Registered On: December 24, 2013
BRI, nobody is saying anomalies shouldn’t be used. The points you appear to have missed, deliberately or otherwise, is, first, that a great deal of caution needs to be used when analysing any process that averages data; and, second, that when you show anomalies on a graph they make the problem appear very much greater.
This is the oldest trick in the book used by politicians and scientists to distort people’s perceptions of what is happening. Just change the axes on the graph or the units used and voila, what at first appeared negligible suddenly appears massive. It’s the same as saying that risk has increased by 100% when you change a 1 in 1,000,000 probability to 2 in 1,000,000 while ignoring that the risk remains so small that in reality it remains negligible.
How many people realise that a chart of global warming using actual temperature plotted on a 100 degree scale would be horizontal to the naked eye? In other words you wouldn’t be able to see the change.
This is the problem with climate ‘science’ and how it’s reported. Climate ‘scientists’ and politicians have got away with this so far but as the realities of the costs and upheaval to how people live become reality the media will start to change how it’s reported. The first shoots of this are already appearing and they’ll grow as the impact of massively increasing costs of energy and infrastructure start to bite, with the biggest impact on the poorest in society.
You can accuse me of ‘gaslighting’ as much as you like but people need to understand what this all means in reality and when they find out they’re not going to be happy. The Tories are every bit as bad as Labour on this.