Yesterday my friend Andreas posted a comment to my bitterly cold ramblings on global chilling (please read it). Since his serious response to my lighthearted shivering deserved a serious response ... well I tried to post one, but it failed to fit in the comments box. So... how about this...
Hey… Hey…. HEY! I wasn’t the guy who PhotoShoped multiple hurricanes to the cover of his latest book (propaganda?), nor the same fellow who pointed to tsunamis and Katrina as evidence for “theories” of global warming. That guy’s named Gore (a Nobel Laureate by the way, but not in science… Hmmmm…. Wonder why that is? Of course he got that award from the same committee that recently gave one of those things to one of our Presidents who’d been in office two weeks before the nominations closed… so much for propaganda and propagandists…. Heh, heh, heh.) Incidentally, in Texas they are giving out Nobel Peace prizes with each oil change, but I digress.
As for things anecdotal… Theory to be useful must demonstrate twin necessary and sufficient conditions…. (1) It must be internally consistent, and (2) It must have predictive capacity. Scientific conclusions must have one necessary condition… they must be reproducible.
The internal consistency of global warming is thinner than a starlet’s tee shirt. Point in fact, when you take the computer models that the Climate “Scientists” are using to “predict” some future event…. And simply reverse them to “predict” some known point in the past… That is when you check their assumptions against known points… they are ALWAYS wrong and by amounts way beyond any tolerable levels of error. And they are wrong on the COLD side. I.E….. when they are focused forward, they are biased toward warming… way biased, every single model! And the weather stations used to collect their inputs are further biased by their positioning in or around toasty warm urban centers. The recent announcement by the Russians that the Hockey Stick Team failed to use any of their Siberian data is a wonderful case in point which makes most statisticians break out in giggles.
So much for internal consistency… as for reproducibility… Well it seems that after the ClimateGate revelations of climate “scientists” cooking their books, there were renewed outcries for their original data to see if their results could be reproduced. Oh, how unfortunate, the same guys who were coercing and defaming any and all critics and tricking out their methodologies suddenly can’t find any of the original data. It seems to have been lost. Not enough storage space. It got tossed out.
The dog ate their homework?
BTW-a... I am ashamed to say that I have a graduate degree from Penn State where one of these characters is diluting respect for my credentials. PSU had better crank up that investigation they are doing of this guy, his recently revealed emails, and the former debunking of his statistical competency are quite embarrassing.
Which leaves us with three questions, (1) is global warming occurring at all? (2) If so, does it differ in any degree from the previous cycles over billions of years, And (3) Have humans contributed in any significant way…. And a policy question… If (1) is true and (3) is true to whatever degree…. Are there policy alternatives available which will have any significant impact upon (1)? And what are the cost/benefit effects of that… those… policies?
BTW-b… some say that the polar ice caps on Mars seem to be melting along with those on other planets. Hmmmmmm….. the sun couldn’t have any part in this, could it?
Look, we shouldn’t foul our nests. I am a conservationist… even a modified Green. I drive a tiny car, always have. My home is super insulated and retrofitted. It’s a decent idea to find alternative and reproducible energy resources. In fact, nuclear makes sense to me even though I get some of my electricity from Three Mile Island which is a stone’s throw from where I’m sitting. Conservation is not an ideological issue nor a political power grab… Climate “science”, however is both walking and quacking like it is both of those things. It is, however, the perfect device to bring about central control of all decision making, something that a lot of people have been anxious to do in order to overcome the pesky irritation of democracy and rule by citizens, as opposed to rule by rulers over subjects.
As for the anecdotes… Given the state of research into climate…. I conclude that we are the first generation of any animal/plant/mineral in the history of history which demands a right to its own climate! How much hubris does that take? And isn't any theory based upon a few thousand years out of the many billions of earth history merely an anecdote? Can it really be taken more seriously than a few overheard conversations in a pub?
Hockey sticks are for ice rinks, of which we have more right now in Lancaster County than anytime in the last fifty years. Why isn’t a frozen pond also on the cover of Mr. Gore’s latest piece of propaganda? Hmmmmm…. Maybe because it would create doubt? Demand the funding of unbiased research? Threaten his income flow?
The future of the world remains a mystery to me and consequently I am a global warming agnostic… The case has been neither proven nor disproven. Which means that the human role in any of this is way far from being investigatable. Maybe this year we shall get closer? Happy 2010 :-)
BTW-c: Okay, don't believe me. I am merely a subject as far as the politicians are concerned and consequently unqualified to enter into this grand debate. Of course so is Andreas, and for that matter, Al Gore. So let us turn to a fully qualified expert, okay?(and one who Mr. Gore refuses to debate) Here.... Click here, check out this link I've posted and let me know what you think... Um, even if you are "only" a subject as opposed to a citizen and not an expert. BTW-final... have you noticed that in this debate, politicians forbid (or shame) their subjects from commenting because they are not experts? Spooky, eh? I guess they sort of figure that some of us are just smarter than all of us?