Thursday, 22 May 2014

Cooking the books

Having read a UN climate report yesterday explaining why the expected warming hadn't happened, but was really, really, there, I realised exactly how they do it as it reminded me of an earlier system I had learnt at college. In accounting (and statistics, to a point), there are various ways of presenting the same figures, depending if you want a rise, a fall or no change. It isn't so easy to maintain the illusions for so long in accounting, what they usually do is hold back a profit or a loss for a year or two to avoid paying tax or give a far better impression of the company than it really is. It is totally legal, but in the end anyone with the full accounts can see the bottom line, regardless of the details. They can even be maintained indefinitely in legal tax avoidance schemes, where the profits are hidden annually ad infinitum as it is allowed.

The wealth of reasons produced by the IPCC, from 90% of the warming since 1970 (where did it go before, and why?) shooting straight into the ocean, with the real temperature being hidden by sulphate pollution (exactly how they create cooling from geoengineering) so 'the temperature was really a lot higher'.

That loss wasn't really a loss then, despite the cheque landing in the fire somehow when it went through the letterbox, we really made a huge profit and will make an even bigger one next year. We just can't pay out to the shareholders, as it's hiding in the aerosol pollution.

Now scientists know what they're talking about, and can take technically correct principles and use them, just like accountants and statisticians, to hide or present any information they need to. The principles such as temperature flows and sunlight reflection of course are real, but if they decide to use them as a weapon rather than a mechanism then how would anyone else know the difference? Like police and doctors they all band together when one of their own is in trouble, legally or otherwise, and often succeed in shutting out any attack from the outside authorities. Why would scientists be any different? And although they may be extremely highly qualified, the IPCC have broken two of their own rules. Firstly they always say the temperature where the advantages of warming may be outweighed by the problems is a rise of 2C, and secondly they clearly state you can't model the long term future as the climate is non-linear and chaotic. Then they use models to create world policy and when the temperature isn't rising anywhere close to 2C simply say it's hiding somewhere else.

This reminds me of when I was working for a firm administering bankrupt companies. Each had to write a summary of why the firm went broke, and the reasons were nearly always similar, ultimately blaming outside circumstances and not themselves. But the creditors really don't care. If they've lost their money they really don't care how. The bottom line is around zero whatever the details, even if God, Jesus or Terry Venables had come along and taken the money themselves, they still couldn't have it. If nature had buried it in the sea, or man's industrial pollution which was supposed to dangerously heat the planet was actually working to cool it, that figure still summed to a very low figure. The UN themselves had actually said the warming would come from 'Man made CO2 pollution' and would be very real indeed, but when 0.5-1C of cooling comes from sulphate pollution, as holy cow, pollution can cool as well as heat, it isn't real and the earth is really warming regardless.

If they have to stoop to such levels then it shows one certain conclusion. They cannot be trusted.

No comments:

Post a Comment