Oppose this climate insanity

After all the endless tables about obscure trace gases and detailed physics, with its decorative, useless graphs and meaningless degrees of relative certainty, the AR5 could only say weakly:

We conclude, consistent with Hegerl et al. (2007b), that more than half of the observed increase in GMST from 1951 to 2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations.

we conclude that it is virtually certain that internal variability alone cannot account for the observed global warming since 1951.

Overall, given that the anthropogenic increase in GHGs likely caused 0.5°C to 1.3°C warming over 1951–2010, with other anthropogenic forcings probably contributing counteracting cooling, that the effects of natural forcings and natural internal variability are estimated to be small, and that well-constrained and robust estimates of net anthropogenic warming are substantially more than half the observed warming (Figure 10.4) we conclude that it is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GMST from 1951 to 2010.

In conclusion, the early 20th century warming is very unlikely to be due to internal variability alone. It remains difficult to quantify the contribution to this warming from internal variability, natural forcing and anthropogenic forcing, due to forcing and response uncertainties and incomplete observational coverage.

Incredibly, this mishmash of “difficult”, doubt-ridden prevarication had heads everywhere nodding sagely in general agreement, happy to follow the UN activists as everywhere they relentlessly imposed a ruthless climate orthodoxy of toxic man-made “carbon” emissions until the whole world echoes to it, all unknowing that behind it lies this hollow, deceptive sham of “overwhelming evidence”.

On this ‘proof’ they dare to hang the world’s science, industry and economy, better now than ever in history, to watch them squirm and tremble and die, while we let them.

Oppose them. Never surrender.

5 Thoughts on “Oppose this climate insanity

  1. Simon on 16/12/2020 at 9:07 am said:

    As you should be aware, it is important to be precise with language when describing things of a technical nature. Statistical tests inevitably have probabilistic outcomes. These terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result:
    Virtually Certain 99–100% probability, Extremely Likely 90–100%, Likely 66–100%,
    About as likely as not 33–66%, Unlikely 0–33%, Very Unlikely 0–10%, Exceptionally Unlikely 0–1%.

    • Richard Treadgold on 17/12/2020 at 10:57 am said:

      Simon,

      assessed likelihood

      Yes, I read those when the AR4 was published. The point is they are a guess masquerading as precision measurements that are completely phony and readers should treat them with extreme caution. For example, if you’re a local body counsellor, don’t use only the assessed likelihoods to devise policy responses or their timing, use measurements as well when available.

  2. Mack on 20/12/2020 at 10:06 pm said:

    Simon,
    Your degrees of “likely”ness is just sciency sounding verbal sophistry. Numbers providing false ligitimacy to garbage science dressed up in the cloak of “scientific numeracy”. . It’all hypothetical handwaving guesswork, entirely based on castles in the sky whose foundations are just one big wacko thing you call a “greenhouse effect”.
    We’ve been through all this before..
    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2018/04/climate-of-conversation/comment-page-1/#comment-1550431

  3. Rick on 28/12/2020 at 12:11 pm said:

    “Statistical tests inevitably have probabilistic outcomes.”

    The only possible way of performing a statistical test of the validity of a set of observations is for them to be replicated by independent observers many times over. But how do you replicate a set of observations that were never really taken in the first place but only exist as model-runs and climate ‘simulations’ on computers? The very idea of it is fantasy and make-believe. Ergo, there are no real statistical tests of the IPCC’s assertions to report the outcomes of and the attribution of specific probabilities to these imaginary outcomes is also pure fantasy and make believe.

    I fear that anyone who is sufficiently naïve and gullible to actually believe these pseudoscientific IPCC fantasies is asking to have their brains addled and their minds and lives profoundly disordered by the artful and ruthless confidence-tricksters who have now entrenched themselves in seats of world power and influence at the UN.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation