Posted by: Grant | September 21, 2012

Extreme Weather Theory

Aka – Causes-all-the-bad-weather Theory

The theory that a small increase in a tiny trace gas, carbon dioxide, is going to somehow be amplified into a climate catastophe by permanently increasing the global humidity is bad enough, but the fanciful notion that an increase in global temperature will then add more heat to the weather and thus cause more “extreme weather” is just pure superstition. There is simply NO, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, scientific evidence for that theory.

It is obviously absurd because “Climate Change” only causes bad weather, never good weather! They can make a computer model of it, but then again you can make a computer model of anything, even Global Warming! A computer model is just a model, it has no scientifically predictive value, hence the UN IPCC favourite term, “projection”.

This “Nature Magazine” greenie, probably stung by an increasingly dubious public, cautions about the wild claims and urges a more scientific approach.

Nature | Editorial
Extreme weather Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.
19 September 2012

Also here
Posted on Thursday 20 September 2012
David Whitehouse: Extreme Views About Extreme Events

” …In March 2012 the IPCC issued a report on extreme climatic events and climate change attribution and was sure there was good evidence for a link. It said: Evidence suggests that climate change has led to changes in climate extremes such as heat waves, record high temperatures and, in many regions, heavy precipitation in the past half century… The main message from the report is that we know enough to make good decisions about managing the risks of climate-related disasters.  

Today’s issue of the journal Nature contains a landmark editorial that reigns back from such extreme talk. Contradicting the IPCC it says that the science is too immature to attribute individual events to climate change.

In essence the Nature Editorial says that the standard of proof accepted by some scientists would not be good enough for the courts.   The legal profession has not always been able to take the best out of science and apply it to practical law. Conversely science has not always appreciated the nature of legal proof. The early use of dna evidence in criminal proceedings is an example. Looking back at the way statistics and probabilities were used shows that in some cases lawyers and scientists were not looking at the science the same way. Although some scientists bemoaned this mismatch the result was that lawyers forced scientists to be more rigorous when their opinions and judgments were tested in courts and often found wanting. Because science hadn’t done so itself the legal profession brutally weeded out speculation from fact. Science benefited from this rigour.  

Nature says that attribution is in its infancy. How does that square with recent comments by Nasa’s James Hansen,
“We are certainly seeing climate change in action…This year has been exceptionally unusual throughout the United States.”

Writing in this morning’s Guardian Connie Hedegaard, the European Commissioner for Climate Action, says that ‘extreme’ weather is the new normal: “We are now confident about linking individual events to climate change,” she maintains.   Perhaps she should read the Nature editorial.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: