Of all the organisations one would have thought to have sought a second opinion on a controversial issue, it seems the Australian Medical Association, in collaboration with the Australian Conservation Foundation, hardly an unbiassed observer, commissioned and uncritically accepted the conclusions of a report which suggests up to 15,000 Australians could die each year from heat stress, and the rest of the scarey story is here. Surely one would have thought that innate conservatism of the AMA would have ensured a sense of balance and commissioned a second opinion? Not so it appears.
As is fast becoming obvious on the Climate Audit site the computer model predictions are the result of extremely questionable statistical analyses. In fact it isn’t statistics so much as mathematical gobbledygook. (Statistics is simply a numerical means of describing a population of objects with concise, simple numbers, and can be used to estimate probabilities if the distributions fall into specific forms). A non-linear, chaotic system cannot be summarised statistically, of course, let alone mathematically yet climate science has much in common with econometrics, another misuse of the differential calculus of the physical sciences.
But these are trivial matters compared to the more important fact that Prime Minister Tony Blair made an important statement recently which was effectively ignored by the world’s media, and here. Put simply, the Kyoto Protocol is dead and buried and is certainly not going to be replaced with a different proposal. US Secretary of State Rice also pointed out that France produces 80% of its electricty from nuclear power at this conference. That the world’s failed to report this important change in policy can lead to but one conclusion.
Tim Ball supplies it by quoting an interesting comment in his latest article here where he points out that “ Kyoto was an attempt to control, limit or even weaken industrialized nations built on capitalism, trade and democracy. Maurice Strong, principle architect of the Rio conference and it's offspring Kyoto, reportedly said. "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" Now Kyoto is unmasked as unworkable because it pays very high economic cost for absolutely no gain. Even attempts to suggest it was about pollution failed. Charles Dumont of Lombard Street Research says it "would in no way prevent global warming" and puts the cost at 16 trillion dollars.”
And then the teaching profession is reacting to Brendan Nelson’s criticism by vilifying him as a leftover of the 1950’s. The sad fact is that writing, reading and counting are the core skills necessary for communication. Young people often end their conversations with the “know what I mean”.
Well no, and that is the problem and the blame has to squarely sheeted at the teaching profession and their trade-union.