Is The Cure Worse Than The Disease–Andrew Bolt
July 27, 2023
By Paul Homewood
Andrew Bolt on the cancellation of John Clauser:
If the science is so settled, and there was abundant, incontrovertible evidence of a climate crisis, then what are the authorities afraid of?
It should be easy to demolish the views of sceptics like Clauser.
23 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
This John Clauser?
Nobel Laureate in Physics https://dailysceptic.org/2023/07/23/cancellations-start-for-john-clauser-after-nobel-physics-laureate-speaks-out-about-corruption-of-climate-science/
Politicians, environmentalists and the greenblob prefer to listen to 3rd rate climate “scientists” (such as at the Met Office and at several UK universities) and even non-scientists, rather than top physicists (even Nobel winners Clauser and Giaever), the only scientists who understand how the climate works.
I don’t think anybody understands how ‘the climate works’, though some might understand bits of the process.
Some have specialised in understanding how the Sun’s behaves (CMEs, flares, HEPs, Coronal Holes, the sunspot cycle, the solar wind and cosmic rays) and how that affects the Earth’s climate.
Others have some understanding of the resulting transient motions, like the NAO, produced by those forces and Physical Geography. They call themselves Climate Scientists! 🙂
However, it only takes A’ levels in Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry, with a bit of Geology, to understand, pretty well, why there is no Climate Emergency, and why so many announcements on the subject are not credible. It’s not only because of their unrealistic confidence of foretelling the future, it’s because most are just wrong! Or, to requote, badly, it’s not even wrong. When basic laws of Physics and Chemistry are broken, it’s obvious to see. When discussion is stopped, that’s not Science. And when computer models are treated as Reality, we can refer back to that medical intervention, driven by a computer model!
And the supposed treatment, for example, the UK’s NET Zero policies, ignores the Engineering principal of having a competent person in overall charge! Even a person with Business experience should know that, but we are talking about the New, Improved, Conservative Party, aren’t we, and, of course, in 2008, Ed Milliband, who has an A level in Physics! Just see whose infested the Energy and Industry Ministries, over the years: mostly History and PPE graduates.
But it’s intensional. That’s why competent people don’t go near it. And competent people aren’t allowed on the BBC: it needs to be dismantled.
The nut of why ‘climate’ can’t be modeled:
“I don’t think anybody understands how ‘the climate works’, though some might understand bits of the process.”
You can’t model what you don’t understand. Models produced without full understanding are junk. Climate models are junk.
So they run them on a bigger computer.
“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
So stated the IPCC’s Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Third Assessment Report (TAR), Chapter 14 (final para., 14.2.2.2), p774.
In the book The Deniers, the final chapter looked at the 12 people who were the main drivers of the IPCC reports and noted that none of them had made any lasting contribution to science, assuming you ignore the damage done to the planet and people by their IPCC reports. Whereas many of those who are considered to be ‘deniers’ had as well as often being pre-eminent in their fields.
The IPCC definition of Climate Change mentions “that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer…..” to date there is zero evidence of such persistent change anywhere in the world.
IPPC CLIMATE CHANGE – DEFINITION
“Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings such as modulations of the solar cycles, volcanic eruptions, and persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.
Note: that the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” TheUNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes.”
eastdevonoldie: You will find that elsewhere the IPCC sets similar criteria as the UNFCC for how it considers climate change. The IPCC’s terms of reference, as far as the origins of climate change are concerned, are purely confirmatory – report on evidence that is consistent with that paradigm (that it’s all down to man).
The conventional way of doing science – exploring alternatives and weighing evidence both pro and contrary – falls outside that remit. It’s why we refer to it as “the science” prefixed with a definite article to emphasise its peculiarity and distinguish it from normal science absent a definite article.
A practical outcome of this is that weird circumlocution of having “low confidence” that such and such is happening – for example that floods are on the increase. Under normal science one would simply report that the evidence is that floods aren’t increasing. But putting it that way would conflict with IPCC remit which “knows” the climate is changing so obviously floods have to be changing too; it’s just that the data have yet to show it, and that’s how they have to report it.
Can’t cure a non-existent disease.
Correct but you can then claim you have the cure and when the problem dosen’t eventuate claim you cured it. The Australian Great Barrier Reef is the perfect example of this.
True, but you can make a tremendous amount of money trying to.
notify comments
A fool and his money are soon parted. The fool is the taxpayer and the grift is climate change. Climate Change is but another part of the CCPs Unrestricted Warfare campaign designed to hollow out the economies of The West, led by their apparatchiks in the IPCC, the WEF and the UN. Not only are we “being conned and lied to,” our freedoms are being taken away in the process. If these Green Energy plans were actually viable they would be funded and built by private industry. The vast majority of these boondoggles are taxpayer funded: That should tell you all you need to know.
“The fool is the taxpayer and the grift is climate change. ” I beg to differ; the taxpayer has very limited scope – yes, discretionary spending that has some VAT/TVA/sales tax appendage can be curtailed but that achieves another part of the bigger scam “you will own nothing and be happy” and the CBDC Social Credit blx. Non discretionary spending they can do very little about. Even if you assess a manifesto as being detailed about tax policy ahead of an election who the hell would trust “The Authors” to deliver – western/developed economies have been blighted by corrupt lying apparatchiks of Schwabian diktat for decades. This narrative has been trotted out below the line for a long time and is far more extensive than most folk have sussed – the UK Banking sector scandal is one example of an economic staple commodity that has been taken over by the Woke Blob – and it is the tip of the iceberg imho but acknowledge it is off topic so won’t say more ( but I could do in spades…).
Thank you for your thoughtful response. In an attempt to say something clever and pithy, perhaps I was unclear. I am writing from the perspective of an American. We have no VAT as yet. We are at the mercy of corrupt politicians, policy gurus, and assorted self-described experts. Utility rate payers have no discretion in how their money is spent by the utility, nor can we withhold our income tax payments if we disagree with their disposition. I agree with the statements made in your response. I expressed similar concerns from a different perspective, and with too much flippancy.
But the USA does have sales tax which is basically what VAT is for the end purchaser.
It gets complicated in Europe (not only the UK) because there are fixed taxes with minimum amounts for some products. These result in high prices, for example, petrol and diesel, even if the oil companies charge a zero amount for their product. VAT even gets levied on those fixed taxes i.e. a tax on a tax.
What too many people fail to look at is the TAX element of the actual price at point of sale. I think Americans would be shocked if they did the comparison of that calculation for the prices at point of sale between the USA and Europe.
>>We have no VAT as yet.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Yes, this is all complicated and dependent of one’s location. Perhaps Voltaire was on to something when he said, “All taxation is theft.”
Thank you – did not detect any flippancy but I absolutely agree with the thrust – it was ever thus that the taxpayer always pays, the lower income tax paying group suffers a lot more and the non tax paying income group gets monumentally stuffed every time; which highlights the blatant hypocrisy of the left who spout that they represent those they “crucify” most. Keep using your licence from “M”….
Who/what is M….”Highlighting the blatant hypocrisy of the Left” Where have I heard that before? Been watching Liberal Hivemind? He has some great memes and story lines. Later, William.
Climate scientists are akin to economists…. get 2 together and you will get 3 different opinions.
BREAKING: Sweden Nixes Vattenfall’s Offshore Wind Project
The government of Sweden has rejected Vattenfall’s application to build an offshore wind farm at Stora Middelgrund off Sweden’s west coast, citing ”negative effects on the environment” and ”national interests” as the reasons for the decision
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2023/07/27/breaking-sweden-nixes-vattenfalls-offshore-wind-project/
It sounds to me like Chp 6 Sec 2 must refer to blocking some MEP’s view of the ocean. I am not a climate scientist, but I see guys playing one on the telly all the time so it cannot be all that difficult. Was it McCluan in “The Medium is the Message” and the message is, “You will own nothing, and be happy we allow you breathe.”