Thursday, August 21, 2008

Global warming?

I recently posted on a Mexican scientist's prediction that we were heading for a short ice age. Said scientist said that the models that most of the climatologists were working from were flawed, and didn't take into account solar activity, natural activity like volcanic eruptions, or anything else but mathematically generated temperature graphs.

Apparently, the Farmer's Almanac (which predicts a very cold winter, rather than the unseasonably warm weather that climatologists predict) agrees that the usual science is flawed--they say that, when they create their claimed 80-85% accurate forecast, up to two years out, they use the same models that the Mexican scientist used: models which included solar activity, rather than just a computer generated, mathematical progression, statistical model.

The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) agrees, up to a point. They say that this year has been the coolest of the past five, though they're quick to cover themselves by reminding us that it's still warmer than the historical (hysterical?) record. They say "Global temperatures vary annually according to natural cycles. For example, they are driven by shifting ocean currents," though they once again backpedal quickly to remind us that it doesn't mean anything against man-made global warming, that dips are normal variations in the hell we're building for ourselves in their settled, statistical, scientific opinion.

Well, as one of Heinlein's characters says in one of my favorite books, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics(I believe she's quoting Twain). And I think that if our climatologists ignore everything but their hockey-stick graph and human intervention, they've gone far past the lies and damned lies stage. Especially when the climatologists insist that the science is settled.

Apparently, New Jersey feels that it isn't, as its department of science "URGES STATE TO HOLD OFF ON DAMAGING NEW REGULATIONS AS CLIMATE CHANGE THEORIES CLASH." New Jersey's lawmakers are pondering legislation to curb carbon dioxide emissions created by manufacturing. The levels named would cripple New Jersey's economy, as plants failed the stringent controls and left the state.

Don't get me wrong: I don't see a problem with legislation to curb carbon dioxide emissions so long as such legislation is aimed at politicians. I'd be willing to bet that one congressional session (not quite a year) emits far more carbon dioxide than the manufacturing plants do in ten years.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Sorry, folks. A hundred plus spam comments in an hour equals moderation on older posts, so until further're gonna have to wait for your comments to be approved before they show up.