Skip to content

Fake News From Myles Allen

January 31, 2017

By Paul Homewood

 

h/t Dave Ward

 

DAILY MAIL LETTERS 30-01-2017

 

The Daily Mail’s Letters Page had a fake news story from Myles Allen.

 

“Record rainfall in January 2014 was made about 40% more likely by man-made climate change.

 

 

Meanwhile back in the real world:

 

 

image_thumb52

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/data/download.html

Advertisements
35 Comments
  1. John Palmer permalink
    January 31, 2017 11:13 am

    Since ‘they’ seem to have the MSM completely tied-up and on-side, we must hope that the recent crescendo of Climate Change b*****it signifies their growing panic as they’re realising that they’ve peaked – and will soon be found out.

  2. January 31, 2017 11:14 am

    there is a whole lot of fakery here, paul.

  3. Athelstan permalink
    January 31, 2017 11:21 am

    Oh dear, it really is all hyperbole with this lot – Myles Allen is a quite unconscionable dissembler of half truths and weasel statistics but then, the global warming alarmunists – aren’t they all?

    Trump, “the Donald” is about to throw an enormous spanner in their workings and as God is my witness not before time it must be said. However, the major worry factor insofar as I am concerned, is that, Mother Theresa of Dismay is a full on believer in the climate rot and with her Brussels minders, together they show no sign of giving up on the insane green dream and therefore the continuance of the journey to green hell and ruination: de-industrialization of Britain.

    What “the Donald” needs to do is, not only defund the likes of NOAA, GISS, NSIDC, EPA et bloody cetera – President Trump needs to bin the UN, the nexus of OWG.

    • Paddy permalink
      February 1, 2017 9:15 am

      It seems to run like europhilia did – one has hopes that an incoming minister will follow previous form and show scepticism, but when they come under the control of their Civil “Servants”, they knuckle under. Perhaps, in the absence of a “Donald”, we should be going for the Civil Service.

      • Athelstan permalink
        February 1, 2017 10:09 am

        Oh indeed, the UK civil service is the enemy and it is they who imbibe deep at the fount of the Brussels tap rooms, that was always the idea Paddy.

        The EU started the transformation right at the beginning – the local government act was it. But they didn’t need to bother with the FO – for they had gone ‘native’ well actually run by Soviet sympathizers in the Thirties and post WWII totally gave up on Britain in the Fifties, it was get into the ECSC and uncle Sam was pushing hard – too. It wasn’t hard for the rest of the civil service to fall into line but from the early days of town twinning when local councillors and town mayors went off to be indoctrinated in EUrope [common market as they insuociantly named it in those days] – Britain was being subsumed, Maastricht was when Britain really ended, the lisbon constitution wot wasn’t a constitution broke whatever vestiges of UK sovereignty existed.

        It and when, maybe if the British ever do escape the Brussels Empire, then the UK civil service will need en mass, trauma counselling concerning brainwashing and a full debriefing – thanks to being 60 odd years away with the EU fairies in a Communist state of mind.

  4. Jackington permalink
    January 31, 2017 11:34 am

    What kind of smoke and mirrors do they use at Oxford University to prove the 2014 rainfall is made 40% more likely by AGW as opposed to natural forces?

    • January 31, 2017 2:42 pm

      ‘Prove’? That’s not how things are done. Create a model, feed in your chosen parameters and hey presto…never mind the real world, here’s the result.

  5. January 31, 2017 11:45 am

    These two supposed “scientists” from Oxford University are actually part of the Environmental Change Institute, they may do (or once did) genuine science but it is 100% certain that they are doing marketing for their Institute, whose income relies on scary stories about “change”.

    You can’t be a professional environmentalist and a scientist at the same time, due to conflicts of interest, a bit like your GP being an employee of a drug company, you’ll end up with a fake diagnosis and full of pills for it, sometimes they won’t work, sometimes they will harm you, rather like “action” to tackle CC.

    • January 31, 2017 3:11 pm

      Delightfully simples ! How can, apparently clever, “scientists” carry on in such deliberate ignorance ? Simply staggering. How can we get them successfully outed ?

  6. January 31, 2017 11:55 am

    Dear old Myles does really have form, and it’s quite something when you’re a warmist science person who not even Gavin Schmitt will take seriously:

    http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=81

  7. dennisambler permalink
    January 31, 2017 12:05 pm

    More on Myles Allen here:

    “Playing Climate Games – The Latest Attempt to Blame Carbon Dioxide for Extreme Weather”

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/science-papers/originals/playing-climate-games

    This was his message in a BBC interview in 2003:

    “The vast numbers affected by the effects of climate change, such as flooding, drought and forest fires, mean that potentially people, organisations and even countries could be seeking compensation for the damage caused. “It’s not a question we could stand up and survive in a court of law at the moment, but it’s the sort of question we should be working towards scientifically,” Myles Allen, a physicist at Oxford University, UK, told the BBC World Service’s Discovery programme.”

    “Some of it might be down to things you’d have trouble suing – like the Sun – so you obviously need to work how particularly human influence has contributed to the overall change in risk,” the scientist, who has worked with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said.” “But once you’ve done that, then we as scientists can essentially hand the problem over to the lawyers, for them to assess whether the change in risk is enough for the courts to decide that a settlement could be made.”

    • John Palmer permalink
      January 31, 2017 12:53 pm

      “But once you’ve done that, then we as scientists can essentially hand the problem over to the lawyers, for them to assess whether the change in risk is enough for the courts to decide that a settlement could be made.”
      Good luck with that! That was then (2003) with legal action nowadays you’d have to prove very convincingly that AGW was the cause of the harm by giving…. guess what? Evidence. And there would be very interesting ‘debates’ in public too. Bring it on!

  8. CheshireRed permalink
    January 31, 2017 12:18 pm

    Weasel words from Myles Allen as he knows full well there’s zero chance of proving or disproving such a subjective claim as ‘40% more likely’. It does allow him to get a letter published though, which was the whole point.

    He’s going to have a lot more to worry about in the next few months though once Trump blows the whole climate scam sky-high. I cannot wait. 🙂

  9. Jack Broughton permalink
    January 31, 2017 12:27 pm

    The accuracy of his probability is entirely subjective, it amounts to saying that it is more likely that the weather just happened (60% of his guess) than that it was man-made.

  10. AlecM permalink
    January 31, 2017 12:31 pm

    Myles Allen who made his name pushing IPCC pseudoscience, is apparently trying to find a safe home for when the Public gets to know it has been systematically deceived.

    I wish him well as he cleans the Oxford Public Toilets outside the Randolph Hotel……

  11. January 31, 2017 12:36 pm

    You start to lose your faith in science when staff from the greatest university in the world resort to issuing simple, plain and unadulterated rubbish with impunity. Why does the university not sack these sort of people and protect it’s reputation rather than allow it to be trashed?

  12. January 31, 2017 12:39 pm

    You start to lose your faith in science when staff from the greatest university put this out.

  13. Joe Public permalink
    January 31, 2017 12:41 pm

    Perhaps just a typo?

    So thankfully it seems the appropriate conclusion is:

    “Record rainfall in January 2014 was made about 40% less likely by man-made climate change.”

  14. Athelstan permalink
    January 31, 2017 12:50 pm

    Myles Allen’s next utterance should be; “so sorry, I spent all your dimes buddies, if you can find it in your hearts…………………………..could you spare me another?”

    And you know what the answer should be and to the effect of – you can think of your own…… “take a long walk on a short pier.”

  15. Jack Broughton permalink
    January 31, 2017 1:00 pm

    PEI today has a few very interesting reports, such as the Agora – Sandbag report on EU fuel burns / emissions. The usual cover-ups where hydro and wood burning are treated as renewables to make the case look better than it is.

    The UK’s energy suicide is portrayed as a wonderful achievement!

  16. Matty permalink
    January 31, 2017 1:05 pm

    … But what we can say increasingly often … Is that’s just playing on uncertainty.

  17. Harry Passfield permalink
    January 31, 2017 1:10 pm

    Seeing as how Myles is such a good scientist (cough), perhaps he can explain how the addition of , what, 4, ‘man-made’ extra molecules (out of 20, generally – 380-400ppm) of CO2 into the atmosphere can cause such climate disruption – and in (always) a negative way?

    There is NO proof that CO2 can have caused the weather he claims.

  18. Tim Hammond permalink
    January 31, 2017 1:25 pm

    What does “40% more likely actually mean”?

    That it was only 10% likely and climate change has made it 14% likely now? I can live with that frankly.

    Or since it happened, it was 100% likely, so is it now 140% likely?

    In any event, it’s utter nonsense, unless he can demonstrate he knows for certain all the probabilities of the alternatives. And since he cannot possibly know those, he cannot make any sensible claims whatsoever.

    • Paddy permalink
      February 1, 2017 9:23 am

      The learned professor appears to share with the General public a complete misunderstanding of percentages.

  19. AlecM permalink
    January 31, 2017 1:36 pm

    Perhaps this speech illustrates a Retreat by Fairground Barkers from their occupation of what had always been a self-regulated area of unimpeachable, self-regulated truth!

  20. JasG permalink
    January 31, 2017 1:38 pm

    If it is record, cold, warm, dryness or wetness they say the same thing.

  21. JasG permalink
    January 31, 2017 1:39 pm

    “What does “40% more likely actually mean”?

    It can be interpreted even as 60% less likely.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      January 31, 2017 1:54 pm

      Sounds like a way of avoiding having to provide any proof of his claim. The other claim that the ‘heatwave’ in the Arctic would likely not have happened without human CO2 emissions might be easier to challenge since it involved changes in the Jetstream. Simple question – how has the increase in CO2 caused the pattern of the Jetstream to change? It can’t be the hotspot in the troposphere at the tropics as that has been shown not to exist. and if he can’t answer it then there goes the ‘settled Science’ claim.

  22. Jack Dawkins permalink
    January 31, 2017 1:51 pm

    I have yet to see a single piece “research” by a climate scientist that cannot be paraphrased in just five words – “Please keep sending the money.”

  23. Tom Dowter permalink
    January 31, 2017 2:35 pm

    On its own, NOTHING, that happens in Britain can be regarded as evidence for or against man made global warming.

    Only if most “simialr” places exhibit the same phenomenon, (whatever it is), can we deduce anything of any value whatever.

  24. Broadlands permalink
    January 31, 2017 2:56 pm

    Super-storm Hurricane Sandy is the result of all our added CO2, and this will become X% more common”??

    from Wikipedia…

    “Hurricane Sandy not the first to hit New York: A 1938 storm ‘The Long Island Express’ pounded the Eastern Seaboard. The storm formed near the coast of Africa in September of the 1938 hurricane season, becoming a Category 5 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane scale before making landfall as a Category 3 hurricane on Long Island on September 21.
    Long Island was struck first, before New England, Vermont, New Hampshire and Quebec, earning the storm the nickname the ‘Long Island Express’. The winds reached up to 150 mph and had waves surging to around 25–35 feet high.[The destruction was immense and took a while to rebuild. The western side of the hurricane caused sustained tropical storm-force winds, high waves, and storm surge along much of the New Jersey coast. In Atlantic City the surge destroyed much of the boardwalk. Additionally, the surge inundated several coastal communities; Wildwood was under 3 feet (0.91 m) of water at the height of the storm. The maximum recorded wind gust was 70 m.p.h. at Sandy Hook.”

    Extremes will be X%? more common…

    BRITISH ISLES: London, July 10. “England is sweltering and suffering the worst drought in a century. Today was the seventy-eighth virtually rainless day. For the third successive day temperatures have exceeded 100. The rainfall for the year is less than one-third normal to date.” July 1921…

    • AlecM permalink
      January 31, 2017 7:08 pm

      The premise is that unless we push the plane to an ice age, we’ll all die.

      So far, Homo Sapiens has been around for up to 200,000 years. That suggests HS is rather more robust than the author believes and might even evolve into Homo Terminatus!

      The reality is that we are heading into a new Little Ice Age, as will be shown by our weather in February, early March! It will get worse from 2018………….

  25. January 31, 2017 3:14 pm

    I weep for the debased standards of my old Alma Mater’s so called ‘science’ if this is the best that they can produce.

    • Athelstan permalink
      February 1, 2017 1:08 am

      Thinkers those who seek to betterment through logic and reasoning – are all embarrassed, Oxford and Cambridge used to rise above the middling, always striving for the truth, what are the great laws of science if not, the truth?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: