The bleakest assessment yet of climate change risk-Met Office
By Paul Homewood
It’s worse than we thought!!
Now where have we heard that before?
Many of the impacts of global warming are now simply "irreversible" according to the UN’s latest assessment.
But the authors of a new report say that there is still a brief window of time to avoid the very worst.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that humans and nature are being pushed beyond their abilities to adapt.
Over 40% of the world’s population are "highly vulnerable" to climate, the sombre study finds.
But there’s hope that if the rise in temperatures is kept below 1.5C, it would reduce projected losses.
Just four months on from COP26, where world leaders committed themselves to rapid action on climate change, this new UN study shows the scale of their task.
"Our report clearly indicates that places where people live and work may cease to exist, that ecosystems and species that we’ve all grown up with and that are central to our cultures and inform our languages may disappear," said Prof Debra Roberts, co-chair of the IPCC.
"So this is really a key moment. Our report points out very clearly, this is the decade of action, if we are going to turn things around."
This report from the IPCC is the second of three reviews from the world’s foremost body of climate researchers.
Last August, the first instalment highlighted the scale of the effect that humans were having on the climate system.
This new report looks at the causes, impacts and solutions to climate change. It gives the clearest indication to date of how a warmer world is affecting all the living things on Earth.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60525591
Of course, the first instalment last year also made similarly apocalyptic claims, even though the detailed report found little evidence that our climate was actually getting more extreme. Floods, droughts, hurricanes, wildfires, extreme temperatures – the IPCC failed to identify any significant trends at all.
It is curious then that this Part II should claim that the world is on a cliff edge. According to the Met Office:
Climate change risks worse than previous assessments while the world continues to warm.
A new report published today [Monday 28 February, 2022] by the IPCC paints the bleakest assessment yet for the impacts of climate change risks on society, human health, agriculture, ecosystems and wildlife.
One claim in this report is that ecosystems are being adversely affected through climate change:
Whilst subtle changes have occurred, such as the advance of species polewards, there is no evidence that these are in any way detrimental. Indeed, these shifts back and forth have regularly happened in the past.
They even lie that wildfire area has increased, when the reverse is true.
As we will see throughout this report, the IPCC rely heavily on studies written by grant funded activist scientists. Many of these are poor and easily debunked, and they usually are based on very dodgy computer models.
As very few scientists get funding for work that goes against the grain, it never gets included in IPCC reports.
Then they move onto the extreme weather lie, even though their first report could find no evidence that it was getting worse:
Climate change is also supposed to be stressing food systems:
The claim is that global warming has slowed the growth of agricultural productivity over the last 50 years. It is a claim we have come across frequently, always based on those GIGO computer models.
These so-called scientists claim to know what agricultural productivity would have been without global warming, and we expected to believe them!
But what we do know, because governments around the world were extremely worried at the time, is that the global cooling of between the 1940s and 70s really did have a detrimental effect on food output.
They then give us this strange segment on water scarcity:
I am quite sure a lot of the world is short of water. I have equally no doubt that this has always been the case. And it goes without saying that droughts make it worse.
But where is the evidence that global warming has made any of this worse?
Apparently we are also expected to believe that climate change has harmed human health, when all the parameters show that mankind is heathier than it has ever been.
The fact that this ridiculous report has to mention “women, children and indigenous people” proves that this is not a serious analysis, but one with a political agenda:
Climate refugees!
Quite what “weather-related migration” has to do with global warming eludes me!
And again the report confuses “weather” with “climate” when it examines economic effects.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/resources/spm-headline-statements/
But it fails to mention that economic losses as a proportion of GDP have been decreasing in recent years:
Many of the claims included in this AR6 report have been analysed in detail in the past on this blog and others. Most have been found to be shoddy, one sided, subjective, cherry picked and based around computer modelling.
The purpose of those studies was never intended to advance scientific knowledge, but to build up the “evidence” to be included in highly politicised reports such as AR6.
The Met Office are bragging that they have been heavily involved in the report, with Richard Betts as a Lead Author.
Far from enhancing their reputation, this merely shows how far their standards have fallen.
Analysis of AR6 Part I is here:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/08/10/the-ipcc-summary-for-policymakers/
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
We have been hearing this for at least 30 years, in all that time I have not seen any change in the climate whatsoever.
Yes this may be subjective, but so is the idea that the Laws of Thermodynamics will allow significant warming of the planet by an atmospheric gas that has increased from 3 molecules in every 10,000 to 4.
here in Michigan USA our winters are warmer and there is far less snow than in the 1970s. I’ve lived in the same home since 1997 and in an apartment 4 miles south of our home for 10 years before that. It’s easy to notice climate change if you live in the same location / elevation for a long time. We LOVE the warming and less snow, here in Michigan and want it to continue. We’d li love to retire our snow shovels someday (I would have mine bronzed and framed for a display if we ver stopped getting snow here!)
The ability of a greenhouse gas to impede Earth’s ability to c ooh itself, which most people call warming, does not violate any laws of thermodynamics. I actually took a thermodynamics course … and passed it.
They even gave me a BS degree, which I believe means I’m good at spotting climate BS, such as the “climate emergency” and “Nut Zero” and “Covid jabs are safe and effective”.
“Our report points out very clearly, this is the decade of action, if we are going to turn things around.”
“But there’s hope that if the rise in temperatures is kept below 1.5C, it would reduce projected losses.”
So, what is the IPCC plan to keep the rise from rising further? If we lower CO2 emissions to zero that will have no effect on the CO2 we have already added. And if we try to take CO2 out there is no technology that can possibly take enough out to matter. We cannot “turn things around”. Mitigation is hopeless, risky and expensive, but adaptation is not. It will be needed regardless. Get on with it, IPCC. Stop the scaremongering.
Stop the scaremongering?
Do you want to put the IPCC out of business?
That’s what they do !
We’ve still got 10 years to save the world…….
Polar bears, coral reefs, arctic ice, Antarctic glaciers melting etc etc junk science by junk scientists unfortunately. The fundamental assumption of CO2 as the main driver has never been other than a GIGO axiom. Then there is the fictitious 1.5 deg K limit on temperature rise.
It’s always 10 years – close enough to sound scary and far enough away for people not to remember when the forecast catastrophe fails to materialise.
From the First Earth Day in 1970, found on the web
1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.
3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
We’ve had 10 years to save the world dince the 1950s
and will always have 10 years to save the world
And don’t you forget it.
Unless they change the number to 12 years.
Or maybe 12.364 years to soubd more scientific.
Computer simulations are not science – anymore than pinning the drums on musical boxes is a science! There is not a single example of a successful mathematical serial computation of a system, unless the levels of perturbation were so small as not to effect the outcome. We can post priori analyse the output of a system and rely on that analysis. However, unless we have a complete model, valid for all parameters and timescales, computed results will diverge from real data.Which, as Paul has been carefully pointing out, is the result shown by the real data. There is a human dimension to the problems seen on this planet – it is due to concreting over large areas, massive over population, massive pollution from plastics and industrial waste. These are the effects very apparent in the data and the substitution of a a scapegoat in the form of CO2 is a pollitical cop-out.
Ironically, the first person to point this out was Edward Lorenz – a climate scientist.
Lorenz’s early insights marked the beginning of a new field of study that impacted not just the field of mathematics but virtually every branch of science–biological, physical and social. In meteorology, it led to the conclusion that it may be fundamentally impossible to predict weather beyond two or three weeks with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
Some scientists have since asserted that the 20th century will be remembered for three scientific revolutions–relativity, quantum mechanics and chaos.
Even more ironically, Edward Teller, (when he wasn’t designing hydrogen bombs and ratting on most of his contemporaries ) was banging on about human induced climate change.
No evidence any of your “problems” are a problem. How do you work out what the human population “should” be? What’s your model?
Over population was the scare in the early part of the 20th century . They derived it from a view popular in the late 18th century. Germany was keen on sending it’s population Eastwards in Europe… see Kaiser Wilhelm ll The Green movement also started in Germany, I have heard. Probably before unification which was late in the 19th century. Over population spoiled their forests , they said. and Bismarck himself sent Germans away to settle more open country East from Prussia. Overpopulation is a state of mind, IMHO. but what would I know? 🙂 I learned European History back in school in the 1950’s before it was revised.
They are worried that their scheme is becoming shakier.
Tripe.
They’re getting increasingly desperate.
BBC Radio 4 news bulletin at 2pm said that climate catastrophe would be averted if the World’s temperature were kept below 1.5 Celsius!
Yes , I heard this an hour earlier. What I find disreputable is the IPCC’s access to the same facts as Paul has assembled does nothing to inform them of the existence of valid conclusions which would be contrary to their alarmism.
Uncritical modelling and the wish fulfilment of craven scientists and broadcast commentators of the Harrabin school should create unease in the printed media -and it seems to be, slowly and at last….Alastair Heath on Feb 9th in The Telegraph.
But why is it all so slow.? A lot of advertising income at stake would be my guess.
That 1.5C figure was always a double-edged sword, “great” for inspiring the foot soldiers and for boosting subsidies/profits, but uncomfortably close to the current figure, which in some parts of the world (most of Australia for example) is already around 1.5C.
Suppose the world gets to 1.5C in a few decades time, and nobody notices. Will there be a ferocious backlash, or a deafening silence from the media and govts? No prize for guessing.
“…World’s temperature [sic] were kept below 1.5 Celsius…”
Chilly! Did they actually say that, as opposed to saying ‘increase [sic] in World’s temperature were to be kept below 1.5 Celsius…’ ? I would not be completely surprised, but it seems too ridiculous, except as a slip of the tongue, even for the BBC.
Furthermore, where is the discussion of the chances of an iminent drop in temperatures?
I did indeed hear the words ‘…World’s temparature kept below 1.5 Celsius…’ on the BBC radio news and did a double take
The ignorance of BBC staff, including the Ethical Man Justin Rowlatt, on scientific/technical matters and their inability to do simple computations is another reason to defund the organisation
Dave, the BBC newscaster actually said it. Brrrrrrr.
A (most unlikely) 1.5C increase would leave Southern UK still marginally cooler than Lyon, France; and Northern UK would (in theory more like current Southern UK. Err – big problem? Few people would ever notice the difference.
The world already reached +1.5 degrees C. twice when rounded to the nearest 0.1 degree during the peak month of the 1998 El Nino and the peak month of the equally large 2015 / 2016 El Nino (I forgot which year the peak was in). No one even noticed except me. And I noticed in spite of the fact that I was busy packing my belongings in Michigan USA to more to cold Alaska to get away from that stifling heat. It was so hot outside when I was standing in the sun, that my wife was able to fry an egg on top of my overheated bald head. That, folks, is a real climate emergency!
The +1.5 degrees C. is meaningless nonsense, along with the +2.0 degrees C. Started as a target guessed by some economist with no climate science knowledge. Almost every morning of the year after sunrise the local temperature increases +1.5 to +2.0 degrees C. rather and people barely even notice that change over just an hour or two.
I live near Scarborough, UK, a once-thriving seaside town of significant size.
Seems like the MP there wants to deny the town 1.5C of warming, which I suspect would be an even bigger boost than a dual-carriageway, which his greentard infantile thinking is also denying the town.
‘James Herriott’ (pen name), of all those books about being a vet, describes being in a Scarborough hotel after joining the air-force in WW2. The powers that be (them again. Who makes them?) nailed all the windows open to toughen the men. Half of them went down with pneumonia!
I would have thought that the events not too far away from us would more chance of causing irrepairable harm to the population.
All day the BBC have been peddling their CC crap whilst not too far away as you say 40M people are involved in a real and present existential battle with a mad tyrant who is only marginally more disgraceful and reprehensible than they. They are so far up their own arses they cannot see just how disgusting and morally bankrupt today’s conflation has been.
Well said !!
How can we know when the U K bans RT and other Russian news channels.
Freedom of speech used to be what England stood for. Not now.
RT is still operational as normal this morning. Interesting to compare GB News, BBC, RT, TRT World, France 24 …. etc to see the various levels of coverage and the regional thinking.
Unfortunately all seem wedded to the global climate theory with little questioning and virtually zero statistical or scientific data.
UPDATE : As of late this afternoon, RT has been taken off air. Only the political climate has – so far – been aftected !
The IPCC is Inter-GOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change !!! No scientists allowed !!!! Politicians run the “climate” THEY DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING !!!!!!
Ha ha ha Vanessa — you could not be more wrong !
Politicians do know something.
Except for AOC here in America — she knows nothing, except how to make random dingbat remarks on a variety of subjects she knows nothing about.
Other politicians sure know how to scare people about climate change, and seize more power to fight their imaginary climate crisis, that is always “coming in 10 years”, but never shows up.
Unprecedented levels of “high confidence”.
To begin, climate change is real . . . Climate Change is happening! Planet Earth is warming very dramatically. Only the willfully ‘deaf, dumb, and blind’ would choose to deny this obvious fact about the current evolution of our climate on Planet Earth since 1750. Coincidentally, 250 years ago, humans began burning fossil fuels thanks to the industrial revolution and the newly invented ‘Coal Fired Steam Engines’ brought to the world by James Watt and Mathew Bolton. This one moment in human history initiated more change to the human condition and its evolution out of the Hunter Gatherer lifestyle than any single change in human history.
This one evolutionary fact also introduced significant environmental change . . . Pollution. Human induced pollution became the undeniable fact of modern life in all the industrialized cities of the world. The result of this one development, Planetary Evolution itself, had been altered by human hand. Pollution in the atmosphere beyond the natural events of Volcanoes and Forest Fires, was now being very significantly increased due to the burning fossil fuels. Humans were now extracting ancient stores of compressed vegetation that had taken millions of years to develop underground into fossil fuels within the Earth’s crust. This store of Ancient Energy had now become the very engine of human evolution out of the ‘Pre-industrial’ lifestyle of ‘Hunter Gatherer’.
Coinciding with this moment in history on Planet Earth, Global temperatures had fallen to the lowest point matching the lowest temperatures of the last 10,000 years. Not since 350 BC at the depths of ‘The Bronze Age Cold Epoch’ had temperatures been that cold. It was so cold that scientists named this 500-year period of cooling, that lasted from 1350 – 1850 . . . ‘The Little Ice Age’. For scientists to infer the ‘Ice Age’ moniker to this Cooling Period in Planetary History must NOT be underestimated. Temperatures, by 1750, had dropped almost 1o C to 14 o C from the 10,000-year average of 15 o C. The warmest temperatures ever recorded during the Holocene was 16 o C during the ‘Climate Optimum’ from 4,000 and 7,000 years ago. A decline of 2 o C in Global temperatures.
The maximum swings in Global averages are of + or – 2 degrees C throughout the Holocene. At most plus 1 o C during Warming Periods and minus 1 o C during Cooling Periods. ‘The Roman Warning Period’ and the ‘Middle Ages Warming Period’ were +.7 o C and +.5 o C respectively. These upward swings in Global temperatures by 1.7o C and 1.5o C respectively from the all-time lows. All of these swings in Global Climate were induced by Nature alone, absent the hands of Humans . . . in Any way. Absent CO2 leading or following Climate Change. See graph . . .
https://www.academia.edu/49421861/CO2_Cradle_of_Life_on_Planet_Earth
Any scientific reference, examination or discussion of climate change must First be preceded by an examination of the entire history of Natural Climate Change during the Holocene Before inferring the hand of Humanity and CO2 as ‘A Cause’ or ‘The Cause’ of Climate Change on Planet Earth. Does humanity now or has humanity ever, had any influence on Climate Change before 1750? No examination of Climate Change is even remotely relevant in the absence of Nature’s role when the Climate swings from Cooling to Warning and back. Human influence Must be added to what is Natural Climate Change first, before declaring human influence as relevant, if at all.
The IPCC wants to stop Nature at 1.5 degrees . . . ??
Before the Natural swing since 1750 is over . . . Is that what they are aiming for ??
Sorry . . . maybe I’m missing something here . . .
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy!
“To begin, climate change is real . . . Climate Change is happening! Planet Earth is warming very dramatically.”
From 285K to 286K. How dramatic is that?
“Only the willfully ‘deaf, dumb, and blind’ would choose to deny this obvious fact about the current evolution of our climate on Planet Earth since 1750.”
You call?
“evolution of our climate”
Earth doesn’t have a climate. It has many climates.
“since 1750”
We have no data from before 1979.
You will find the fundamentals here . . . 9 periods of warming and 9 periods of cooling . . . Maximum ‘Average’ swings of 2 degrees throughout the Holocene. A 1 degree decline brought ‘The Little Ice Age’ . . . devastating cold for 5 centuries . . . This is what we are coming out of since 1750 . . . Thank God ! We can go up 1 degree yet and STILL be within Nature’s Norms !
https://www.academia.edu/49421861/CO2_Cradle_of_Life_on_Planet_Earth
To me, Human contribution to Climate Change is negligible. Pollution is what we need to tackle NOT CO2. In Every paper this is what I advocate. NATURE rules the climate of Planet Earth. The ‘Net Zero’ madness, to me, is akin to handing out umbrellas to protect against hurricanes . . . Useless . . .
Every measure recommended by environmentalist Propaganda, most especially ‘Carbon emissions trading’ is such a ‘Big Fat Lie’ it makes me sick. It is little more than a one trillion dollar a year scam brought to us by egregious profiteering by ‘Green’ industry groups who prosper most and the blind obsessives in the ‘Big Green Propaganda Machine’ . . . Almost criminal.
https://www.academia.edu/71023588/Batteries_Renewable_Energy_and_EV_s_The_Ultimate_in_Environmental_Destruction
We ALL need to gravitate away from propaganda and expose the truth about the false assertions of the environmental movement and ALL the false assertions they promote as fact . . . As does Paul . . . Every Day !
My thoughts . . .
..350 BC was the Iron Age – not the Bronze Age epoch – and not exceptionally cold
Good catch . . . My bad . . .I will make this correction . . . Thanks !
The Iron Age Cold Epoch (also referred to as Iron Age climate pessimum or Iron Age neoglaciation) was a period of unusually cold climate in the North Atlantic region, lasting from about 900 BC to about 300 BC, with an especially cold wave in 450 BC during the expansion of ancient Greece.
There is absolutely no questioning that the earth’s climate has warmed (improved ?) steadily over the last century, “Frost Fairs” no longer being fashionable on the Thames. The challenge comes from defining the cause. We can throw everything at “Humanity” or we can look more seriously at the data. Clearly, the idea that the climate should always be benign, stable, fixed belongs in the realms of fantasy; so we have to question the motives of those promoting the idea.
To take a more realistic approach, I find the best source of data is the, now much missed, Ap index records which, if combined with, and added to, sunspot data (the latter can be misleading if viewed alone) gives us a good measure of what is happening in the harsh world of reality. Ap records available here … ‘Ap’ INDEX HISTORICAL ANALYSIS. – How the Atmosphere Works (wordpress.com)
Perhaps the most interesting question is what is “Ole’ Sol” up to now? Following the steep (23%) dive in solar activity between 2003/09 we have to wonder will it recover or carry on at a lower level.
We can see the overall climatic shift here Historical Charts – How the Atmosphere Works (wordpress.com) going back to 1870 and also see the reversal since around the millennium. Very much wait and see. Interesting times !
Whilst as a Londoner I’d love to see a Frost Fair on the Thames, the idea that winters that cold and long were “better” is absurd.
Those winters were NOT better . . . but they were an act of NATURE absent the hand of human intervention. As were all the 17 previous warming and cooling periods throughout The Holocene. As it is today . . . Nature rules the climate of planet earth . . . Humans are little more than a zit on the elephant’s ass. Aggravating, yes, but hardly going to alter the elephant’s plans for the day.
Do yourself a big favor by never calling CO2 a pollutant again — CO2 is the staff of almost all life on our planet
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and adding more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere should impede Earth’s ability to cool itself. That effect will mainly be seen with higher night time temperatures (TMIN) It is impossible to know what percentage of the warming since the very cold 1690s during the Maunder Minimum was natural. A good guess would be at least half, but 100% is possible too. 100% would mean the huge increase of atmospheric CO2 since 1850 (2from 80ppm to 417ppm today) — an almost 50% increase — had no warming effect at all. So a 100% natural warming claim would be very hard to believe, and it would be anti-science to arbitrarily declare all warming since the 1690s (at least +2 degrees C. globally — -+3 degrees C. in Central England) was 100% natural.
You have quoted some climate reconstruction estimates from a source you provided. You fail to understand such reconstructions are local and have large margins of error. Also, when you combine lots of local climate reconstructions to get a better view of the entire planet, the average tends to have even smaller variations than any individual reconstruction. The global average variations are so small they are very likely to be smaller than the margin of error in the study — at least +/- 1 degree C., and I would suggest assuming +/- 2 degrees C. as a margin of error. There are no reasonably accurate global average temperature statistics before the use of NASA satellites by UAH in 1979.
The global warming since the use of fossil fuels in the 1800s could be 100% natural … BUT the rate of warming since 1979 (UAH data) of +0.14 degrees C. per decade is faster than one would expect from 100% natural causes.
The main problem with climate science is a lot of questions, that need answers, only get wild guesses, speculation and scary predictions
OK . . . so how did we get 17 periods of warming and cooling in the Holocene absent the Human contribution of CO2. 5 of those warming periods warmer than today. 2 just since Anthony and Cleopatra were romping in Egypt . . . ?
https://www.academia.edu/49421861/CO2_Cradle_of_Life_on_Planet_Earth
I thought maybe I should take a look at part 1. It is 3949 pages!!! How many pages is part 2? I guess they get paid by the page. Surely just a few graphs of temperature, actual ice melt, forest fire area, etc would show that nothing untoward is happening, such as Steven Koonings book “Unsettled”
The length stops there being any considered responses to their nonsense before the media has moved on to something more trivial.
This is worth a look. It’s the first time I’ve seen CAP-X taking this stance.
https://capx.co/bamboozled-by-woozles-the-west-needs-to-wise-up-to-how-the-world-really-works/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=28%2F02%2F22+
Outstanding linked article! Sarcastically funny and accurate.
What could be better than pointing out the absurdity of Western thinking with Winnie the Pooh.
In the UK we benefit greatly from late 20th century warming: fewer and less severe cold winters. This clearly has nothing to do DIRECTLY with greenhouse gasses or with a warmer Atlantic Ocean. It is associated with a shift in winter weather patterns, more mild and wet weather, less of the cold and dry (and foggy) weather that comes from blocking of weather fronts. This can be seen in winter rainfall totals, so when alarmists shriek about “new-normal” flooding, the response should be: its just a net-beneficial change in weather patterns.
‘Over 40% of the world’s population are “highly vulnerable” to climate, the sombre study finds.’
I don’t even know what this means. Everyone lives in a climate. 100%. And all are affected by weather; none are affected by climate.
I have acquaintances who firmly believe in in AGW, doctors seem to the most likely to be of that persuasion, possibly because in medicine the ‘appeal to authority’ argument is entirely convincing.
These people are not stupid, they are not gullible, but, and it’s a big but, they have accepted the view that if you make a model, the predictions that come from the model are a form of science. And they do talk about model outputs as ‘data’. Going back to doctors, even if you discuss the implications of that methodology being used in medical research, and the whole meaningless game of constructing ‘data’ that doesn’t exist, they are not swayed.
Ask the doctors if models in medicine are validated against real life data. I’ll bet they are. Unlike these climate models.
They are not. Medicine is plagued with poor science and fradulent science. To give a simple example, after 30 years of research and billions of dollars, pharma companies kept hitting a brick wall with cancer drugs – they showed promise in labs but were useless in real life. It turned out that 30-50% (possibly more) of labs were working on the wrong cancer lines. Many had been infected by am immortal cervical cancer line called HeLa (itself a scandal). So drugs developed to treat breat cancer had been using cervical cancer lines. So they didn’t work. Many common medical treatments have never been tested e.g. keyhole knee surgery. When it was, placebo incisions performed at least as well.
Finally it’s been shown multiple times (and known since I was a med student in the 1980s) that a majority of doctors cannot calculate the chances of a positive test being a true positive if provided with the relevant data e.g. told a test has a false positive rate of say 5% most will say 5% when it’s actually 98%.
Phoenix44: Medical stats work has always been a problem, as you say, but the reason that appeal to authority works so well with doctors is because that is what they are required to accept in their professional lives, and rightly so speaking as a patient. It also works well with civil engineers – if they go ‘off piste’ with a design and it falls down, well erm… OTOH it cuts no ice at all with low voltage electrical engineers because there is no great downside risk to innovation.
Harry Davidson: you miss my point. medicine is nowhere near as proven as you think. Many treatments have never actually been put through proper testing, many widely prescribed drugs are useless as negative results are not reported and many “causes” of disease are probably not actually causes at all. James Le Fanu’s book The Rise & Fall of Modern Medicine sets out a good case & Richard Harris’ book Rigor Mortis lays bare the research failures. If engineers worked using the sort of “knowledge” doctors use, half or more of our bridges would fall down.
Comparing civil engineering and medicine illustrates the difference between the two basic divisions of ‘science.’ On the one hand, we have a science of ‘the things we make,’ which is essentially a succession of definable ‘closed’ problems, amenable to being solved with sufficient effort and ultimately to being proved in practical products which a layman can see ‘working’ – like a road. ‘Blinding with science’ is never an option for an engineer dealing with his client That is why they prefer NOT to work from authority. I have two sons who are senior engineers and they and their subordinates work from first principles and rarely use ‘former solutions.’
On the other hand, there is the science of ‘the things which come upon us,
as it were,’ where we have less control of the problems than we would like. They are frequently ‘open’ subjects, involving irreducibly complex situations – like the trillions of cells and quadrillions of molecules of the human body.* ‘Fools rush in where angels fear to tread’ should be the watchword of doctors but it is rare. They can and do get away with the BS of, ‘This is too difficult for you to understand,’ precisely because it is too difficult for THEM to understand.
I have doctors in my extended family and it is completely impossible to talk to them about anything. They simply gaze through anybody who questions the slightest of their unshakeable beliefs. It was noticeable at University that people ‘doing medicine’ early withdrew into their own clique – almost a cult – and never emerged.
*And the quadrillions of trillions of molecules in the climate ‘system.’
Or perhaps I should say against unmanipulated real life data.
Appeal to Authority and the Bandwagon Fallacy [ Appeal to Consensus ] with respect to Medical Associations – and certain medical professions’- have severely distorted their understanding of climate change , the mass hysteria myth that is the ‘climate emergency ” and damaged their credibility ….The DSM used by psychiatrists and psychologists actually incorporates cultural relativism and the Argumentum ad Populum fallacy [ ” what almost everyone else believes ” ] in the diagnostic definition of ” Delusional Disorder ” No genuine empirically sound branch of medicine would countenance this. [ Then again psychiatry deleted ‘ego dystonic homosexuality ‘ after a referendum too ] The psychiatrist who chaired a DSM update ranted on public television that he feared President Donald Trump would be responsible for more deaths than Mao Hitler and Stalin .This was in reference to Trumps climate policies which is just insane [ US carbon emissions decreased under the Trump presidency ] .It is not surprising psychologists and psychiatrists who tend to lean green left politically and have a long sordid history of fad captivation and iatrogenic abuse , are over represented in Green politics and the utterly delusional Extinction Rebellion millenarian cult …….Two retired Australian Greens Party leaders are qualified , experienced doctors and it must be said some of their public statements and beliefs in their time in parliamentary politics are pseudoscientific nonsense
Well Said . . . Mr. Hamish well said !
i cannot wait for COP30…SITTING in my wheel chair, on 90 mile beach Northland, New Zealand, watching the trains go by!! I will be 92? or is 93?? regards from Trevor.
COP has been changed to CLAP
Climate
Liars
Annual
Party
Their annual report will be titled:
THE CLAPTRAP REPORT.
This is serious.
I am not joking.
i HAVE JUST REMEMBERED PAUL…I gave my overcoat when we came to NZ in 1967…It could still around in the OP Shop?? from Trevor.
Re the report claiming people suffering from lack of water, I can assure readers that this doesn’t apply to eastern Australia. Floods, floods everywhere and not a rethink anywhere.
“It’s Climate Change”.
Unprecedented is the word used. The Brisbane floods will be as bad as those in 2011, and rainfall across the east coast will be at a record high (if you avoid 1950, 1955, 1976 and 2011).
Should have included link to an interesting graph.
https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/brisbane-flooding-again?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=brisbane-flooding-again
Excellent document . . . Thanks for the enlightenment . . . Scandalous !
I’m confused Graeme – I thought the Warmists were telling us only a couple of years ago that Australia was in perma drought.
No wonder CAGW theory is equally beloved by charlatans and dimwits – no matter what happens the weather or climate you can still pretend you’re right.
Yup . . . Apply ‘Your Truths’ to what ever data that comes your way and you can prove anything to support your truths . . . You just gotta change vantage point . . . Voila . . . it proves your truths were right all along . . . ?? Don’t you just Love Environmentalism . . . even locusts can be caused by Man Made Climate Change . . . Such an easy game . . . How Ironic . . .
There are some rather alarming comments about the Wivenhoe dam on the Tuesday Open Thread on Jo Nova’s site. Apparently revised regulations after the last major flooding incident (when dam releases contributed to the devastation) have exacerbated the situation.
Graeme No3; as you live in the area, is the alarm justified?
With the usual “window of opportunity” nonsense. That window that somehow miraculously stays open for 40 years and counting.
In other words panic the plebs with scary predictions with zero scientific basis and then offer the “solution” of an unholy combination of eco extremism and Marxism.
“…panic the plebs…”
“The ignorant borrow their fears.” So wroteTacitus, in his ‘Histories.’
Meanwhile, where have all the big winds gone?
” The fact that this ridiculous report has to mention ” women children and indigenous people ” proves that this is not a serious analysis but one with a political agenda ”
Exactly Paul – ‘ intersectional climate alarmism “
So every time they look they discover they were wrong. Yet we are supposed to believe they know what they are doing?
They don’t seem to understand that wrong is wrong.
The first casualty of War is the truth.
Look at ‘climate change caused migration’.
People don’t migrate from hot locations because it’s hot. If they did Dubai wouldn’t be one of the wonders of the world and a rich man’s playground.
They migrate from poor places – whether hot, cold or anything in between, that deliver low quality of life, poor health conditions and little job prospects, and they go to wealthier, safer, nicer places that offer improved life chances.
Thus the entire ‘report’ is (as everyone above has said) a political document.
And lots of people migrate from colder to warmer – Florida and Arizona are sought-after destinations for norther Americans and Canadians, as is southern Spain for Brits. Places like the Cote d’Azure, Caribbean, Bahamas, have a lot more holiday homes than Alberta!
Drivel.
Propaganda.
I think the two so commonly go together, as here.
Populations are actually being put at risk by poor governance, corruption, war, lack of economic development and population growth coupled to unsustainable agricultural practices. These factors make much of the world less able to mitigate the small effects of a minor increase in global temperature. There, and I didn’t need a UN conference to work it out either.
If you try to comment at any of the BBC News you are blocked and removed.
It’s getting worse.
Is that true?
Or did you read it on the BBC website?
Worse than we thought is so 2021,
Worse than worse than we thuught is 2022,
Three consecutive worse thans for 2023.
Just check this for fun . . . Climate change and Undersea Volcanoes . . . ??
https://www.academia.edu/49442870/The_Axial_Seamount_Nature_s_Response_To_500_Years_of_Cooling