The Consilience of the Lambs….

Mark Twain :- “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

Toward the end of this year we face the jumping together of a fearful populace and some renegade, dangerous law-makers.

Michael Crichton said it best. “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”

Let us examine consensus.

In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the puerperal fever following childbirth was an infectious processes and he could cure it. The consensus said NO! and it took 125 years for the deaths of women from this easily prevented process to stop.

Pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious. All that was needed was to find the germ. Dr. Joseph Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor and stated that he could induce the disease. The consensus said NO! The result? Despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Stomach ulcers? The same.

Continental drift? Alfred Wegener proposed in 1912 that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus said NO! for fifty years. The theory was denied by the great names of geology until 1961.

There are more, but now we face a consensus that borders on religious belief. Why? Because there is zero evidence that CO2 caused the tiny warming at the end of the last century. Evidence of warming is not evidence that CO2 did it. Models are not evidence.

The planet has been warmer than at present, and colder than at present, for geological time periods, with higher ppmv of CO2 in atmosphere. Mammals, and the plants we rely upon, evolved at a much higher level of CO2 than we can reach if we burn all known reserves of fossil fuels.

The latest propaganda derobed. With hat tip to matt v over at http://wattsupwiththat.com :

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/last:120/plot/hadcrut3gl/last:120/trend

OBSERVED RATE OF CLIMATE CHANGE 1850-2008 was 0.004 C/year [over158 years]
OBSERVED RATE OF CLIMATE CHANGE 1908-2008 was O.0075C/year [over 100 years
OBSERVED RATE OF CLIMATE CHANGE 1999-2009 was 0.0052C/year [over last 10 years]

The propaganda?

The latest Met Office climate forecast of 4C during the next 50 years (by 2060) – an average rate 0 .08 C/year

Met Office projected rate of temperature rise?

20 times faster than the trend of the last 158 years
10 times faster than the trend of the last 100 years
15 times faster than the trend of the last 10 years

Yes lads, looks like that is happening doesn’t it. That is why we cannot believe your forecast for just this next UK winter. You have not got a seasonal forecast right for the last 3 1/2 years.

But Lo, cometh a righteous man, in the form of appeal court judge Michael Burton, found “If a person can establish he holds a philosophical belief based on science as opposed, for example, to religion, then there is no reason to disqualify it from protection.” in the case of Mr Tim Nicholson, whose views on climate change should be given the same consideration by employers as “religious or philosophical beliefs” and his former employers were in the wrong when they made him redundant. He claims his opinions on climate change led to his unfair dismissal.

Mr Nicholson, from Oxford, said his views were becoming “more and more relevant” to the planet’s future, adding: “I am grateful that Mr Justice Burton understood that deeply and genuinely held views about catastrophic climate change and the need to change our ways to protect the human race are philosophical views that are worthy of protection.”

At least the plaintiff did not claim there were facts at stake and admitted it was a philosophical issue. His Honour agreed.

Not insignificantly Mr Justice Burton was the man who found that Al Gore’s award-winning climate change documentary claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.

He has done us all a back-handed favour with his latest ruling. I will leave it to the reader to work out what has happened here.

Just in time for Al Gore’s new science fantasy novel;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/02/al-gore-our-choice-environment-climate

Based upon “…an admission that facts alone will not persuade Americans to act on global warming and that appealing to their spiritual side is the way forward.”

With this missive, that must be empty of said facts for if they existed we deniers would have our faces rubbed in them for all eternity, Al is well on the road to becoming;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

“The world’s first carbon billionaire”

God give me strength.

No Comments

Comments are closed.