It’s the maths!

I’ve long argued that Climate Change is ideologically based. The Left see doom and gloom with Pittwater 6 meters under and Tuvalu residents about to be flooded out of their homeland. Personally, I don’t subscribe to the doom and gloom scenario. I’ve lived through a host of such theories from our friends on the Left and my “Bullshit” meter soars whenever I hear or read their claims. The debate is laced with so many percentage figures, stats on temperatures of land and sea, graphs and maps of what would happen if…that the mind has problems sorting out hard scientific evidence from ideology. It has become difficult for the layman to argue or form a reasonable opinion. As part of the campaign to frighten us non-scientists in believing that we should accept everything at face value. those members of what I term the Church of the Latter Day Alarmists, introduced Modelling. Basically,if you enter all the data into a computer it will predict the future. Remember when spreadsheets come into play – similar type of software. Set up a spreadsheet for your business planning and see what happens when you enter another staff member in the expenses column…try two extra staff…look at what happens to your bottom line….make a decision. Back to Climate Change. Enter all the data and see what happens to sea levels….agriculture…the environment. Play with it…add another degree rise and then see what happens….add two…add six….watch sea levels rise. Turn it into a frightening pic of Pittwater where residents can track their street and house and see it is under water. Send it to the local council where you just know they paid-up members of the Church of the Latter Day Alarmists and let them start panicking the residents. The science doesn’t seem to matter anymore – just use the modelling to bring them into our church. A couple of problems here. Do we trust the data entry. Lies, damn lies and Statistics is still relevant years after Mark Twain first said it and whenever I read a stat I like to know the agenda of the person making the claim. Computer modelling is all about maths, not science. The climate will go it’s own way without help or hindrance from us puny humans. Sure, it will most probably warm up for a bit and then go cold again as it has for millions of years. While this happens it is prudent for us to look for alternative energy and to clean up our act but in the meantime we shouldn’t let the maths panic us.


  • Climate change models can be checked (and a number have been), you take the model, enter past weather observations and see if it ‘predicts’ current climate, so far none have managed it, all have predicted that it should be warmer, which means that they are biased (in the true mathematical sense) towards predicting more warming than is happening.

    • Just do a daily check of the ten day forecast for the weather for the next ten days and see if you can find any two where the pattern is the same for even a two day period. Then ask yourself how these climate “experts” can possibly claim accuracy over a two week period let alone a twenty year period…..and they can sit and watch it happen for the short term “prediction”. They may as well be using a chrystal ball. They study the past in order to create the modelling, ignoring the fact that the predictions made from known circumstances haven’t been accurate in the past because there is no way of including the variables that create the inaccuracies. We the uneducated are then expected to accept that the modelling is accurate. I believe in climate change, but we have to adapt to the variations as have our ancestors. Creating a new world currency of tradable emissions licences will not make any difference to the climate on a global scale. If Juliar and Brown Bob were serious about reducing emissions they could simply stop sales of coal and gas to overseas trade partners. A bit like stopping sales of cigarettes and alcohol…..that would seriously reduce Govt revenue, so it won’t happen.

  • That’s right Kev, so in the absence of watertight data (we don’t even know how the oceans work) one must consider policy impacts into data sets we do know – such as the economy, foreign policy, social services, crime rates…A half hour or so spent reading the policies on the Greens home page will show a frightening lack of scientific, economic and policy understanding.

    The other week on 2GB, Ben Fordham challenged Lee Rhiannon. He asked for her to back up her claim that the link between max brenner chocolate shops (for godsake…) and ‘what was happening in Israel’ was a matter of public record. Well, her office forwarded a wikipedia article!. When challenged, Lee Rhiannon said “we have a million things to do” and then echoed Scott Luddites famous tweet “still trying to get the hang of this senate stuff”.

    Good grief. Where is Charles Bronson???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.