Scottish Sceptic

In this article I disprove the whole of modern science (at least the version taught in academia). I disprove much of the belief system present in modern academia and I show that global warming is natural variation. But accepting what I say, really amounts to “common sense”. It’s not that science is wrong – it’s that when applied with “common sense” it is right – it’s just that recently academia has given up on common sense.
In academia, there is a strong belief in the theory of causality, that is to say if we have a stimulus A then it will cause an effect B such that

A→B.

This implies that if A is present, then B is present whereas if A is absent then B is absent.

However, the theory of causality (at least for the purposes of this argument) is that if we have an effect B, there must exist a cause A. Or to put it into simple terms: if we see a warming in the late 20th century, then there must be a “cause”.
The theory of non-causality is so simple that it is known to everyone intuitively and so academia doesn’t have to teach it, instead they have to try to get people to adopt the theory of causality. And in so doing, they constantly portray the theory of non-causality as “bad”, “not-thinking-properly”, etc. etc.
And it is best to use a few examples: Continue reading →

There are three simple stats that show life is unfair to us men:

1. Men die earlier
2. Far more men than women commit suicide
3. Far more men than women are in jail.

If we then used the feminist assertions that we must enforce equality, then we would need to:

1. Spend far more on men’s health than women’s so that men lived longer
2. We would need to make men’s lives more worthwhile living (and thus women’s less worthwhile)
3. We’d have to have far more draconian penalties for any women breaking the law.

So, why are these not seen as “fair” whereas the all pervasive “equality” for women is? The reason is that women demand “fairness” where it provides them benefits, and quietly ignore precisely the same arguments when it would overwhelmingly harm them. So, e.g. we hear demands for positive discrimination for women in the work place … but no demands for “positive discrimination” for women in prison places.

Discrimination against males is far subtler than that against females

However, what I want to discuss today, is a way in which society discriminates against males that no one seems to discuss. The argument is as follows:
In any society, we must have rules. As the number of prison places show, it is overwhelmingly men that break the rules and it is right that those that break the rules go to prison. However, let us suppose that a parliament dominated by women decide that they personally would prefer much stricter rules than most reasonable people in society. It therefore follows that because men break the rules more often … that it will be men who are overwhelmingly penalised by having rules much harsher than necessary.
Thus the “nanny state” or the “cotton wool state” overwhelmingly restricts men far more than it restricts women. As such it is extreme sexism, in that it is  men that suffer overwhelmingly  from an excessive state.
Similarly, it is widely known that men are the “less refined” sex in terms of social etiquette. Thus, when society or organisations within society create meaningless Politically Correct rules, it is men who find themselves overwhelmingly caught and repressed by those Politically Correct rules. As such, these extremist social prescriptions are overtly sexist, only mildly affecting women, but having a massive affect on men.
The difference of course, is that whilst women are highly effective and manipulating the rules of society to benefit their sex … men just grumble and die earlier.

The reason is that it was largely predictable (This year global cooling) so when Anthony writes: Met Office Data Confirms Record Drop Of Global Temperatures I’m thinking: “why are people getting excited … it was so predictable”…
The El Nino was predictable in the sense that we saw it growing large and so as they last a finite time, the timing and scale of the fall could be predicted (but see end).
What is far less predictable is the following La Nina. It may not happen at all, it may be fairly small, or it may be a whopper of a La Nina. If I had to bet, I would say that the cooling from the La Nina would be longer and/or deeper than normal. In part that is because I think cooling is more likely than warming at the moment. And indeed, if the La Nina lasts long enough, and we get underlying cooling, we may never really exist the La Nina,  but instead find ourself in another “Pause”, whereby overall cooling and Post La Nina warming are countering each other, but at a lower temperature than has been prevalent these last two decades.
Warning: Mother nature just abhors predictability as such anyone who tries to predict the climate will very soon be proved wrong. So, these predictions are not “what will happen”, but instead “what is marginally more likely to happen – and we could easily see both cooling and warming far greater in scale than the predictable effects”

Addendum

According to Enso predictions, we are “turning” the corner and about to start coming out of La Nina. If the predictions are right, this move back to normal should be apparent by February. There, if we see a deepening La Nina by February-March it is indicative of a deeper or longer La Nina than “usual”.

I read an email stating: “every question has an answer”. To which I responded:

“What then is the answer to this question?”

As I can’t think of a way to answer, one way out is to say: there is no answer” … which means that if I’m correct, I’ve given an answer, which means that answer is wrong. This proves there must be some kind of answer.
 

During the Brexit campaign, the campaign highlighted the cost of the EU (£350million) and suggested that rather than funding Eurocrats, we should focus on our own NHS.  Now we learn that not £318million but £318billion of our money is being wasted on climate policies whose effect (when rounded to the nearest 1/10 of a degree) is to stop global warming by 0.0C. That’s right! Even using the discredited models of the alarmists, the effect is so small that no one will notice.
And it will undoubtedly be far worse in Scotland where are banana republic politicians swallow global warming pseudo-science with a relish.
Highlights from the Daily Mail

• The radical shift to green, renewable energy will have cost £319bn by 2030
• The huge sum is three times the annual NHS budget for England
• The policy will be adding an average burden of £584 a year to every household by 2020 and £875 by 2030

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4021200/Hot-air-Bombshell-report-shows-green-levies-backed-government-cost-economy-319bn-2030.html
This climate scam is undoubtedly the most expensive non-war policy disaster the world has ever seen. As has been said many times, even on the alarmists own figures, the costs massively outweigh the benefits.
And next year, when Trump takes office, we will see the climate swamp drained, and there’s no doubt that what we find at the bottom will smell to high heaven of corruption, not just involving academics but also the “media” who overwhelmingly have taken the side of the corrupt against altruistic people like me. People who have worked for free for the good of humanity, only to be ignored or worse attacked by the media peddling lies from those with their snouts deep in the trough of public money.
Mike

As I’ve stopped watching the #BiasedBroadcastCoy and find ITV and Channel 4 to be regurgitating pretty much the same material, so I’ve been searching around for a more impartial source of news … one that doesn’t send me lurching for the off button within seconds of turning it on.
This week I found an interesting channel called “UKColumn” on Youtube which on the day I found it seemed to be really good – as the day I looked they had a lead article on climate:

However, since then I’ve tried watching them and I find myself falling asleep as they have a very slow delivery for a massive 40-50minuts, it’s entertaining for a bit but all I’m really doing is replacing biased BBC opinions for ones biased against them with a very slow delivery of only 4-5 “news” articles a day.
Also, it doesn’t in any way cover anything in Scotland.
So I was trying to work out what it would take to produce news for Scotland. My guess is that even a very quick summary would take several hours. But the first problem is identifying what is “news”. So, today’s exercise is to identify the items that may be considered news today:

1. UK Supreme court – the ongoing case.
2. Trump appointment of EPA – the implications for global warming alarmism
3. Scottish “Curriculum for excellence” failing – the way yet more political interference is destroying our education system in Scotland
4. Facial reconstruction of Robert the Bruce:
5. Death of Mark Griffin MSP – not that I know anything more than he died.
6. Child abusers in sport – coming up a lot
7. Late trains – Labour in Scotland have been running a campaign
8. £13.6 million to establish new Wellcome Research Centre

This is an interesting Video:

PLEASE ADD ANY CURRENT NEWS STORIES (not necessarily Scottish, British or even in English)

I hate bandwagoneering politicians who will jump on a cause just to serve their own careers. So, I respect someone who sincerely believes global warming is an issue, far far far more than someone who seeing the tide in turning in the US, suddenly starts speaking out against global warming.
However… looking at the news today, I see that there are now two types of articles:
The numpties: Guardian, Independent – who are rattling on about the impending danger the the accelerating global warming as they have throughout the pause.
The new “political consensus” which is to attack global warming. About half of which I recognise, and half of which seems to me to be “Johny come lately”. I won’t name names, as I can’t be certain which have always held their views and just now feel they can speak out, and which are just using the change in tide to try to ingratiate themselves with the new administration.
Obviously, I think bandwagoneers are pretty despicable people, but they are an important barometer of “what’s in” in politics – and clearly many former pro-alarmists are now in the process of changing their colours (at least for the next four years).

(How SkepticalScience views global warming – one way only)I don’t usually deign to ever use the GISS “temperature” graph because it’s fraudulent. However, when I saw a graph of temperature trend on WUWT
I immediately realised that whoever wrote the article failed to understand the nature of natural variation. They had produced a plot showing the trend on GISS giving a colour for the trend over different periods. And had plotted the colour by the mid date of the trend (X-Axis) and length of the trend (Y-axis) and produced this (right):
But because most of what we are seeing is natural variation, and a variation of 40years is as likely as 20 years is as likely as one over 10 years. The way they had put the graphic together meant that the colour scheme was overwhelmingly dominated by the long term noise (25+ years).
So I wondered what it would look like if I used a log scale. The following was produced simply by scaling the above graph – doubling the scale for every halving of period (I stopped increasing the scale of shorter periods when it appeared to have no detail).
Also, as I’m not just going to print fraudulent material on my blog, I’ve cooled the trends by about ~0.3 (which mainly impacts the perception of the longer term trends)

Discussion

The average length when the scale is on this logarithmic format is around 5years. And not surprisingly there is almost no sign of any warming or cooling trends below 5year. Indeed, I’m surprised how regularly we change fro blue to red.
It’s then apparent that around periods of 5-10 years we start to see repeated periods of green (virtually the only part of the plot)
However, now I look, as we move up the plot, the size of the peaks get larger. So a change in trend lacks prominence at the bottom, whereas a 1 year trend over 1 year should be as prominent as a 40yr trend over 40 years. So, as it’s late, I’ve quickly used a distort to create an image where the variations in trend have roughly similar prominence irrespective of their length and this produces the image below.
Now the question I’m asking myself is “why does the image move from a region of rapid climate change over periods of less than 5year, to one with very low rates of climate change over periods longer than 5years

Time for bed

A while back I produced this image of a dinosaur:

An overview of the political process from Climategate to present.

Friday, 20th January 2017.

The day Trump, the US’s 45th president will be sworn in at noon on the steps of the U.S. Capital.
What is even better, is that far from arriving out of the blue, the Climategate establishment can see the pain coming, they know what is going to happen when Tump comes in and with the Senate and Congress being controlled by Republicans, they know there is nothing they can do about it except squeal.
Of course, the corruption we see and know about right now, will be nothing as compared to what will be revealed when Trump’s appointees lift the lid on these organisations which for so long have festered under corrupt Democrat rule. And no doubt with a favourable president, Congress and Senate will help out. Indeed, the 20th January 2017, may see a “Black Friday” rush of Republican politicians eager to make their name by “draining the swamp” to reveal the corruption of the Democrats – so long protected against investigation by a corrupt Democrat president.
I fully expect a series of scandals … and they have got to happen quickly so as to ensure the blame is put fairly and squarely on the previous administration where it belongs.

2017 will be the year of the climate scandal.

And it will not just affect the US. Because although the US is the head of the global warming scam, the body lies in other places like the UK & Australia. And just as those in the US can do nothing but watch “retribution coming down upon them” … likewise those in the UK and Australia who have so long enjoyed the luxury of throwing vile made-up insults against sceptics whilst totally protected by the establishment (e.g. Nurse, Lewandowsky) can now look forward to being exposed and ridiculed for what they really are and there will be little their friends in the establishment can do about it.