Global Warming is BS

Weather in Chicago today: 1 degree above freezing.  Thank goodness for global warming.  Science geeks will tell me that my data is anecdotal and not enough to create a probability series with an unbiased statistical estimator.

The global warming icon for the ubx.
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

They’d be right.

But, it’s just as good as the “science” the global warming advocates are shoving out the door for all of us to analyze.

The latest release is this one.  The headline screams, “11,000 years of data”.  Funny, we haven’t been keeping weather data that long.  But I guess we can rely on anecdotal evidence prior to when mankind actually started compiling real data.

I wouldn’t be so critical and cynical, except none of the global warming scientists offer up their studies for peer review.  They don’t publish the exact assumptions they make, nor the formulas used to compute statistics, nor any of the data collected so other scientists have the chance to replicate it-or disagree with it based on other hypothesis tested scientific data or assumptions.

Recall when Michael Mann published the first hockey stick graph-we were all shocked.  Al Gore made a movie and won an Oscar.  Then, actual statisticians looked at the formula and realized no matter what data you put into it-the same graph was spit out.

It was junk science dressed up as a serious theory.

Here is a blog you can read for a take down on all the hyperventilating about global warming.  She is a PhD who is very serious about climatology.

Evaluate a 300-year MWP using methods lacking 300 year resolution and voila! The MWP turns into a blip diminished by the colder periods on each side.

Hmm.  Maybe she is wrong and  The Atlantic article is correct.  Except it isn’t.

Here is the link explaining the dissertation by Marcott.  It turns out that the data reconstructions don’t match anywhere else as well.

I spoke with someone that knows how to do very complex statistics.  They said it turns out that the “hockey stick” arises from something interesting.

“By the end of Marcott’s dataset, most of his proxies have no data, with only 5 remaining. In the last time period, there is only a single 1 that he uses. It turns out that all 5 proxies imply cooling in the 20th century, but the one that he is able to use for the last time period has less than the other 4, and in fact less than the average level of cooling in his estimates.

Imagine having 5 data series and averaging them. One is positive compared to the other 4. We plot the averages over time. Then we drop all but the largest in the last time period and plot the “average” (I put that in quotes since in the last period it’s an average of 1 observation). What will it look like? Why – you’ll get a positive spike in the plot in the last period. Dramatic result, a hockey stick graph!! ”

Don’t get me wrong.  I am not against trying to be a good steward for the environment.  But, global warming advocates are forming all kinds of really harmful public policy on faulty data.  As a civilization, we can’t afford to go down their black hole of a path.  Following them will do more harm to us in the long run than building a few coal fired power plants.

Humans need cheap, efficient energy sources to survive and to increase the standards of living for everyone.  Global warming advocates would utilize policies that would send us backwards in time-decreasing standards of living for everyone.  Or in Al Gore’s case, everyone except himself.

No doubt, we need to do a lot of research on energy that can power the next generation in an environmentally safe manner-but solar and wind is not it.  The answer is nuclear, and global warming advocates-and Chicken Little’s are running away from investments in that kind of energy.  Germany is shutting down its nuclear power plants.  We aren’t building them in the US either at a time when we should be actively constructing them.

Follow me on Twitter, like Points and Figures on Facebook.

thanks for the link Doug Ross.

Enhanced by Zemanta