was mostly a dichotomy in the debate half the callers were the firm believers the other half were more skeptical and the debate was pretty pointless as people had taken their positions and the debate wasn't moving forward. - To me it was clear that the believers had the weakest arguments they understand the beginning of the science, but have extrapolated this to a firm belief in catastrophe : 1- that the debate is simple 2 - Their key belief is that catastrophe is the sure outcome if we don't take drastic action (instead of the science which shows that there a huge range of unknown possibilities) 3 - they jump on every weather/natural event as proof 4 - exhibit the signs of religious believers prepared to defend their faith. i.e. they play up every point which might be in their favour and play down all the ones against 5 - say you don't need to listen to contrary arguments cos "it's all a conspiracy due to big oil companies" 6 - Relish in dismissing all other beliefs into a simple category "they are all deniers". The use of the word denier is a convenient device It creates a false dichotomy i.e. that there are 2 groups Those that believe every word that IPCC says and are sure catastrophe is coming and the "Climate Change deniers" and so they are the opposition so we don't have to listen to them. Actually believe that Climate Changes like it has always changed it's not static, but skeptics are really denying that catastrophe is certain. - There are some idiots on the skeptical side, but my money is against the believers as a large proportion of people on that side of the debate show irrational thinking in a fanatical religious way ..see the post above.

The Independent it isn't is it ?

- Monday the 1st of Feb "The independent" "Climategate was the work of foreign Intelligence says Chief scientist" - Actually this was one of the times as often where I was ahead of the game I had head Sir David King in a 45 minute interview 6 days before on Radio 3 when he said this. The trouble is he didn't offer any further evidence other than it was a big complicated job. Guess what that entire Independent article is based on Sir David King's opinion without any corroborating evidence. So this newspaper which used to pride itself on being Independent is not at all having firmly nailed it's flag to the Climate Change catastrophe theory pusher's mast it will print anything which will support that agenda without any critical analysis just as it looks down on the popular tabloids who have for years made up headlines which are nowhere near the truth. - Now Gavin Schidmt's website where some results of the leaked emails were posted may well have been hacked he would have been unlikely to put them there himself and he says his site was hacked. However although the emails do originate from CRU's server it wasn't necessarily hacked it may have been an inside job. - Problem with Climate Change information - credibility of the sources - Problem with todays world credibility of the media. - Right this story provides an interesting segway from stop putting much effort into balancing Climate Scare stories and instead write about more fundamental things. - As irrationality about climate is just part of the bigger picture of this Irrational World. Shortly I will start the Blog : Irrational World - One thing is that many people so desperately want to believe they are hostile to me cos I question that Climate Change Catastrophe is coming

People don't believe Climate Change Catastrophe scarers cos : 1. have consistantly overplayed their hand 2. failed so far to come up with accurate preditions of climate

- I want to stop writing on Climate change so much. because one just ends up reacting to the latest bellowing about Climate Change. Time and time again I have put a lot of effort into investigating an issue to find that there is very little substance at the bottom of it. And this is the problem with catastrophe pushers they have kept on overplaying their hand so denting their own credibility so that you know not to believe them. - The second is no reliable preditions of climate patterns have been made. Indeed the pushers keep changing their story. They said it would get hotter in a straight line. Now they say it will get hotter in some areas and colder in others

Nepali engineer builds artificial glaciers to conserve water

- From "The independent" - Chewang Norphel a Nepali engineer has been getting people to build artificial glaciers by diverting water they pour away in the cold wet season into shady pools. People there have set up pipes to bring water from hills above, but normally they didn't conserve it ; they left the taps running all the time so the pipes don't freeze up.

Moving The Climate Goalposts

- "Yes of course Climate change doesn't mean everywhere will get hotter. The effect will vary across the globe some areas will bet hotter some cooler" - Yes I understand, but how come 10 years ago when it was called Global Warming the pushers like Gore would whip out their global climate graphs and say "here's proof the global temperaturehas been rising steadily over the last 150 years in line with CO2", No one said "look in this area there has been cooling" - Seems to me they are very conveniently moving the goal posts so proving the temperature is rising is no longer important all we need to prove is that local climate is changing. Yes, but we know climate has always changed even though here is an illusion that from 1 year to the next it's about the same. Actually it varies in a chaotic pattern over longer time period, we know places where rivers flowed 100s of years ago are now dry etc. And in other areas new rivers have appeared. - "But the ice will all melt and the sea level will rise" - Hang on if it's going to get hotter in some areas and cooler in others then how can we be sure that where the ice is it won't get cooler. Isn't there a fair chance that the areas will balance out so overall ice levels won't change much ?

Financial Modelling Failed Could Climate Modelling Fail Likewise ?

- We thought interest rate predictions were reliable models until the banking system crashed - could the climate model also be thrown out the same way ? - If you asked an economist in 2008 to predict UK interest rates for 2009 he would have said they would probably have to rise to prevent inflation rising. He would not have dreamed that actually they would fall to 0.5%, because the banking system collapsed - What are the odds that some strange thing like a super volcano eruption could throw all the climate predictions out ? I've heard geologists say that a number of volcanoes like Yelowstone are "late" and should have already erupted. - Catastrophe predicters would say "you can' carry on expecting a "Get Out of Jail Card" to appear", but how would people feel if billions of dollars had been spent for nothing ?

Good Science is Science that makes reliable predictions

- Before Christmas the UK Met Office a leader in spreading Climate Catastrophe Panic made it's annual prediction that the next year would be the warmest ever. - By the law of averages one year they will be right, but so far they have been spectacularly wrong it seems too me it's at least 5 years in a row that their scary prediction has been wrong. This year 2009 especially so, it doesn't generally snow every year but this year it snowed badly in February and only 10 days after they made their warning prediction there was another 1 week snow snap which seems to be followed by another week, but they didn't predict it. - the UK Met Office computer modelling can't predict a cold spell this month , but they say we should believe their scary Global Warming predictions for the next year ! ... Is that good science ? No of course not it's unvelieveable

Old book told me to take scientists warnings seriously : "The World is Cooling - Helped By man "

- In the Christmas concert raffle I won a book which was 25 years old; the first story I saw was about the coming manmade climate catastrophe : Global Cooling ... I kid you not ! - It's just like a complete photo negative to todays Global warming stories - "whole months below zero" - there were none from 1896-1939 since 1940to 1984 there have been 5 !" - "crops will stop growing" etc.etc. - "If we don't don't stop pollution the Earth may cool by 3.5C in the next 50 years !" (i.e. before 2034) - "this will set off a whole chain of positive feedback pushing temperatures even lower" - "one solution could be to cover vast areas of the growing glaciers with black plastic" - from The Readers Digest book Strange Stories, Amazing Facts 1984 from a 1975 original ..unfortunately it's difficult to work out from the credits where this article came from

Even Recent History explains climate is not constant

- Far from being constant local climate and planetwide climate has changed over the relatively short term. - The simple idea is 1. that local climate is in some kind of balance and never changes. 2. Any change in climate will be entirely negative - The Tony Robinson Channel 4 programmes "Man on Earth" gave examples of ancient cities across the world at different times which had to be abandoned proving that although local climate seems to be constant over the relatively short term of the 10-50 cycle over the 100-1000 year term big changes have always occurred. - The examples included the old Turkish Black Sea farming area being flooded when the glaciers melted eventually causing enough flow to break the barrier to the Mediterranean, and then this sea flowed back the other way. - also 1300 years ago Yucatan city, 3000 years ago a place which went from being a lake to desert in 100 years, Mesa Verde in Arizona, the mini ice age Greenland (where the farming Vikings didn't survive and the hunting Inuit did), the medieval famine caused by the year of no summer (Krakatoa Volcano super eruption ) , the Pre-Inca Huari (Wari) civilization etc. etc. - It also brought up the idea that catastrophe brings about positives e.g. While in places like Russia normal men remained as serfs enslaved to the rich in the UK the black death caused a decrease in population and therefore labour supply meaning common men were elevated to the become paid workers ... Therefore kickstarting the industrial revolution.

See 60 older comments ARCHIVE links on the righthand side

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Sun

brown

Original Writing by StewGreen