Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Climate Consensus Con Game

By S. Fred Singer

At the outset, let's be quite clear: There is no consensus about dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW)-and there never was. There is not even a consensus on whether human activities, such as burning fossil fuels to produce useful energy, affect global climate significantly. So what's all this fuss about?

Let's also be quite clear that science does not work by way of consensus. Science does not progress by appeal to authority; in fact, major scientific advances usually come from outside the consensus; one can cite many classic examples, from Galileo to Einstein. [Another way to phrase this issue: Scientific veracity does not depend on fashionable thinking.] In other words, the very notion of a scientific consensus is unscientific.

The degree of consensus also depends on the way the questions are phrased. For example, we can get 100% consensus if the question is "Do you believe in climate change?" We can get a near-100% consensus if the question is "Do you believe that humans have some effect on the climate?" This latter question also would include also local effects, like urbanization, clearing of forests, agriculture, etc.

So one has to be rather careful and always ask: What is the exact question for which a consensus has been claimed?

Subverting Peer Review

Finally, we should point out that a consensus can be manufactured-even where no consensus exists. For example, it has become very popular to claim that 97% of all publications support AGW. Here the key question to ask is: Which publications and what exactly is the form of support?

Thanks to the revelations of the Climategate e-mails, we now have a more skeptical view about the process which is used to vet publications. We know now that peer-review, once considered by many as the `gold-standard,' can be manipulated-and in fact has been manipulated by a gang of UK and US climate scientists who have been very open about their aim to keep dissenting views from being published. We also know from the same e-mails that editors can be bullied by determined activists.

In any case, the peer-review process can easily be slanted by the editor, who usually selects the reviewers. And some editors misuse their position to advance their personal biases.

We have, for example, the case of a former editor of Science who was quite open about his belief in DAGW, and actively discouraged publication of any papers that went against his bias. Finally, he had to be shamed into giving voice to a climate skeptic's contrary opinion, based on solid scientific evidence. But of course, he reserved to himself the last word in the debate.

My occasional scientific coauthors David Douglass (U. of Rochester) and John Christy (U. of Alabama, Huntsville) describe a particularly egregious instance of the blatant subversion of peer-review-all supported by evidence from Climategate e-mails.

Confusing the Issue

Further, we should mention the possibility of confusing the public, and often many scientists as well, by clever use of words. I will give just two examples:

It is often pointed out that there has been essentially no warming trend in the last 15 years-even though greenhouse forcing from carbon dioxide has been steadily increasing. At the same time, climate activists claim that the past decade is the warmest since thermometer records were started.

It happens that both statements are true; yet they do not contradict each other. How is this possible?

We are dealing here with a case of simple confusion. On the one hand we have a temperature trend which has been essentially zero for at least 15 years. On the other hand, we have a temperature level which is highest since the Little Ice Age ended, around 1800 A.D.

Note that `level' and `trend' are quite different concepts-and even use different units. Level is measured in degreesC; trend is measured in degC per decade. [This is a very general problem; for example, many people confuse electric energy with electric power; one is measured in joules or kilowatt-hours; the other is measured in kilowatts.]

It may help here to think of prices on the stock market. The Dow-Jones index has more or less been level for the last several weeks, fluctuating between 15,000 and 16,000, showing essentially a zero trend; but it is at its highest level since the D-J index was started in 1896.

This is only one example by which climate activists can confuse the public-and often even themselves-into believing that there is a consensus on DAGW. Look at two typical recent headlines:

"2013 sixth-hottest year, confirms long-term warming: UN"
"U.S. Dec/Jan Temperatures 3rd Coldest in 30 Years"

Both are correct, but neither mentions the important fact that the trend has been flat for at least 15 years-thus falsifying the greenhouse climate models, all of which predict a strong future warming.

And of course, government climate policies are all based on such unvalidated climate models-which have already been proven wrong. Yet the latest UN-IPCC report of Sept 2013 claims to be 95% certain about DAGW! Aware of the actual temperature data, how can they claim this and keep a straight face?

Their laughable answer: 95% of climate models agree; therefore the observations must be wrong! One can only shake one's head sadly at such a display of "science."

Another trick question by activists trying to sell a "consensus": "If you are seriously ill and 99 doctors recommend a certain treatment, would you go with the one doctor who disagrees?"

It all depends. Suppose I do some research and find that all 99 doctors got their information from a single (anonymous) article in Wikipedia, what then?

Opinion Polls

Both sides in the climate debate have made active use of opinion polls. In 1990, when I started to become seriously involved in climate-change arguments and incorporated the SEPP (Science & Environmental Policy Project), I decided to poll the experts. Having limited funds, and before the advent of widespread e-mail, I polled the officers of the listed technical committees of the American Meteorological Society-a sample of less than 100. I figured those must be the experts.

I took the precaution of isolating myself from this survey by enlisting the cooperation of Dr Jay Winston, a widely respected meteorologist, skeptical of climate skeptics. And I employed two graduate students who had no discernible expertise in climate issues to conduct the actual survey and analyze the returns.

This exercise produced an interesting result: Roughly half of the AMS experts believed there must be a significant human influence on the climate through the release of carbon dioxide-while the other half had considerable doubt about the validity of climate models.

Subsequent polls, for example those by Hans von Storch in Germany, have given similar results-while polls conducted by activists have consistently shown strong support for AGW. A classic case is a survey of the abstracts of nearly 1000 papers, by science historian Naomi Oreskes (UC San Diego); published in 2004 Science, she claimed a near-unanimous consensus about AGW. However, after being challenged, Oreskes discovered having overlooked some 11,000 abstracts-and published a discreet Correction in a later issue of Science.

On the other hand, independent polls by newspapers, by Pew, Gallup, and other respected organizations, using much larger samples, have mirrored the results of my earlier AMS poll. But what has been most interesting is the gradual decline over the years in public support for DAGW, as shown by these independent polls.

Over the years also, there have been a large number of "declarations, manifestos, and petitions"-signed by scientists, and designed to influence public opinion-starting with the "Leipzig Declaration" of 1995. Noteworthy among the many is the Copenhagen Diagnosis (2009), published to build up hype for a UN conference that failed utterly.

It is safe to say that the overall impact of such polls has been minimal, compared to the political consequences of UN-IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change) reports that led to (mostly failed) attempts at international action, like the Kyoto Protocol (1997-2012). One should mention here the Oregon Petition against Kyoto, signed by some 31,000 (mostly US) scientists and engineers-nearly 10,000 with advanced degrees. More important perhaps, in July 1997 the US Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution against a Kyoto-like treaty by unanimous vote-which probably dissuaded the Clinton-Gore White House from ever submitting Kyoto for Senate ratification.

Is Consensus still an issue?

By now, the question of a scientific consensus on AGW may have become largely academic. What counts are the actual climate observations, which have shaken public faith in climate models that preach DAGW. The wild claims of the IPCC are being offset by the more sober, fact-based publications of the NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change). While many national science academies and organizations still cling to the ever-changing "evidence" presented by the IPCC, it may be significant that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has translated and published a condensation of NIPCC reports.

In the words of physicist Prof Howard "Cork" Hayden:

"If the science were as certain as climate activists pretend, then there would be precisely one climate model, and it would be in agreement with measured data. As it happens, climate modelers have constructed literally dozens of climate models. What they all have in common is a failure to represent reality, and a failure to agree with the other models. As the models have increasingly diverged from the data, the climate clique have nevertheless grown increasingly confident-from cocky in 2001 (66% certainty in IPCC's Third Assessment Report) to downright arrogant in 2013 (95% certainty in the Fifth Assessment Report)."

Climate activists seem to embrace faith and ideology-and are no longer interested in facts.


John Kerry's Climate McCarthyism Demeans Science

If you put John Kerry, Barack Obama and Tom Steyer in a room together, you would still yet to have a single scientist there. Even so, the three are hypocritically leading a campaign to demonize climate scientists at NASA, NOAA, Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Columbia, etc., because the three political kingpins don't agree with the scientists' conclusions about global warming.

Kerry put this climate McCarthyism in the spotlight this week when he called the scientists at the above prestigious institutions "shoddy scientists" and members "of the Flat Earth Society." Sorry, John, but ramping up personal attacks against scientists who disagree with you does nothing to hide the fact that your alleged climate consensus is nothing more than a self-delusional myth.

If scientific truths were determined merely by a show of hands, and if people expressing dissenting scientific views had always been blackballed from expressing their views to the public, people would indeed still believe the world is flat. Fortunately for science, and unfortunately for Kerry, the Scientific Method encourages rather than blackballs critical inquiry and scientific debate. Kerry, Obama and Steyer may seek to employ climate McCarthyism to silence scientific inquiry, but neither scientists nor the public are being fooled by their heavy-handedness and mean-spirited personal attacks.

This Is Alarmist Consensus?

Even if we were to accept the infallible primacy of consensus, climate McCarthyists would still be in an embarrassing predicament.

More than 31,000 scientists have signed a summary of the science explaining why humans are not creating a global warming crisis. There is no document making the case for global warming alarmism with nearly as many scientists' signatures.

A survey of more than 1,800 atmospheric scientists within the American Meteorological Society shows less than half of the scientists believe humans are the primary cause of recent warming.

Comprehensive scientific summaries presented by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change reveal thousands of peer-reviewed studies contradict the alarmist global warming narrative.

In a survey of more than 500 climate scientists conducted by scientists at Germany's Institute for Coastal Research, less than half agreed that "Natural scientists have established enough physical evidence to turn the issue of global climate change over to social scientists for matters of policy discussion."

Scientific organizations such as the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Polish Academy of Sciences dispute the notion that humans are causing a global warming crisis. Others, such as the American Physical Society, point out that scientists are sharply split on the issue.

Public Not Fooled, Either

Even more maddening for climate McCarthyists is the general public's refusal to buy into "The Great Consensus" lie. Living in a political world where a media-emboldened president can create new laws or negate duly passed congressional legislation by sheer will and the stroke of a pen, the three political kingpins cannot fathom a world where the general public does not similarly fall into line whenever Obama says so. But whipping the general public into line is a much more difficult task than Obama whipping his lap-dog media into line.

A recent survey conducted by the Yale University Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication reveals only 15 percent of Americans are "very worried" about global warming. A larger number of Americans - 23 percent - don't believe global warming is happening at all. The most commonly held point of view - encompassing 38 percent of Americans - is that global warming is happening but is only "somewhat" worrisome. The survey also found only 38 percent of Americans expect to be harmed a "great deal" or even a "moderate amount" by global warming.

Another recent poll conducted by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal shows Americans rank global warming dead last among 13 public policy priorities. Just 27 percent said addressing climate change should be a policy priority. A 41 percent plurality said Obama and Congress should wait before addressing climate change.

It's not just Americans who see through the climate McCarthyism charade. A survey conducted by Australia's national science agency, CSIRO, found less than half of Australians believe humans are a large factor regarding climate change. The subset is even smaller when those Australians who believe humans are causing climate change are asked whether they are very worried about it.

The Grand Poobah of Alarmist Myths

This leads us to the Grand Poobah of alarmist global warming myths - the assertion that 97 percent of scientists agree that humans are causing a global warming crisis.

To counter the skeptical consensus documented above, global warming alarmists frequently make the unsubstantiated assertion that 97 percent of scientists believe humans are causing a global warming crisis. The closest thing to actual evidence supporting such a claim is a couple of "surveys" conducted by global warming alarmists asking a cherry-picked group of their peers whether (1) the Earth has warmed during the past 100 years, since the Little Ice Age ended and (2) whether humans have played a role in the warming.

The two questions are meaningless in the global warming debate, as neither of these questions addresses the issues dividing alarmists and skeptics. Nobody disputes that the Little Ice Age is thankfully over (and ended while human carbon dioxide emissions were still quite minimal), and the vast majority of skeptics believe carbon dioxide emissions have modestly added to the natural warming. So skeptics like me answer "yes" to both questions and are then lumped into the 97 percent consensus.

Importantly, these 97 percent "surveys" deliberately avoid addressing the questions that divide alarmists and skeptics, such as the context of recent warming compared to the warmer temperatures that prevailed during the past several thousand years, the pace of recent warming, the likely pace of future warming, whether humans were better off during the Little Ice Age compared to today, whether future warming will benefit or harm human welfare, to what degree future warming may benefit or harm human welfare, whether the alarmists' prescribed "solutions" would effectively mitigate future warming and whether any future temperature mitigation is worth the immense costs of the alarmists' prescribed solutions.

By asking survey questions that do not address the core issues dividing alarmists and skeptics, global warming alarmists attempt to divert people's attention away from the skeptical consensus documented above. They deliberately cite the meaningless 97 percent consensus out of context and then ask trite and simple-minded questions like, "If 97 percent of the world's doctors say you have a life-threatening medical impairment and you need surgery to address it, would you listen to the 97 percent or the three percent who disagreed?"

This is like citing a survey in which 97 percent of doctors agree that people should seek professional medical attention for serious ailments, and then making a misleading and unsubstantiated jump in logic to assert that 97 percent of doctors support Obamacare. In reality, the alarmists' assertions of a 97-percent consensus merely prove that 97 percent of global warming activists are either ignorant about the global warming debate or are dishonest when explaining it.

But climate McCarthyism isn't about analyzing scientific evidence and comparing scientific theories. It is about telling scientific falsehoods and then having political kingpins preemptively denounce and insult honorable scientists at the world's most prestigious research institutions by calling them "shoddy scientists" and members "of the Flat Earth Society" simply because the scientists disagree with the politicians.

John Kerry and his fellow political kingpins may believe that climate McCarthyism will score points with global warming zealots and a compliant media, but real scientists and most of the general public are not buying it.


Electricity Price Index Soars to New Record at Start of 2014; U.S. Electricity Production Declining

Big loss of coal-fired plants the main factor

The electricity price index soared to a new high in January 2014 with the largest month-to-month increase in almost four years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Meanwhile, data from the Energy Information Administration, a division of the U.S. Department of Energy, indicates that electricity production in the United States has declined since 2007, when it hit its all-time peak.

The U.S. is producing less electricity than it did seven years ago for a population that has added more than 14 million people.

"The electricity index rose 1.8 percent, its largest increase since March 2010," said BLS in its summary of the Consumer Price Index released Thursday.

Electricity Price Index: In December, the seasonally adjusted electricity index was 203.740. In January, it climbed to a new high of 207.362.

Back in January 2013, the electricity price index stood at 198.679. It thus climbed about 4.4 percent over the course of a year.

Last month, the average price for a kilowatthour (KWH) of electricity in a U.S. city also hit an all-time January high of 13.4 cents, according to BLS. That marks the first time the average price for a KWH has ever exceeded 13 cents in the month of January, when the price of electricity is normally lower than in the summer months.

Average Price for a KWH in January:  A year ago, in January 2013, a KWH cost 12.9 cents. The increase in the price of a KWH from January 2013 to January 2014 was about 3.9 percent.

During the year, the price of a KWH of electricity usually rises in the spring, peaks in summer, declines in fall, and is at its lowest point in winter. In 2013, the average price of a KWH in each of the 12 months of the year set a record for that particular month. January 2014's price of 13.4 cents per KWH set a new record for January.

Historically, in the United States, rising electricity prices have not been inevitable. In the first decades after World War II, the U.S. rapidly increased it electricity production, including on a per capita basis. Since 2007, the U.S. has decreased its electricity production, including on a per capita basis.

In the 1950s and 1960s, when U.S. electricity generation was increasing at a rapid pace, the seasonally adjusted U.S. electricity price index remained relatively stable. In January 1959, the electricity index stood at 29.2, according to BLS. A decade later, in January 1969, it was 30.2-an increase of 3.4 percent over a 10-year span.

That 3.4-percent increase in the index from January 1959 to January 1969 was less than the 4.4 percent the index increased from January 2013 to January 2014.

Over the last seven years, according to the EIA, the U.S. has actually decreased its total net electricity generation, although not in an unbroken downward line from year to year (generation did increase from 2009 to 2010 before going down again in 2011 and 2012).

The combined 439,391 million KWH increase in electricity generation from natural gas, wind and solar did not cover the 502,413 million KWH decline in the electricity generated by coal.

Coal was not the only source that produced less electricity in 2012 than in 2007, according to the EIA data.

Electricity from nuclear power plants dropped from 806,425 million KWH in 2007 to 769,331 in 2012-a decline of 37,094 million KWH or 4.6 percent.

Electricity generated from petroleum sources dropped from 65,739 million KWH in 2007 to 23,190 million KWH in 2012-a decline of 42,549 million KWH or about 64.7 percent.

Conventional hydroelectric means of generating electricity hit their peak in 1997, a decade before overall electricity generation peaked in the United States. In that year, the U.S. produced 385,946 million KWH of electricity through conventional hydroelectric power. By 2012, that had dropped to 276,240 million KWH, a decline of 109,706 million KWH or 28.4 percent.


Canadian Government slams the door in the face of Big Green

In the ongoing,  mammoth underground `Rockefeller vs. Canada Battle', it's Rockefeller 0, Canada 1.

You can hear the enviro screams from Canada all the way to the American EPA-latest warrior to join the battle against the long-detained Keystone XL Pipeline.

Just about everyone in the lib-left mainstream media of both Canada and the U.S.A. are shouting rape because of Canada Revenue's 2013-2014 audit of high-profile environmental groups, including the David Suzuki Foundation, Tides Canada, Environmental Defence, the Pembina Foundation, Eqiuiterre and the Ecology Action Centre, among others.

They're demanding to know "WHY?"

Though the environmental groups will slice the pie of reasons into thousands of pieces, it's because the Canadian government finally decided to take a stand for the Canadian Aboriginal people and for Canadian interests.

In doing so, the Canadian Government took on the Goliath of the Environmental money war.

This is the biggest outcome:  The Rockefeller Foundation, leader of the pack of the American billionaires pouring millions into the fake, anti-oilsands shell organizations that flourish in Canada,  has had the door slammed in its face.

With stand-off impunity,  Rockefeller money runs the enviro world in North America, its deep pockets making it a veritable Goliath.  But make no mistake, that red imprint on the Rockefeller Foundation face looks an awful lot like a maple leaf.

The dirty little secret of the Keystone XL Pipeline is out: Rockefeller Foundation cash runs the Keystone Pipeline resistance, and it does so on the backs of poverty-stricken Aboriginal activists.  In fact  the oilsands are the largest employers of Aboriginal people in Canada.

Being paid just to hold an anti-oilsands sign and make a little white noise in orchestrated protests goes a long, long way when you have hungry children waiting at home.

With a battle cry as hushed as a farmer's field in Winter, the Rockefellers came in to the Land of the Maple Leaf with the election of President Barack Obama back in 2008.  That's when the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, headquartered in New York, wrote a 48-page campaign plan targeting Canada's oilsands.  Someone should show the Rockefellers a map of the 49th parallel.

Big boys with big money that are slippery as fish, up until now could count on camouflage to cover their job-killing anti-Canadian missions.

"They committed to a whopping $7 million yearly budget for this battle, now in its fifth year." (Levant).

"Page 36 of their plan couldn't be more clear: They need to put a non-billionaire, non-New York face on their campaign.

"They needed the help of groups like the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN).

"The plan was conceived and planned and funded and managed by white guys in New York.

"So they made a call down to central casting to order themselves up, to quote their campaign plan, "First Nations and other legal challenges."

In the `Rockefeller Vs. Canada Battle', celebrities get to sign their names to full-page anti-oilsands newspaper ads, the Indians get to do the grunt work.

Tom Goldtooth from the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), based in Minnesota made this telling statement to the Washington Post when he said his Aboriginal activists were pretty much only called upon by white billionaires "when they need something".

As Levant aptly points out,  "the real money in Canadian environmentalism - the most radical money - isn't Canadian.  "It's from U.S. billionaires and their foundations."

Add to the bully boys spreading big money to fight Canada, the U.S.-based Tides Foundation, also pouring millions into vulnerable Indian activists, directing them in a staged play against Canada's interests.

Now that the cat's out of the bag, giants of the mainstream media are starting to report on the hideous hypocrisy of the radical environmental movement.

Only recently the Post stepped up to the plate with the somewhat anemic headline: "Within mainstream environmentalist groups, diversity is lacking".  The Post called out millionaire Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s organization known as the Waterkeepers for being all white guys.  "Is it surprising that out of 200 waterkeepers in his club across America, only one is black?" the Post asked.

"Kennedy's club is whiter than the wheat board.  "They're almost as white as the Klan."

Kennedys' Waterkeepers , around since 1999, and forging deep trails into Canada for decades,  has been whiter than the wheat board for a long time.

Canada continues to let Kennedy play here, but as As Ezra Levant colourfully points out:  "See, if it were a trust fund-kid like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - let alone a Rockefeller (whose family billions came from oil) - attacking Canada's oil industry, we would laugh and run them out of town."

The same American billionaires who destroy thousands of jobs when they do President Barack Obama's bidding in Small Town America are no longer welcome in The Land of the Maple Leaf.

They can get out of Dodge and stay out of Dodge.


Are YOU a 'global warming Nazi'? People who label sceptics 'deniers' will kill more people than the Holocaust, claims scientist

Barack Obama, David Cameron and Richard Branson are all `global warming Nazis'.

This is according to scientist Roy Spencer, who is a professor at the University of Alabama at Huntsville and a vocal denier of man-made climate change.

Dr Spencer believe that people who label those against human-induced global warming `climate deniers' will `kill far more people than the Nazis ever did.'

He argues, these same people should be appropriately labelled as `global warming Nazis.'

`When politicians and scientists started calling people like me "deniers", they crossed the line. They are still doing it,' he wrote in a blog post published yesterday.

Use of the term 'climate deniers' became controversial after John Howard, former Australian Prime Minister, said that the term was used with 'malice aforethought'.

But In November, deputy prime minister Nick Clegg said he is entitled to call Tory climate sceptics 'deniers' despite a warning by the government's chief scientist that it is an abusive term.

'Surely I can agree with his scientific advice without agreeing with the choice of verbs, adjectives or nouns,' Clegg said.

Sir Mark Walport told MPs last year that he was uncomfortable with the term. He said: 'As far as possible it is always best to avoid abuse.

'People do get heated and emotional about this. But we have to be clear that those who argue against the human contribution of climate change are wrong.'

`They indirectly equate the sceptics' view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with the denial that the Nazi's extermination of millions of Jews ever happened' wrote Spencer on his blog.

`Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison,' he continues. `It's time to push back.'

His reasoning in using the word Nazis is because climate activists are, in his words, 'anti-capitalist fascists'.

`[They are] willing to sacrifice millions of lives of poor people at the altar of radical environmentalism,' he wrote.

The words come from a prominent figure in debates surrounding climate change.

Dr Spencer has been a called number of times by the Republican Party to give evidence to Congress.

But the term `climate change denier' isn't hated by everyone.

Dr Richard Lindzen, when asked which descriptive term he preferred, said: `I actually like "denier." That's closer than "sceptic"'.

Steve Milloy, the operator of the climate change denial website JunkScience.com, told Popular Science, `Me, I just stick with "denier" ... I'm happy to be a denier.'

Dr Spencer has previously said: `I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimise the role of government.'

In the opening and closing of his blog, he writes: `Yeah, somebody pushed my button.'


BBC flogs dead horse

One could only utter a hollow laugh at the desperation of the BBC last week, in programme after programme, to put over its fond belief that our wettest winter for 84 years is all due to man-made climate change.

Today wheeled on the jailbird Chris Huhne to sell the message, impartially balanced by a chap saying much the same from the engineering firm CH2M Hill, which Evan Davis coyly failed to explain makes a fortune from renewable energy.

Newsnight had Prof Kevin Anderson from that hotbed of climate zealotry, the University of East Anglia, to tell us that despite global temperatures having remained pretty flat for 17 years, by 2100 they will somehow have leapt up by a staggering 6C.

When Panorama, in a programme called Britain Underwater, peddled a similar message - with the aid of such climate sages as the journalists George Monbiot and Sir Simon Jenkins - one wearily recalled a Panorama of November 14 2000 with exactly the same title, blaming floods in Yorkshire on global warming (on that occasion, with the aid of John Prescott).

Yet how strange that the BBC never quotes the latest report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which it normally cites as gospel, saying that "there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale".

In other words, whatever the BBC's propagandists may try to tell us, not even the IPCC believes it.



For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


No comments: