Climate idiocy and money grubbing continues

The EurActiv website leads with a story that ‘Flood studies bring climate change lawsuits a step closer’:

A leading climate professor says that new evidence which further reinforces the connection between global warming and extreme rainfalls is “extremely important” in setting out a methodology which could one day be used to sue fossil fuel companies for climate damage.

So we have this latest piece of alarmism about the floods in the UK in 2000, despite climate scientists who believe in AGW admitting after the floods in 2007 that there is no established link at all – and they said so in the British house journal of climate propaganda.

This is nothing more than a continuation of ‘computer model’ games.  If the model doesn’t give you the result you want, then you simply change the parameters and make adjustments until it does. Hey presto you then declare that the model ‘proves’ the finding you set out to achieve.  Then as your bandwagon trundles along people like Professor Carlo Jaeger of the Potsdam University for Climate Impact Research, whose funding depends on the existence of a problem to tackle, leaps aboard and provides media with scare story momentum. There’s nothing quite like vested interest, is there?

If as Nature magazine, home of the false claim that 40% of the Amazon was at risk of climate change in the Amazongate saga, contends:

There is no doubt that humans are altering the climate

perhaps they will be kind enough to provide the irrefutable evidence that no climate scientist possesses, that converts the man made global warming theory into a concrete certainty.  Maybe they should fairly reflect their propagandist behaviour by renaming themselves Climate Pravda.

13 Responses to “Climate idiocy and money grubbing continues”


  1. 1 mat 18/02/2011 at 1:24 pm

    “There is no doubt that humans are altering the climate” now this is a classic as are we altering climate meaning weather [local] or climate meaning climate [global]? as I am now totally lost as to which way they will spin on it next and I have to say this but I have constructed many models mostly Airfix and though they are representative of the real world I wouldn’t like to fly them !!

  2. 2 Sparks 18/02/2011 at 1:49 pm

    I posted this over at Bishop Hill, It’s little complex but I hope you might find it interesting.

    I don’t trust in any scientific theory that is so heavily entangled with activists groups and policy makers who fund scientists for their research and who’s influence within and over the media make possible that their views are seen and heard by the public, this isn’t science, everything about “climate change” from start to finish has absolutely nothing to do with science. Nothing what so ever, zilch!

    There are millions of Terabytes of information on “climate change”, “anthropogenic global warming”, billions of different data charts with thousands of variations, millions of videos with different views and opinions, trillions of articles, sites and blogs and tens of thousands of books each one refuting the next one you come across, This is not science, it’s statistical quackery!

    The first time I heard the term “climate change” I thought it was interesting enough but gave it little thought, as I own a small library of reference books that I read from time to time, I noticed in a book called “The Earth” in it there was a whole page titled “Climatic Change” it briefly discusses the warming and cooling of the Earth and how climate researchers must look for evidence of change in global temperatures,

    Quote: “This includes interpretation of particular events such as droughts, cool and rainy summers or mild winter temperatures. This analysis, and predictions of climatic changes and their effects in the coming years, are important areas of work for climate research in the future.”

    This is an honest and fair description of the basics, where climate researchers interpret events and make their predictions accordingly (including “mild winter temperatures”), the article also infers that climate research is not set in stone by giving the example of how some researchers announced the beginning of a new Ice age in the 1960s following a cooling and fall of of the Atlantic temperatures in the northern polar region, climatic change is described as an ongoing study of variable climatic events that will continue into the future (nowhere in this book or any other book that I can find does it mention that freezing cold snowy conditions are caused by an anthropogenic global warming effect).

    Even if you were oblivious to all the media campaigns of fallen polar bears and the nightmarish future “climate change” has in store for us all and If, like me you like to search, and read up on various different subjects, then it’s only a matter of time before you find your self in front of a computer typing into a search engine “climate change”, The first impression of “climate change” I got was after an hour or two of reading a mixture of sites, was that there was a “scientific consensus” on “climate change” (What?) then after further reading you’ll soon find out that “climate change” is a new name for “Global warming” but not just any form of Global Warming but a particularly unusual and rare form of “Global warming”, a form of “Global warming” of unimaginable scale and unprecedented in the history of our planet, called “Anthropogenic (Man made) Global warming”.

    So how was this Anthropogenic catastrophic event being caused? well, because some have made a correlation between both the rise of Earths Human population who produce Co2 and the rise in global temperatures with the rise of Co2, Interesting Construct for a Hypothesis but clearly observing a correlation does not make the suggested outcome a fact!

    I’ll give you an example; I’ve noticed a correlation between the rise of Earths Human population planting and managing more forests and all kinds of plant life, and as the planet has been coming out of an Ice age there have been more comfortable conditions for even more plant life and therefore there is an increase of Co2 from these various plants and forests released into the atmosphere at night and through out winter.

    I’ll give you another example; I’ve noticed a correlation between the rate of the rise of earths oceans globally to the rate of distance the moon travels from Earth every year, I could even throw in some temporary aperture measurements, sophisticated charts and calculations that prove my hypothesis,
    I could even pay a fee to have my hypothesis peer reviewed and published it in a scientific journal.
    Even tho it’s an hypothesis about “climatic change” meaning that it’s a Construct of my research using a small part of the scientific method in researching climatic changes of Earths climate, I would still have to produce reliable evidence that can be reproduced more times statistically correct and in favor of my hypothesis by an independent body, still, It would have nothing what so ever to do with “climate change” even tho the subject i was researching was about “Climatic change” they are two completely different terms.

    So is there a “scientific consensus” on “climate change”? NO! “scientific consensus” apparently means “climate change”.

  3. 3 Ian Parker-Joseph 18/02/2011 at 2:15 pm

    For those who are not fully conversant with the CLUB OF ROME this is taken from the archives:

    “It would seem that men and women need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum such as motivation seemed to have ceased to exist or have yet to be found. The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor…
    Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one INVENTED for the purpose…

    Democracy will be made to seem responsible for the lagging economy, the scarcity and uncertainties. The very concept of democracy could then be brought into question and allow for the seizure of power by extremists of one brand or the other…

    In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. The real enemy [of the elites and their minions] then is humanity itself.”

    – “The First Global Revolution” (1991) published by the Club of Rome. Members of the Club of Rome include: Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Bill Gates, George Soros and author of the Kyoto Protocols Maurice Strong.

    Got that! Come up with the idea, formulate the policy, then find enough bits of scientific evidence to fit the bill, then rubbish everything else, recruit masses of eco warriors to sell the story to, massive publicity, close down debate. All made up!!!

  4. 5 pascvaks 18/02/2011 at 3:42 pm

    The level of insanity in the Western World is fast becoming a condition of the majority. Can’t wait for the Courts to grant standing to atheist idiots suing G_d for creating the World in a less than perfect condition and not giving a refund. Not to long ago it was The Black Death that people feared most, today’s it’s insanity –must be something in the water.

  5. 6 Martin Brumby 18/02/2011 at 3:53 pm

    “A leading climate professor says that new evidence which further reinforces the connection between global warming and extreme rainfalls is “extremely important” in setting out a methodology which could one day be used to sue fossil fuel companies for climate damage.”

    Bring it on. See you in Court, Prof.

    They tried this in the US with Hurricane Katrina.

    And failed.

    I look forward to the day when the people who are peddling their snake oil hysteria are in Court. As defendents.

  6. 7 Tufty 18/02/2011 at 4:06 pm

    It’s easy to forget that consensus is usually undesirable in any science, let alone a new one such as climate science. Without competitor theories, weaknesses in the accepted theory are not recognised and relevant data are ignored. One day, climate science will be a paradigm of how wrong scientists can be if they fail to see the value of competitor theories.

  7. 8 Cassandra King 18/02/2011 at 5:39 pm

    “There is no doubt that humans are altering the climate”

    I have noticed a big increase in the use of this confident statement by alarmists, the aim is to erase any doubt at all without offering any proof for the erasing of this doubt. Just because they claim there is no doubt does not mean there is no doubt and this they know. The key to propaganda dissemination is to provide the most simple and easy to remember phrases which need to be repeated over and over again like a cult brainwashing technique, its called a mind bomb I think.

    We now see a move to absolute certainty, no more doubts expressed and no more Mr Nice guy, this is a desperate and defining period for CAGW alarmism. They are losing the debate they tried so very hard not to have, they have lost the public they have tried so hard to mislead and bully and dictate to. They are of course going to fail, we can see their failure coming from a country mile away. We are seeing the utter desperation of the loser who cannot admit defeat.

  8. 9 PaulH 18/02/2011 at 6:32 pm

    ‘Flood studies bring climate change lawsuits a step closer’.

    Excellent! Bring it on.

    Then we can watch the ‘evidence’ flail around and collapse in an unscientific heap in front of a judge.

  9. 10 Don Brett-Davies 18/02/2011 at 9:13 pm

    I would have thought the last thing the AGW crowd would want was for climate change to end up in the courts. Courts have a nasty habit of requiring evidence – a commodity in scarce supply for that crowd.

  10. 11 Cassandra King 19/02/2011 at 5:30 am

    The CAGW cult armed with generous funding are now attacking forums where sceptics may air their point of view.

    I posted a comment on the daily mail article in the science section about this and was pounced on by what felt like a tag team of alarmists with a very slick response plan. When you consider that only a few posts ever make it onto the pages, the team of attackers must have posted many times just to attack me alone.
    Watch out for it whenever you post, if it looks like an organised attack it probably is.

    How desperate and frightened the CAGW cult have become, how afraid of the truth! They are rich in cash but poor in moral standards, if the money they leech was actually used properly we would all be better off.

  11. 12 John 19/02/2011 at 10:17 am

    Cassandra King @ 5.39

    But there is no doubt that humans are altering the climate.

    They’re called ‘climate scientists’ and their wanton, reckless habits of random data adjustment have caused global warming on an unprecedented scale.

    We’re all doomed, you know.

  12. 13 dave ward 19/02/2011 at 3:06 pm

    No need to worry – even IF the world is warming, one lot think we can do away with fossil fuels entirely by 2050….

    http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1055509_rearchers-100-percent-green-energy-possible-by-2050

    It only needs 3.8 million wind turbines, a few billion solar panels, and some “smart” meters. There are 2 linked PDF’s within the article giving full details.


Comments are currently closed.



Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive