Biased Bob: Poundland Propagandist Peddles Permanently Pessimistic Predictions

Posted: January 19, 2015 by tallbloke in alarmism
Tags:

nostradamus-lotteryJ-415x320“very strong probability of global average temperature rising by much more than 2°C above its preindustrial level by the end of this century.”

“unless the upward trend in annual emissions is reversed, the world will be all but condemned to global warming of more than 2°C, creating a prehistoric climate not seen since the Pliocene epoch 3 million years ago, when the polar icecaps were much smaller and global sea level was about 20 metres higher”

“Basic physics suggest that global warming should affect the occurrence of extreme weather.”

“Global sea level is also rising by more than 3mm per year, which means surges that are generated by storms over large bodies of water are also becoming higher.”

“In the UK, the main ways in which climate change may already be affecting extreme weather are through the occurrence of very wet periods, leading to river and flash floods, and sea level rise, increasing the risk of coastal flooding.”

“If global warming of more than 2°C is not avoided through reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, impacts from extreme weather could overwhelm the capacity of some countries to cope, leading to wider impacts, from large-scale migration of populations to an increased risk of conflict.”

Bob Ward at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at LSE in collaboration with the Guardian

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    ‘in collaboration with the Guardian’

    Enough said😉

  2. Stephen Richards says:

    It’s the ole coulda, woulda, shoulda game again.

  3. A C Osborn says:

    I would love to know how much money he has made from spouting this rubbish.

  4. catweazle666 says:

    “Basic physics suggest that global warming should affect the occurrence of extreme weather.”

    Ooh, Bob Ward is telling porkies, is he?

    Actually, as any fule kno, basic physics suggests exactly the opposite, as global warming implies that there will be decreased temperature gradient between the Equator and the poles.

    What with Gavin and Co. peddling already discredited “hottest year evah” BS, the alarmists must be getting desperate.

    Time they read Aesops’ Fables…

  5. tom0mason says:

    “unless the upward trend in annual emissions is reversed, the world will be all but condemned to global warming of more than 2°C…”

    Oh please, please!
    Another 2°C of warming please I pray….🙂

  6. manicbeancounter says:

    Biased Bob says

    “Basic physics suggest that global warming should affect the occurrence of extreme weather.”

    Wikipedia on Climatology says

    “Climate research is made difficult by the large scale, long time periods, and complex processes which govern climate. Climate is governed by physical laws which can be expressed as differential equations. These equations are coupled and nonlinear, so that approximate solutions are obtained by using numerical methods to create global climate models. Climate is sometimes modeled as a stochastic process but this is generally accepted as an approximation to processes that are otherwise too complicated to analyze.”

    That is, the climate system is horrendously complex, that basic physics cannot begin to describe.

  7. manicbeancounter says:

    In September 2013, I made a list of thirteen fundamentals that climate science ignores.
    These short quotes help illustrate six of these.

    1. Positive and Normative distinction – e.g. “all but all but condemned to global warming of more than 2°C“.
    2. Boundary conditions for the subject – climatology is not “basic physics“.
    4. Trivial v. Non-trivial – 3mm of sea level rise will have a tiny impact on storm surges even over decades.
    5. Quality (of evidence) – e.g. speculation that the climate of 3 million years ago was worse than today.
    6. False Positives and False Negatives – the attribution of extreme weather events to human-caused climate change.

    But, the job spec of Bob Ward is contained in
    10. Values of the Legal Process in Reverse
    He promotes hearsay evidence (e.g. what scientists “believe”) over the good evidence from precise predictions coming true. Further, in the judicial process, creating prejudice in the eyes of the jury against the defendants, or seeking to deny the accused a defence, is forcefully dealt with. Creating prejudice and denying a voice to those who question the climate change dogmas is the main thrust of Bob’s work.

  8. gbaikie says:

    Hasn’t global temperature already risen about 2 C since the Little Ice Age, er, preindustrial
    period?