Saturday, April 23, 2011

Climate Science Predictions Never Come True - Now Why Would That Be?

Patrick Michaels has some more reflections on the failure of the UN's prediction of 50 million climate refugees by 2010 in an article in Forbes entitled: "Voodoo Economics? How About Voodoo Climate Science?"

When will our greener friends at the UN learn that it’s just not a good idea to make definite predictions about certain disasters?

This time they have been called out on their 2005 prediction that by now there would be 50 million “climate refugees”—people choosing to emigrate because of bad weather. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) even came up with a global map showing precisely where people would migrate from.

Pretty much every forecast about climate change or its effects should be viewed as a hypothesis rather than a fact. After all, as Firesign Theater once noted, “the future’s not here yet”. But the UN named a specific year (2010) which allows for an actual test of their prediction.

Census takers around the world have inadvertently adjudicated the UN’s forecast. It was dead wrong. Pretty much every recent census reveals that populations are growing rapidly precisely where everyone was supposed to be migrating from. (And where is the story that global warming causes babies?).

Folks were supposed to be streaming away from low-lying tropical islands because of worse and more frequent hurricanes. The population of the Bahamas, which catches about as many tropical cyclones as any place on earth, is up 14% since 2000. The Solomons, up 20%. Sychelles: 9%.

Michaels discusses the fact that, while predictions may often by off in science, it is somewhat suspicious that all the mistakes seem to be in one direction. After discussing six failed predictions from the IPCC report, he says:

Is all of this due to chance?

Scientists, as humans, make judgemental errors. But what is odd about the UN is that its gaffes are all in one direction. All are exaggeration of the effects of climate change. In each case, the IPCC was relying upon scientific literature that was not peer-reviewed in the traditional sense. No one has found analogous errors in the other direction (which would be an underestimation of climate change based upon the “grey” literature), and you can bet that people have been looking very hard in an effort to exonerate the UN.

In an unbiased world there should be an equal chance of either underestimating or overestimating the climate change and its effects, which allows us to test whether this string of errors is simply scientists behaving normally or being naughty.

What’s the chance of throwing a coin six times and getting all heads (or tails)? It’s .015. Most scientists consider the .050 level sufficient to warrant retention of a hypothesis, which in this case, is that the UN’s climate science is biased.

The IPCC is not about science, but about politics. Some people are getting rich out of the global warming scam and the socialist/world government activists are using it as a way to work toward the erosion of national sovereignty and giving the UN world taxation powers. Some of the momentum is due to neo-pagan earth worship. But whatever drives the agenda in any particular case, it all has very little to do with science.

1 comment:

onlyfacts61 said...

Are you serious? Who are you to have an opinion that opposes educated, degree'd , experienced climate scientists. Do you believe you are on the same level as these experts? What are you going to write about next? Are we going to get to read how chemist's aren't making auto paint they way you would....yours will last longer and never fade. Your opinion shows your ignorance and I feel sorry for the people that read your uneducated, silly stories!