Posted by Curt on 7 September, 2008 at 1:19 pm. 10 comments already!


Live life to the fullest people…we only have a few more decades to live:

Should you feel guilty about flying? A lot of people would say you should. After all, the danger of runaway climate change is real. No one knows how far away that is. We probably have 10 to 30 years, but we may have longer, and we may already have passed the tipping point.

When we reach that point, the best estimate is that hundreds of millions are going to die from flood, drought, famine, epidemics and war. Many more will be scarred by what they must see and do to survive. And a substantial proportion of the world’s species will perish.

Oh the horror! I know….hard not to laugh at these nutjobs, but come on…they are only trying to save the planet…right?

The Inconvenient Truth is that Global Warming is an established money maker. As always, follow the bucks. Why do people like Al Gore and Michael Moore jump on these and other theories? Money. They make lots of it. Al gets $175,000 speaking fees. His projected earnings are in the millions.

When we lost one of the best coolants ever, Freon, it was based on fears of ozone depletion. The truth is that because of increased foliage growth over the past decades, the ozone has increased. Why ban Freon? DuPont’s patent on Freon expired years before and it was produced for pennies. They had a new coolant called R-134a ready to go. Get the picture: “Freon causes, problems we need the new one”, and you must pay DuPont a lot more for it, and our brilliant lawmakers go along with it, probably for a fee.

Now there is every indication that we are going into a period of Global Cooling, maybe even a mini-Ice Age as was discussed in the 1970’s.

The green hypocrites continue to add up. This time its British Columbia’s premier Gordan Campbell who pushed through a carbon tax recently that added over 9 cents per gallon to the price Canadians pay at the pump and by 2012 will be some 27 cents per gallon. What does he do to reduce his “carbon footprint”? Why he takes a private jet to China:

Private jets are one of the biggest polluters around when it comes to the carbon emissions that cause global warming — the planetary threat Campbell is supposedly so passionate about.

A seat on a commercial flight to Beijing emits about 2.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide, Simpson explained, while a private jet can spew close to 60 tonnes for the same trip.

“Gordon Campbell’s carbon emissions from a return trip to Beijing on a private jet would be the same as driving a midsize car for almost seven and a half years.”

This from a man who’s whacking us with carbon taxes to force us to change our evil ways. (Oh, and by the way, because Campbell’s private-jet junket was an international flight, it was exempt from his own carbon tax. More hypocrisy.)

Two idiots = Naomi Oreskes and Jonathan Renouf:

Today the scientific argument about the broad principles of what we are doing to the Earth’s climate is over. By releasing huge quantities of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere we are warming the world.

Since the early 1990s there has been a furious debate about global warming. So-called climate change “sceptics” have spent years disputing almost every aspect of the scientific consensus on the subject. Their arguments have successfully delayed significant political action to deal with greenhouse gas emissions. Recent research reveals how the roots of this argument stretch back to two hugely influential reports written almost 30 years ago.

These reports involve a secret organisation of American scientists reporting to the US Department of Defense. At the highest levels of the American government, officials pondered whether global warming was a significant new threat to civilisation. They turned for advice to the elite special forces of the scientific world – a shadowy organisation known as Jason. Even today few people have heard of Jason. It was established in 1960 at the height of the cold war when a group of physicists who had helped to develop the atomic bomb proposed a new organisation that would – to quote one of its founders – “inject new ideas into national defence”.


In 1977 they got to work on global warming. There was one potential problem. Only a few of them knew anything about climatology. To get a better understanding they relocated for a few days to Boulder, Colorado, the base for NCAR – the National Center for Atmospheric Research – where they heard the latest information on climate change. Then, being physicists, they went back to first principles and decided to build a model of the climate system. Officially it was called Features of Energy-Budget Climate Models: An Example of Weather-Driven Climate Stability, but it was dubbed the Jason Model of the World.

In 1979 they produced their report: coded JSR-78-07 and entitled The Long Term Impact of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Climate. Now, with the benefit of hind-sight, it is remarkable how prescient it was.

Cough…..debate is over once more. And this time a secret organization predicted it all.

You can’t make this stuff up.

Even more idiocy….the IPCC chief wants people to curb their meat eating to save the world from global warming:

People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change, the world’s leading authority on global warming has told The Observer

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which last year earned a joint share of the Nobel Peace Prize, said that people should then go on to reduce their meat consumption even further.

His comments are the most controversial advice yet provided by the panel on how individuals can help tackle global warning.

Pachauri, who was re-elected the panel’s chairman for a second six-year term last week, said diet change was important because of the huge greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental problems – including habitat destruction – associated with rearing cattle and other animals. It was relatively easy to change eating habits compared to changing means of transport, he said.

Have to add someone who is not a idiot:

I have written on a number of occasions that, years from now, folks who would like to see meaningful reductions in man’s negative impacts on the environment are going to look back on the global warming charade as a disaster for their movement — not just in terms of credibility, but in terms of lost focus on real, meaningful improvements.

China is a great example. Like London in the 19th century or Pittsburgh in the early 20th, China’s air quality is a mess. Real steps need to be taken to clean up the air, for the health and safety of its residents. The Olympics might have been a venue for people around the world to apply pressure to China to clean up its act.

But, in fact, there is little real pressure from outside for China to clean up the soot, unburned hydrocarbons, NO2, SO2 and other such pollutants from its vehicles and coal plants. That is because all the pressure, all the attention, is on China’s CO2 production. But there is nothing China can do to slow down CO2 growth without killing its economy and probably destabilizing its government in the process. So, it gives the world a big FU to such admonitions.

Which is a shame. Unlike for CO2 abatement, there are real technologies that are proven to be economic that can abate the worst of China’s pollution problems. Had we instead been spending our moral capital pressuring China to take such steps, there might be real progress.

This is all the more true as we learn that some of the problems we ascribe to CO2 may in fact be more linked to soot from Chinese industry.

And finally a statistician makes the new hockey stick look just as foolish as the old one:

Do not smooth times series, you hockey puck!

The advice which forms the title of this post would be how Don Rickles, if he were a statistician, would explain how not to conduct times series analysis. Judging by the methods I regularly see applied to data of this sort, Don’s rebuke is sorely needed.

The advice is particularly relevant now because there is a new hockey stick controversy brewing. Mann and others have published a new study melding together lots of data and they claim to have again shown that the here and now is hotter than the then and there. Go to and read all about it. I can’t do a better job than Steve, so I won’t try. What I can do is to show you what not to do. I’m going to shout it, too, because I want to be sure you hear.

Mann includes at this site a large number of temperature proxy data series. Here is one of them called wy026.ppd (I just grabbed one out of the bunch). Here is the picture of this data:


The various black lines are the actual data! The red-line is a 10-year running mean smoother! I will call the black data the real data, and I will call the smoothed data the fictional data. Mann used a “low pass filter” different than the running mean to produce his fictional data, but a smoother is a smoother and what I’m about to say changes not one whit depending on what smoother you use.

Now I’m going to tell you the great truth of time series analysis. Ready? Unless the data is measured with error, you never, ever, for no reason, under no threat, SMOOTH the series! And if for some bizarre reason you do smooth it, you absolutely on pain of death do NOT use the smoothed series as input for other analyses! If the data is measured with error, you might attempt to model it (which means smooth it) in an attempt to estimate the measurement error, but even in these rare cases you have to have an outside (the learned word is “exogenous”) estimate of that error, that is, one not based on your current data.

If, in a moment of insanity, you do smooth time series data and you do use it as input to other analyses, you dramatically increase the probability of fooling yourself! This is because smoothing induces spurious signals—signals that look real to other analytical methods. No matter what you will be too certain of your final results! Mann et al. first dramatically smoothed their series, then analyzed them separately. Regardless of whether their thesis is true—whether there really is a dramatic increase in temperature lately—it is guaranteed that they are now too certain of their conclusion.

h/t Tom Nelson.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x