From the GWPF and Dr. Benny Peiser
Met Office Gets A Roasting Over ‘Wet Summers’ Forecast
Science does not respect consensus. There was once widespread agreement about phlogiston (a nonexistent element said to be a crucial part of combustion), eugenics, the impossibility of continental drift, the idea that genes were made of protein (not DNA) and stomach ulcers were caused by stress, and so forth—all of which proved false. Science, Richard Feyman once said, is “the belief in the ignorance of experts.” So, yes, it is the evidence that persuades me whether a theory is right or wrong, and no, I could not care less what the “consensus” says. –Matt Ridley, The Wall Street Journal, 6 July 2013
This week’s World Meterological Organisation’s report “The Global Climate 2001-2010: A Decade Of Climate Extremes,” attracted little publicity. This is probably a good thing as it is one of the most muddled and inaccurate reports I have ever read from an international organisation. It is about ‘climate extremes’ in the last decade which it claims are unprecedented. The WMO thinks ten years are enough to detect climatological weather effects with certainty. It seems to fit a recurrent pattern amongst some climate analysts that ten years is enough to see what you want to see, but not long enough to see what you don’t. –David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 5 July 2013
Britain was this weekend basking in sunshine — just three weeks after the country was warned to prepare for a decade of soggy summers. Britons could be forgiven for some scepticism, given predictions by the Met Office last month that wet summers might last for a decade or more. The Met Office has struggled with long-term weather predictions — notoriously predicting a “barbecue summer” in 2009 before heavy and prolonged rainfall. Tourism managers called for the Met Office to concentrate on accurate, short-term forecasts. Mark Smith, director of tourism at Bournemouth council, said: “People are totally confused. One minute they are told global warming is going to result in hotter summers and the next minute they are told it is going to be soggy. We want accurate, short-term forecasts.” –Jon Ungoed-Thomas, The Sunday Times, 7 July 2013
A pillar of global-warming alarm has come under criticism from a country with more than most at stake. The Netherlands called for reform of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the creature of the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization considered by many to offer the final word on climate science. With its credibility and authority under question, the IPCC now hears from the Dutch government that it should adjust its focus and organization to policy and societal needs. –Bob Tippee, Oil and Gas Journal, 5 July 2013
It’s particularly trendy among politicians and members of the media to be worried about climate change. When President Obama recently spoke before a crowd in Berlin, he said that climate change “is the global threat of our time.” But that’s not true. Just a cursory glance around the world reveals that, given the enormous problems facing our planet, it would be surprising if climate change cracked a list of the top 10 immediate concerns. What the average person in the Westernized world considers to be a big problem is rarely aligned with reality. Instead, our concerns are more of a reflection of what our culture and the media say our concerns should be. –Alex Berezow, RealClearScience, 8 July 2013
One of the curiosities of this Government in this area is that we have not one energy policy, but two. This Bill represents one of them. Calling it an energy Bill is somewhat misleading; it should have been called a decarbonisation Bill, or maybe an anti-energy Bill. Nevertheless, ostensibly it is an energy Bill. That policy is out of date, if it ever was in date. The only way in which you can make sense of these two conflicting energy policies is if you think that the purpose of developing our resources of indigenous shale gas — we cannot use it here because of this Bill — is for it to be exported to our competitors so that they can have the benefit of the cheap energy that we are forgoing. That is the only way in which you can reconcile the two policies. Of course, it is complete rubbish, complete nonsense. It is the economics and the politics of the mad house. –Nigel Lawson, House of Lords, 2 July 2013
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Press Complaints Commission laid the smack-down on a similarly ridiculous complaint by Bob Ward (about David Rose writing in the Mail on Sunday).
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/7/2/pcc-throws-out-complaint-against-david-rose.html
@Chad Wozniak
‘An assault on free speech, as well as science’. Hahahahaha……….! Free speech has to be responsibly used! You can’t going into a dark cinema and shout ‘FIRE!’, to create a panic. Which is what the GWPF is doing, effectively distorting, omitting, being economical with the truth, creating untruths, etc, etc, with regards to the science of AGW! They are also going against their charity status! For what reason? The interests of big oil, gas, carbon fuels, fracking comes to mind!
blackadderthe4th says: July 8, 2013 at 12:08 pm
…
Only in your wet dreams, brother. Ward should be committed to an asylum.
@Michael hart
‘The Press Complaints Commission laid the smack-down’, is that the same PCC that is going to be disbanded? Due to the Leveson inquiry, because it got so much wrong?
@Streetcred
‘Ward should be committed to an asylum’
Why?
@stan stendera says:
July 8, 2013 at 1:37 pm
‘For the benefit of those who don’t read Bishop Hill (you should!). Blackadder is a frequent troll on BH’s blog.’
Er, no I’m NOT! Somebody may be using the same name, but it not me! So get your facts right!!!
blackadderthe4th says:
July 8, 2013 at 12:08 pm
The GWPF hits the headlines!….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
These linked articles has me ROTFLMAO at the titles.
How the ‘Kochtopus’ stifled green debate: Behind the climate ‘countermovement’ are two billionaire brothers Talk about misleading information… And then comes Mikey
Top climate scientist [Mann] denounces billionaires [Koches] over funding for climate-sceptic organisations
The consensus is science and cannot be wrong. The laws of science are created by legislation or by royal decree. Computer models cannot be wrong. So it is Mother Nature who is at fault. The recent actions of Mother Nature concerning climate have been illegal and should be dealt with by law enforcement. The IPCC should take legal action against Mother Nature. Mother Nature should be liable both criminally and civilly for her illegal activity. Mother Nature should be forced to pay. Mother Nature must be forced to abide by the consensus.
blackadderthe4th,
The GWPF’s ‘crime’ is that they’re telling the truth. And it appears that you are the one who craves the stifling of free speech.
Totally agree with the title of this thread. Consensus has nothing to do with science whatsoever, the best scientists; Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Durac and last but certainly not least, Feynman; were independent thinkers who scorned consensus. Please let us consign the consensual morons to a well deserved obscurity, together with their equally moronic theories, by continually questioning their “science” and their motives for producing their continual diatribes of drivel!
blackadderthe4th says:
July 8, 2013 at 2:48 pm
….. Free speech has to be responsibly used!…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are talking about the abuses of tax payer money by the BBC right? RIGHT!
The Secret 28 Who Made BBC ‘Green’ Will Not Be Named and BREAKING: The ‘secret’ list of the BBC 28 is now public – let’s call it ‘TwentyEightGate’
Some thoughts have been expressed here about the competency (or lack there of) of recent doctorates given away in the social science consensus of “climate change”.
Perhaps we should embrace that thought and give thanks that these same individuals are not designing bridges, dams, commuter high speed rail lines and ultra tall buildings and the like that could result in serious personal harm if these same personal intellectual incompetencies were to be displayed. How frightful!! Perhaps Climate Change social science is a savior to us after all. Look at the very real alternative harm to us.
On the other hand, the San Francisco Bay Bridge opening has been delayed to an undetermined time so that incompetent errors can be addressed. Maybe all the incompetents didn’t all go into the social science of Climate Change after all.
Exalting self at the expense of your employer is stealing.
Bob Turner – consensus – moving goalposts ?? Methinks you are delusional. How long ago did we hear “the science is settled”? Later, it morphed into “consensus”, just as “global warming” morphed into “climate change”.The WUWT position, and that of virtually all sceptics, has always been that science must be evidence-based and that computer models are not evidence. Nullius in verba, and all that. If you want to persuade us otherwise, then present the evidence.
blackadderthe4th says:
July 8, 2013 at 2:48 pm
@Chad Wozniak
‘An assault on free speech, as well as science’. Hahahahaha……….! Free speech has to be responsibly used! You can’t going into a dark cinema and shout ‘FIRE!’, to create a panic.
Funny, I thought hyperbole was reserved for the famed climastrologist James my-butt-is-burning Hansen. You know, the guy who equated coal trains with holocaust trains. The guy who claimed the Atlantic would be currently inundating the first floor his former office. The guy whose models predicted Thermageddon by now because CO2 emissions are indeed “worse than we thought!” The only ones yelling fire here are the catastrophists and yes they are being very irresponsible. Especially when they did so in direct violation of US Federal law…
No politician nor bureaucrat will willingly reduce their power and CAGW provides a perfect lever to increase it. If one could show that CAGW would reduce their power, they would run from it like scared rabbits.
Anthony,
IS THAT A BRAND NEW CARTOON FROM JOSH?!!!
I am SO GLAD to see he is doing well enough (perhaps, he has been fine and just had better things to do — SOUNDS like he’s had females on his mind… good for him (smile)) to draw another fine cartoon. [If that was a re-published one, then, I HOPE ALL IS WELL with Josh.]
LOVED the clever Valentine candy hearts-type sayings, Josh. Lots of fun (and, AS USUAL, great use of color).
Next time you are too busy dating to post a cartoon, Mr. Joshua, PLEASE at least TELL US YOU ARE OKAY. You were missed and you were worried about (can’t help it).
Take care,
Janice
Policy Guy,
As an engineer I was amused by your comment:
“Perhaps we should embrace that thought and give thanks that these same individuals are not designing bridges, dams, commuter high speed rail lines and ultra tall buildings and the like that could result in serious personal harm if these same personal intellectual incompetencies were to be displayed. How frightful!! ”
More than once I have wondered how these folks could behave in such an unprofessional manner and not even blink about the impact of their climate change and global warming antics on the world’s economy.
Interesting, I researched your new Bay Bridge problem and was astounded that over two dozen 2-1/2″ seismic rods were found broken days later after initial tightening. For those who think H2 is the fuel of the future, it appears that the failures have been attributed to Hydrogen embrittlement, which according to the literature is a concern with galvanization in the high strength grade used in the bridge. It seems that Caltran has egg on their face.
“The massive bolts failed due to a phenomenon called hydrogen embrittlement, in which hydrogen atoms invade the spaces between the steel’s crystalline structure and weaken it. That may have occurred during galvanization, or when the bolts for years sat untightened in casings that filled with water.”
For problems associated with galvanized high strength bolts:
http://www.portlandbolt.com/faqs/galvanizing-high-strength-bolts/
Hydrogen embrittlement is indeed a problem for metals. However, I don’t think the possibility that effective countermeasures may someday be developed should be dismissed. It’s a long, long ways off – perhaps thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years, but at tome point in the future alternatives to fossil fuels will be needed. That’s not something to be concerned about now, but it could eventually be, unless we find some way to recover carbon from carbon dioxide – which would be difficult considering the energy required to do that. Though again, iif hydrogen fusion can be mastered, it might provide the necessary juice. And if nothing else, fossil fuels will buy us the time to develop the technologies necessary for a transition from them.
I don’t plan to be around when fossil fuels run oiut.
I won’t bring up the subject again, and please forgive my one last question here, but, does anyone know if J-o-s-h is okay? I asked A-th-y last week or so and, as he did this evening, he published my question, but, did not reply.
Hi, Chad, Well! You certainly got a rude answer (to your very reasonable question at 1:30PM today) from The Unmentionable.
I know very little about English jurisprudence, but, I’ll tell you the little I know on this subject (hopefully, someone more knowledgeable will pipe up!).
1) They have no absolute, Constitutional right, to free speech as our 1st Amendment articulates. (I say “articulates” because, as you know, the citizens of the United States of America already had free speech before the Bill of Rights was passed; in fact, the codification of the natural rights of humanity already completely guaranteed by the Constitution of the U.S. of A., was repugnant to many for its implication that the Government gave the citizens rights when it was the other way around (i.e., the Constitution carves out the exceptions whereby the People’s rights are limited to give the government authority to act) and it wasn’t easy to get them passed.)
2) An old law from The Star Chamber (some kind of semi-secret, soft tyranny-of-the-elite, as far as I gather) a tort called “Outrage,” made it a punishable offense to insult another. Apparently, the English were far more excitable fellows back then and could NOT! LET! AN! INSULT! GO! UNANSWERED! BY! A! DUEL!. That is, to prevent excitable fellows from flying off the handle, they made it a tort to insult them.
3) Based on the above, apparently, in libel (and slander?) TRUTH, unlike in American tort law is NOT, I repeat, NOT, per se, a defense. For instance, in a seminar I went to called “The Case for Auschwitz,” we learned about the libel suit successfully fought by a defendant American author (her book’s being published in the U.K. made her subject to its jurisdiction, if I recall) against a truly despicable plaintiff who CLAIMED that no Jews were tortured or killed at Auschwitz. Her book said that he was wrong and named him, so he sued her! The only way she could prevail was to prove that the terrible events at Auschwitz actually occurred. That British law made that necessary was, to me, appalling.
Now, why didn’t that case, now around 10 years old, get Parliament to drastically revise its free speech law?
It’s really sad to watch an otherwise bold, courageous, forthright, people (the British), zip their lips in order to avoid oh, say……… telling a certain person that their religion stinks —oooo, noooo. Mustn’t upset them. They just might haul off and WHACK a British soldier just coming off duty…….. [May he Rest in Peace]…………… Hm. What do you know? IT HAPPENED ANYWAY.
I really don’t get why Parliament doesn’t pass free-speech legislation. Why they haven’t done it long ago. Weird.
— Please, dear British legal experts, SPEAK up if I am wrong. I need to learn. #[:)]
@Gail Combs says:
July 8, 2013 at 4:31 pm
‘TWENTYEIGHTGATE’. one wonders if that will go the same way ‘Climategate3’ did a few weeks ago? It was going to be a new revelation about the about the exchange of emails! But it seems to have sunk without trace! OK the excuse is there are too many emails to examine, but what not a sniff of ANYTHING! Surely there would be leaks about something, I am aware of none!
Tsk Tsk says:
July 8, 2013 at 6:10 pm
‘You know, the guy who equated coal trains with holocaust trains’ Well is that not free speech in action? And he is only making a point, not creating panic!
‘The guy who claimed the Atlantic would be currently inundating the first floor his former office. Is that about the Westside Parkway? Well he was misquoted, I paraphrase, ’if co2 doubles the Westside Parkway………….’, well co2 hasn’t doubled and I suspect that that he didn’t expect it to! So a none story there then! He was just highlighting what could happen, IF co2 levels doubled!
Doesn’t seem possible. Unless you mean 12 hours, then maybe.
I find most weather forecasts to be so vague as to be useless, like Astrology.
willhaas says:
July 8, 2013 at 4:12 pm
The consensus is science and cannot be wrong. The laws of science are created by legislation or by royal decree. Computer models cannot be wrong. So it is Mother Nature who is at fault.
This has already been covered by The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
“For instance, when the Editors of the Guide were sued by the families of those who had died as a result of taking the entry on the planet Tralal literally (it said “Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal for visiting tourists: instead of “Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal of visiting tourists”), they claimed that the first version of the sentence was the more aesthetically pleasing, summoned a qualified poet to testify under oath that beauty was truth, truth beauty and hoped thereby to prove that the guilty party in this case was Life itself for failing to be either beautiful or true. The judges concurred, and in a moving speech held that Life itself was in contempt of court, and duly confiscated it from all those there present before going off to enjoy a pleasant evening’s ultragolf.”
I’m afraid that it’s curtains for Mother Nature for being so wrong by refusing to go along with the models.