Mathematical Proof There Is No Global Warming Crisis -- IPCC Assumptions, Sorta Made Up Crap

Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.

Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered [http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm] demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F. Lord Monckton concludes – (...)

• “… Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no ‘climate crisis’ at all. … The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”
• The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
• CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
• Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
• The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
• The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
• “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
• Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
• The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
• It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
• Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
• In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 year

I have said it repeatedly, we really don't know what we are doing and this only shows that all of our assumptions are suspect.  The debate cannot be over when the input is not real.
DKK
Science and Public Policy Institute
Via Say Anything Blog

Seriously, Only The Left Would Think Any Differently! -- US Has Highest Cancer Survival Rates -- Money Made The Difference!

Spending on health care was a major factor, the study of 31 countries said.

Major factor in what you ask? 

There is a huge variation in cancer survival rates across the world, a global study shows.

The US, Australia, Canada, France and Japan had the highest five-year survival rates, while Algeria had the worst, Lancet Oncology reported.

The UK fared pretty poorly, trailing most of its western European neighbours - although the data is from the 1990s since when survival rates have risen.


Spending on health care was a major factor, the study of 31 countries said.


(...)

While the US led the way with more than 13% of gross domestic product spent on health, Canada, Australia and the best-performing European nations were all spending about 9% to 10%.

The UK was spending just over 7% but that figure has now been increased following record rises in the NHS budget to bring it much closer to the likes of France and Germany.

Algeria was spending around 4%.

The importance of money was further illustrated by an ethnic breakdown of outcomes in the US.

White Americans, who are on the whole wealthier and therefore more able to afford the insurance which underpins the US system, were up to 14% more likely than others to survive cancer. 

BBC News

I thought we spent too much for the results we received, that's what the left keeps telling us!

Just a couple of extra points:

• I would rather have a country that has a financial incentive driving the development of cutting edge treatments, even if all I could afford is the older generation as it is often better then the standard treatment elsewhere.  Tomorrow I may actually need today's cutting edge treatment even if it is no longer cutting edge -- this was my stated position long before I became ill and it is still the case.
  
• With all of the programs available, the US government pays more in health care costs then any other nation does with their nationalized plans (nearly $700 billion for the fiscal year UK is about $184 billion)
• Uninsured in America can be broken down like this, illegal aliens, those who qualify for existing programs but haven't signed up for some reason, and people who choose not to get coverage, primarily younger workers.  (Only a quarter of the uninsured are below the poverty level and 28% have incomes 300% or higher, 48% are white, 21% foreign born non citizens (pdf file).)
  
• There is not a crisis in people who don't have access to health care.

DKK