Tag Archives: Floods

Global Warming: Heads they win, tails you lose.

By Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB), January 30, 2014

weasel word 02_flat

Let’s start this article by examining the deceptive use of words and phrases and later i will explain how i believe such deceptions are used in the global warming debate.

A few examples of what i mean.

save02_200pxWhat exactly is being promised by a sign in a store window that says, “Save up to 50% on everything in the store?”

Does it mean:

  1. The discount is 50%
  2. The discount is somewhere between 0% and 50%
  3. The discount applies to everything in the store
  4. The discount only applies to some things in the store
  5. Nothing in the store is discounted
  6. All of the above.

Of course the correct answer is “F” – all of the above.

This is a classic case of advertisers intentionaly using deceptive wording to create a false impression. In this case, the meaning of the words “… up to . . .” can mean anything from 0% to 50%, which renders the rest of the statement meaningless. So even if NOTHING in the store is discounted, this sign is technically true.

Though this kind of deceptive wording might be obvious to some, you might be surprised to learn how many people reading such a sign will interpret it to mean everything in the store is heavily discounted. Deception sells.

Another example . . .


nutriSystem_cropped_250px
Look at the NutriSystem ad to the right. NutriSystem ran print ads like this along with TV commercials and the promise-sounding sales pitch, “… lose all the weight you can at Nutri/System for only $199. Don’t wait, call now.”

Wait a second, back up the truck. Did you catch the deception in this pitch?

For only $199 you will lose all the weight you can? I’m sure you see the problem with this wording. So did the Federal Trade Commission (PDF).

If you don’t lose any weight, then this would be all the weight you can lose. See? NutriSystem didn’t lie – you DID lose all the weight you can – now pay $199!!

One more quick example and i’ll move on to global warming . . .


loan_250pxThis used car salesman on the right. Is he guaranteeing you a loan or is he promising to accept your loan application (so he can toss it into the round file)? There’s a big difference.

How about car dealerships that promise “guaranteed credit” or “cash for all trade-ins!”

Do these sales pitches sound like you will get all the credit you need to buy your dream car and maximum dollars for your used car trade-in? Or do they really mean you’ll get $5 of credit at 25% interest and a whopping $10 for your used car trade-in?

Words mean things. How words are used, misused or not used at all (conspicuous by their absence), also has meaning and can give us a glimpse into the motives behind the words.


I was going through some global warming articles about a week ago and i found this statistic in an article from LiveScience.com:

63pct

My gut finds this statistic hard to believe. It just seems too high compared to other polls i’ve seen in the last few years on the same subject. Two years ago it was reported to be about 50%, now it’s reported at 63%? We haven’t seen any warming in over 15 years and the belief in global warming has climbed? Time to investigate.

So i found the survey upon which this statistic is based (Download the PDF) and i found something interesting on page 34 – the definition of global warming as it was defined for the respondents of this latest survey (November 2013):

GW definition

For the purpose of responding to this survey, there are 3 criteria to consider to determine if you are a global warming believer:

  1. If temperatures have increased over the last 150 years,
  2. future temperatures may increase, and
  3. the worlds climate may change as a result.

Recall the “50% off” sign, the NutriSystem ad and the used car salesman ad at the top of this article. Now look at the wording in the above three criteria. There is one word that renders two of the three criteria completely meaningless.

Do you see it?

The weasel word is “may” in the second and third criteria.

“May” is synonymous with “optional” – something may, OR may NOT, occur.

Thus the three criteria above and these three criteria below are exactly the same from a logic standpoint:

  1. If temperatures have increased over the last 150 years,
  2. future temperatures may OR may NOT increase, and
  3. the worlds climate may OR may NOT change.

With the second and third criterias rendered meaningless, the question of whether global warming is real comes down to one, single question:

  • Have temperatures increased over the last 150 years?

As reported in my last global warming article, this is the temperature record for the last 150 years:

The Record_600px

Like asking if the earth is round, answering the question “Have temperatures increased in the last 150 years?” comes down to a simple, objective, recitation of fact:

  • Yes, the squiggly line is higher on the right side of the graph than it is on the left side of the graph.

Because neither the definition used to assess the answer to the question nor the question itself asks the respondent to consider anything beyond the vertical movement of the squiggly line, the answer to the question cannot be construed as agreeing with the more expansive definition of global warming and the theoretical causes:

GlobalWarmingDefinition

KEEP READING – – –

How did the IPCC’s alarmism take everyone in for so long?

Christopher BookerBy via Telegraph

When future generations come to look back on the alarm over global warming that seized the world towards the end of the 20th century, much will puzzle them as to how such a scare could have arisen. global-warming-Gore 02_225pxThey will wonder why there was such a panic over a 0.4 per cent rise in global temperatures between 1975 and 1998, when similar rises between 1860 and 1880 and 1910 and 1940 had given no cause for concern. They will see these modest rises as just part of a general warming that began at the start of the 19th century, as the world emerged from the Little Ice Age, when the Earth had grown cooler for 400 years.

They will be struck by the extent to which this scare relied on the projections of computer models, which then proved to be hopelessly wrong when, in the years after 1998, their predicted rise in temperature came virtually to a halt.

Scores of models, millions of data-points, more CO2
emitted than ever before, and the models crash and burn.

Graph: John Christy. Data: KMNI.
Click image for larger view.
More | More | More

But in particular they will be amazed by the almost religious reverence accorded to that strange body, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which by then will be recognised as having never really been a scientific body at all, but a political pressure group. It had been set up in the 1980s by a small band of politically persuasive scientists who had become fanatically committed to the belief that, because carbon dioxide levels were rising, global temperatures must inevitably follow; an assumption that the evidence would increasingly show was mistaken.

Cover PagesFive times between 1990 and 2014 the IPCC published three massive volumes of technical reports – another emerged last week – and each time we saw the same pattern. Each was supposedly based on thousands of scientific studies, many funded to find evidence to support the received view that man-made climate change was threatening the world with disaster – hurricanes, floods, droughts, melting ice, rising sea levels and the rest. But each time what caught the headlines was a brief “Summary for Policymakers”, carefully crafted by governments and a few committed scientists to hype up the scare by going much further than was justified by the thousands of pages in the technical reports themselves.

Each time it would emerge just how shamelessly these Summaries had distorted the actual evidence, picking out the scary bits, which themselves often turned out not to have been based on proper science at all. The most glaring example was the  .  .  .

MORE – – –

Debunking every IPCC climate prophesy of war, pestilence, famine, drought, impacts in one line

By Joanne Nova via JoNova

We could spend hours analyzing the new IPCC report about the impacts of climate change. Or we could just point out:

  1. Everything in the Working Group II report depends entirely on Working Group I. (see footnote 1 SPM, page 3)
  2. Working Group I depends entirely on climate models and 98% of them didn’t predict the pause.

The models are broken. They are based on flawed assumptions about water vapor.

Working Group I, remember, was supposed to tell us the scientific case for man-made global warming. If our emissions aren’t driving the climate towards a catastrophe, then we don’t need to analyze what happens during the catastrophe we probably won’t get. This applies equally to War, Pestilence, Famine, Drought, Floods, Storms, and Shrinking Fish (which, keep in mind, could have led to the ultimate disaster: shrinking fish and chips).

To cut a long story short, the 95% certainty of Working Group I boils down to climate models and 98% of them didn’t predict the pause in surface temperature trends (von Storch 2013) . Even under the most generous interpretation, models are proven failures,  100% right except for rain, drought, storms, humidity and everything else (Taylor 2012). They get cloud feedbacks wrong by a factor 19 times larger than the entire effect of increased CO2 (Miller 2012). They don’t predict the climate on a local, regional, or continental scale (Anagnostopoulos 2010 and Koutsoyiannis 2008). They don’t work on the tropical troposphere (Christy 2010,  Po-Chedley 2012, Fu 2011, Paltridge 2009). The fingerprints they predicted are 100% missing.

Scores of models, millions of data-points, more CO2 emitted than ever before,
and the models crash and burn. | Graph: John Christy. Data: KMNI.
(click image for larger view)
Also see: Even with the best models, warmest decades, most CO2: Models are proven failures

Even the IPCC admits in the fine print that the models don’t work.

MORE – – –

%d bloggers like this: