Global Warming. It’s So Fucking Irrational!!!

Marcus's picture
Submitted by Marcus on Sun, 2006-07-30 19:24

A news article from leading scientific Journal "Science", they are depressingly biased in favour of man-made Global Warming, reports on a "House Energy and Commerce Committee" hearing investigating the evidence for man-made climate change (esp. hockey stick).

They write:

"The additional data include a half-dozen other reconstructions of temperatures during the past millennium. None is convincing on its own, North testified, but "our reservations should not undermine the fact that the climate is warming and will continue to warm under human influence."

"Our favourite hypothesis is not backed up by consistent evidence: however I will ignore all that and hold on to my favourite biased conclusion anyway."

Global Warming. It’s so fucking irrational!!! Grrrrr!!!!

Science 28 July 2006:
Vol. 313. no. 5786, p. 421
News of the Week

Politicians Attack, But Evidence for Global Warming Doesn't Wilt
Richard A. Kerr

With hockey sticks in hand, U.S. legislators skeptical of global warming fired shots last week at what has become an iconic image in the debate. But their attack failed to change the outcome of the contest. Instead, scientists and politicians of every stripe agreed that the world is warming and that global warming is a serious issue. They also agreed to disagree about what's causing it.

On one of the hottest days of the summer in Washington, D.C., members of the investigations panel of the House Energy and Commerce Committee cast a cold eye on the so-called hockey stick curve of millennial temperature published in 1998 and 1999 papers by statistical climatologist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University in State College and colleagues. In a highly unusual move, the committee's chair, Representative Joe Barton (R-TX), had commissioned a statistical analysis of the contested but now-superceded curve, derived from tree rings and other proxy climate records. Statistician Edward Wegman of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, Barton's choice to review Mann's work, testified that Mann's conclusion that the 1990s and 1998 were the hottest decade and year of the past millennium "cannot be supported by their analysis." An ill-advised step in Mann's statistical analysis may have created the hockey stick, Wegman said.

Because Mann wasn't there to defend himself (he was scheduled to appear at a second hearing this week), Barton bore down on the chair of a wide-ranging study of the climate of the past millennium by the U.S. National Academies' National Research Council (NRC), which also reviewed Mann's work. "No question university people like yourself believe [global warming] is caused by humans," Barton said to meteorologist Gerald North of Texas A&M University in College Station, whose 22 June NRC report concluded that the hockey stick was flawed but the sort of data on which it was based are still evidence of unprecedented warming (Science, 30 June, p. 1854). "My problem is that everyone seems to think we shouldn't debate the cause."

North deflected the charge like an all-star hockey goalie. He said he doesn't disagree with Wegman's main finding that a single year or a single decade cannot be shown to be the warmest of the millennium. But that's only part of the story, he added. Finding flaws "doesn't mean Mann et al.'s claims are wrong," he told Barton. The recent warming may well be unprecedented, he noted, and therefore more likely to be human-induced. The claims "are just not convincing by themselves," he said. "We bring in other evidence."

The additional data include a half-dozen other reconstructions of temperatures during the past millennium. None is convincing on its own, North testified, but "our reservations should not undermine the fact that the climate is warming and will continue to warm under human influence."

North got some unexpected support from Wegman, his putative opponent on the ice. With a couple of qualifiers, Wegman agreed with North that most climate scientists have concluded that much of global warming is human-induced. And North's 12-person committee agreed with Wegman's three-person panel that the record is too fragmentary to say anything about a single year or even a single decade. The only supportable conclusion from climate proxies, the academy committee found, is that the past few decades were likely the warmest of the millennium, a conclusion of Mann's that the Wegman panel did not address. And there's a one-in-three chance that even that conclusion is wrong, North's committee found.

Consensus or not, Barton was unmoved. Scientists in the 1970s were unanimous that the next ice age was only decades away, he said. "It's the same thing" this time around, he warned.

( categories: )

Pure Socialism

gregster's picture

It's a continuation of wealth redistribution much like what the UN have been up to for ages.

Honesty doesn't enter into their equations.

One day , not too distant, NZ will look back at Clark's government and acknowledge the nasty piece of work that it was.

In USA Al Gore will go up in flames, spontaneous combustion, caused by all his internal conflicts overheating his grey matter.

The lip service paid to this Climate Change con-job by Labour (and now National!!) is incredible. They couldn't run a piss-up in a brewery let alone string together some thoughts on a controversial science.

And it reminds one of one's church-going days. Sitting watching in staggered disbelief at what is being talked about.

Thanks for the comments

Marcus's picture

It is good to know Kelly that you give your children the facts and not that emotional green nonsense. Bravo.

Greg, from your article:

"The only segment besides taxis where hybrids are still holding steady – taxpayers will be happy to note -- is the car fleets maintained by the government."

Geez!! I didn't know your politicians were up to the same crap as those in the UK!!! I thought they were more critical on the whole regarding global warming scare stories.

Interesting book . . .

User hidden's picture

_Facts, not Fear_. It is written as a guide for parents to deal with children who come home scared to death that the world is going to be destroyed. I loved it just for the great amount of info on all kind of environmentalist lies. It cleared up a lot for me, even as an Objectivist. I was against environmentalism in principle, but I learned so much about how the science itself is bunk.


It gets even better

Greg Mullen's picture

Regarding hybrid cars this article highlights a recent study that shows how "hybrid vehicles' overall energy costs exceed those of comparable non-hybrids" and "... even more surprising, smaller hybrids' energy costs are greater than many large, non-hybrid SUVs".

Hybrid Cars

Marcus's picture

Thanks for the comments.

Funny too is this review from Jeremy Clakson on "eco friendly" hybrid cars. The conclusion he comes to on this car is made even more ironic by the fact that politicians in the UK are currently trying to "show off" their green credentials by driving these cars.

It all goes to prove how this "enviro-mental" crap is all just about keeping up appearances, and an excuse for UK politicians to regulate and tax industry, gain more control over our lives and pretend they are saving the world all at the same time.


jtgagnon's picture

You hit the nail on the head. For the haters of capitalism the environmentalist cause is the most "logical" because it works well psychologically (oh no...the world's coming to an end unless I stop driving my SUV around!) while sneakily advancing an anti-capitist agenda.


Thomas Lee's picture

In my view, that's exactly right. And very well said.

Why Global Warming?

Fred Weiss's picture

They lost the *economic* argument of capitalism vs. socialism, i.e. it is now beyond debate that capitalism is far better at producing wealth than socialism. But,despite that, since they still regard capitalism as *immoral* they had to find some other club to beat it with.

Enter environmentalism: yes capitalism is fabulous at creating wealth. Too fabulous. In the process it is destroying the earth.

A question

Thomas Lee's picture

The nonsense about man-made global warming and its threat to human survival is irrational. But here's a question it's important to be clear on: why have so many people on the left taken up this cause? I don't mean, what is their motive. Ayn Rand already gave the perfect answer to that question. I mean, why this cause and not some other?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.