My final word on AGW – for all the climate shills

shill/SHil/ (adapted original source google)

An accomplice of a gambler, swindler or UN Secretary who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.
Act or work as such a person:  “the UN Secretary in the crowd could shill for AGW muppets”.

In case you misunderstand me, I pay considerable care and attention to the environment in our day to day life as well as a professional. Yes, I know the CO2 is increasing. As an Engineer, it is exceedingly easy to evaluate efficiencies of performance and identify waste. This being my final installment on the emotional debate on climate science, it is disturbing (not just as an Engineer) to read the latest alarmist commentary from the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon (#BKM). Shills of the world have been united in their response by regurgitating #BKM verbatum without first vetting the gross misrepresentation for themselves! #BKM is outright polling muppets for emotional response using unsupported alarmist bullshit statements that are readily refuted by the IPCC’s own conclusions. Make reference to the 2012 IPCC SREX report (pdf link here).

To quote the original source article which first raised this garbage to my attention:
Open letter to UN Secretary-General: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125-plus scientists

As a trader and data analyst myself, anyone even slightly interested in trend analysis can recognize periodicity, volatility and outliers in data. Statisticians call these ‘confidence bands’ and use low,medium,high confidence by way of reference. Nothing I have seen lately indicates that current weather is outside a historically normal volatility band with the odd one or two outliers in over 20 historical charts. In most cases we a well within the volatility band of trends. For instance, refer to these two recent video’s containing summary charts by Joe D’Aleo on Hurricane Sandy and extreme weather on Watt’s up with that. Sandy was not an outlier, and was in fact well within historically normal patterns. Even reasonable persons would be astonished at the recent and blatant misrepresentation of the UN Secretary General.

— start quote —
On November 9 this year you told the General Assembly: “Extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal … Our challenge remains, clear and urgent: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to strengthen adaptation to … even larger climate shocks … and to reach a legally binding climate agreement by 2015 … This should be one of the main lessons of Hurricane Sandy.”
— end quote —

And the shill’s complaints can be heard echoing loudly around forums as if someone cuts off a left leg whenever strawman comments are posted by the agnostics /denialists /skeptics? Give us a fucking break! How many times does it have to be stated that actual historical data does not support this alarmist misrepresentation? Sandy was not an anomalous event by any stretch of the imagination. While it is no surprise that the UN pushes an agenda like any good puppet organization should, let’s consider what really are the blights on humanity that impede our intellectual evolution as apex predators. From the same article above –

The incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased. There is little evidence that dangerous weather-related events will occur more often in the future. The U.N.’s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says in its Special Report on Extreme Weather (2012) that there is “an absence of an attributable climate change signal” in trends in extreme weather losses to date. The funds currently dedicated to trying to stop extreme weather should therefore be diverted to strengthening our infrastructure so as to be able to withstand these inevitable, natural events, and to helping communities rebuild after natural catastrophes such as tropical storm Sandy.

Haven’t finished reading the IPCC rag yet, but note the title “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX)” should be read literally. It is full of useful content that more than dismisses #BKM’s careless rhetoric.

Some notable extracts … first to establish credibility …
— start quote —
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change, including the physical science of climate; impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability; and mitigation of climate change.

The report focuses on the relationship between climate change and extreme weather and climate events, the impacts of such events, and the strategies to manage the associated risks.

This Special Report, in particular, contributes to frame the challenge of dealing with extreme weather and climate events as an issue in decisionmaking under uncertainty, analyzing response in the context of risk management.
— end quote —

… Page 8 will draw a lot of responses, but don’t stop there. Section on pages 268 and 269 appear to be very significant. Increases in economic losses are not an indication of the increase in severity since inflation and population density can easily account for that IMO. If we choose to live in extreme weather or high exposure corridors, then who is the bigger fool? It’s like buying ocean front and then complaining about the tide.

— start quote —
… demonstrated that other normalized records of total economic and insured losses for the same series of hurricanes exhibit no significant trends in losses since 1900.

The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses (Pielke Jr. and Downton, 2000; Downton et al., 2005; Barredo, 2009; Hilker et al., 2009), although some studies did find recent increases in flood losses related in part to changes in intense rainfall events (Fengqing et al., 2005; Chang et al., 2009). For precipitation- related events (intense rainfall, hail, and flash floods), the picture is more diverse. Some studies suggest an increase in damages related to a changing incidence in extreme precipitation (Changnon, 2001, 2009), although no trends were found for normalized losses from flash floods and landslides in Switzerland (Hilker et al., 2009). Similarly, a study of normalized damages from bushfires in Australia also shows that increases are due to increasing exposure and wealth (Crompton et al., 2010).

Increasing exposure of people and economic assets has been the major cause of long-term increases in economic losses from weather- and climate-related disasters (high confidence).
— end quote —

I read the last ones as us putting ourselves in harms way by increasing our own exposure to natural events. Something more closely associated with Darwinism than evolution of intellect I am guessing. Deriving global policies to address personal choices of putting yourself in harms way doesn’t sound like any kind of genius that I need to be a part of.

— start quote —
The following day, in Al Gore’s “Dirty Weather” Webcast, you spoke of “more severe storms, harsher droughts, greater floods”, concluding: “Two weeks ago, Hurricane Sandy struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of dollars. The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our dependence on carbon emissions.”
— end quote —

Again, to quote directly from the IPCC 2012 SREX report which is worth reading from front to back covers (here read pages 8,9,268 and 269 if short on time.

— start quote —
There have been statistically significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events in some regions. It is likely that more of these regions have experienced increases than decreases, although there are strong regional and subregional variations in these trends. [3.3.2]

There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e., intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. It is likely that there has been a poleward shift in the main Northern and Southern Hemisphere extratropical storm tracks. There is low confidence in observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems. [3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5]
— end quote —

Enough said …. The above IPCC report is damning of the pro-warmist alarmist statements recently issued by the UN. Trends, volatility bands (confidence intervals) and the occasional outlier are sufficient to have sufficiently complete confidence under any reasonable examination that nothing is outside of historical normals since 1900 (my words and observations on the iPCC report). Go ahead, read it for yourself if you read nothing else.

Unless more bullshit is printed by the muppet media mandate, then this is the last time I’ll post on AGW and climategate. You are sick of hearing about it as much as I am. Yes, I know the CO2 is increasing, and it will continue to do so.

Gone long carbon yet? It is the trade of the millenium, by design.



About atradersrant

Self-employed private trader of equities, commodities and FX for income and investment; Follow me at your own risk! I provide analysis of major market & economic trends .. with too much commentary on fraud and corruption that is rife in the open market.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s