Cascading Fallacies In Climate Risk Assessment

Posted: August 11, 2020 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, government, modelling, predictions

Where are the limits of climate fantasy? New Zealand seems to be pushing them with this ‘assessment’.

PA Pundits - International

By David Wojick, Ph.D. ~

As a logician, I am always on the lookout for fallacies and there is no lack of them in climate change alarmist policies. New Zealand’s newly released climate risk assessment not only has multiple fallacies, they build on one another in a cascade.

This is not about New Zealand. The authors of the assessment make clear that theirs is a new approach which they hope will be used globally. So this is about the world, including America.

The massive report is titled “First national climate change risk assessment for New Zealand.” Under New Zealand’s climate law, these assessments are supposed to be done every five years and this is the first.

The scope is breathtaking. The idea is to identify all of the significant risks due to human caused climate change that will be present in 2050 and 2100. Moreover, these supposed risks are prioritized.

View original post 837 more words

  1. ivan says:

    Anything that uses unvalidated computer models is automatically suspect and should be thrown out, add to that the emotional group-think and all you have is a science fantasy dystopian story – NOT the sort of thing to base government policy on.

    The big problem is that many politicians and their staff love reading stories and will lap this stupid story up. Heaven help the NZ taxpayers if indeed there will be any of them left.

  2. JB says:

    And here I thought a logician was somebody who spewed logies for a living….

  3. oldbrew says:

    Ireland has also got itself into a pickle with five-year climate assessments, which it no doubt fondly imagines amount to something better than nonsense.

  4. Phoenix44 says:

    The biggest fallacy is that they model their theory then claim the model proves their theory. The modelers claim they are simply modelling “the physics” but in the important areas that generate CO2-driven climate change they obviously are not- they simply assume there are no natural processes that can account for the weather of the last 100 years. A model that did so would show no correlation with increasing CO2.

    The second fallacy is that they can model the future from the present. They cannot, because they cannot get the starting conditions right. A complex, non-linear, chaotic system is impossible to model anyway, but if you get starting conditions wrong, it will probably go wildly wrong very quickly. Hence the average of tens or even 100s of runs.

    The issues stare them in the face but to admit them is to admit its fantasy games on a computer, not science.

  5. hunterson7 says:

    Piling error filled models on each other and then to claim that the result is actually realistic is delusional.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s