Click logo to return to 'links-page'

NB; this is not a scientific argument about 'uncertainty' or 'ideological cognition issues, or perception-issues alla 'lies, damned lies and statistics'. It is simply about basing the future of global climate strategy on the utter 'statistical rubbish' and thus the incompetence and/or the dishonesty of the: -

1. UK Climate Change Committee (CCC) for making this ludicrous argument in the first place (I suspect foul-play and I think but don't know that the UKMO 'helped' the CCC here) BEIS Minister (Clark) in HMG (Her Majesty's Government) for using this ludicrous argument, trying to to validate HMG's claim that the UK 'leads the world' on climate and is 'Paris Compliant'
2. Judge in the Royal Courts of Justice saying that all this showed that there was no contradition between the Climate Change Committee and the BEIS Minister (!) Which in turn meant that there was no need for a Judicial Review of the Government's 'World Leadership on Climate Change' (i.e. 'permission denied').

There is not a 'model' anywhere in the entire canon that could have conceivably produced the probability results claimed by the CCC. It is 'lie your way to power', (worse than 'perjury') as all five monkeys have agreed and now colluded with the creation and use of this obvious error for what are expediently (no one will notice) and dangerously 'political reasons'.

Nonetheless, solicitors for the UK Climate Change Committee, wrote to the Court Manager in the Civil Appeals Office at the Royal Courts of Justice on the 8th of August 2018 urging the Lord Justice to refuse the application to appeal against Mr Justice Supperstone's judgement. Their letter argues the judgement was on the 'considered analysis' by the CCC in its 59 page page report "Pursuing Efforts" to 1.5° C (October 2016).

The Appeal was subsequently fully and finally denied.

Below is Table 2.1 on page 25 of that CCC Report. It declares: -

1. a 66% probability of achieiving 2° C for all carbon budgets between 590 and 1240 Gt CO2 (like a 66% likelihood of winning the lottery for such a range of numbers)
2. sources this to IPCC AR5 (IPCC AR5 does not say this; what it says is this): -

Vimeo