The World According To Bob

Bob Allen is a philosopher and cyber libertarian. He advocates for the basic human rights of men. Bob has learned to cut through the political nonsense, the propaganda hate, the surface discourse, and talk about the underlying metamessage that the front is hiding. Bob tells it like it is and lets the chips fall where they may. If you like what you read be sure to bookmark this blog and share it with your friends.

Name:
Location: United States

You can't make wrong into right by doing wrong more effectively. It's time for real MEN to stand up and take back our families, our society, and our self respect. It is not a crime to be born a man. It is not a crime to act manly.

Saturday, February 03, 2007

Global Warming?

I just read a USA Today web site about a new and much ballyhooed propaganda piece on so-called "global warming." Here On the USA Today web site the graphic shows that the average temperature in the year 670 was 57.3368. And in fact all the temperatures are show with 6 digits. In the year 640 it was 56.6186 degrees, according to their study. Right away I was suspicious. As a man who majored in physical science in college I know that you have to have extremely accurate data to report six digit accuracy. I would be very surprised if they have any actual data accurate enough to distinguish between 56 degrees and 57 degrees in the year 670, especially since thermometers wouldn't be invented for close to another thousand years. History of thermometers. The chart says that the data is estimated from ice core samples, which give only a very isolated single point approximation. Extrapolating that to a 6 digit statement of global temperature is scientific nonsense.
My second concern is that their graph does not show the "mini ice age" which gripped the earth from the 12th century until the 16th century. The mini ice age eliminated the wine industry in England and eliminated the Viking colony on Greenland, among other world wide effects. In the 1970s, after 4 decades of steadily declining global temperatures, a popular topic was "The coming mini ice age." All the dire projections in the 1970s, based on half a century of declining global temperatures, were that we could expect another 500 years of significant global cooling. The graphic data did not show the 500 year mini ice age, and neither did it show the half century of declining global temperatures in the first half of the 20th century which precipitated the "coming ice age" predictions of the 1970s. There is something amiss in their report, or at least something left out, maybe it leaves out inconvenient truths.
On close inspection of the reported data I find no accounting for global climatic events such as volcanoes. In 1816, for example, there was a "year without summer" and several years of global climatic disruption caused by a volcano named Tambora in SE Asia. A volcanic eruption in 1815 caused widespread famine across Europe, Asia, and parts of America that pushed political changes in several countries as local peasants blamed their governments for the climatic problems. The "year without summer" continued to cause record cooling for several years. Its not shown on the data presented to support the latest hysteria, "global worming." The data also doesn't show the effects of many other global climatic events caused by other volcanoes or meteors which happen every century or so. A skeptical reader such as myself wants to see the data include all the data, not just that which supports their latest conjecture. Bob began to ask himself why they had left out the inconvenient truths that aren't in their published data.
The bottom line in their notes on their temperature chart contains an explanation of their "cooked" data, "This chart uses a combination of scientific estimates, actual meteorological data, and computer simulations." Lets look at what they are saying. Scientific estimates are what we called "WAGs" or "EWAGs" when I was in college, or "Educated Wild Ass Guesses." While an EWAG, or "scientific estimate" may sometimes point a researcher in the right direction, it is never a valid research result or scientific finding. A publication that claims to be based on "scientific estimates" is no better than political garbage. Then they claim to have used some actual meteorological data in their report, and that's nice, but what about their last piece, "computer simulations?"
Bob is also not without some expertise in computer simulations, which should never be confused with facts. A computer simulation is a high tech way for an artist to paint a picture of his biases and previously assumed outcomes. Computer projections take the persons WAGs and extrapolate them to six digits in multiple graphic colors. Any of the input guesses can be changed, and they are only somebody's guesses, and the projections come out to completely different results. When they say that their results are "based on …. computer simulations," they are telling us that they have nothing to report but their wild ass guesses, which are based more on their political positions than on science.
This report and other publicized hysteria about "global warming" are not scientific fact, and in fact are scientific nonsense. For example, they political film "Inconvenient Facts" makes a big deal about Antarctic sea ice being reduced while ignoring the fact that Antarctic land ice has never been thicker. The rest of the "inconvenient facts" have been debunked as well, but you won't learn about it from the hysterics. None of the so-called scientists who play Chicken Little over "global warming" have an explanation for what caused the little ice age of the 12th century, nor why it ended half a millennia latter. If their "scientific estimates, actual meteorological data, and computer simulations" can not explain actual recorded climatic changes, then it provides very little confidence as a predictor of climate.
Finally, Bob is not convinced that global warming would be a disaster even if it happens. Warming is probably a boon where a historic mini-ice-age led to global famine. A study published some years ago by environmentalists at UCLA concluded that global warming would cause more rain in many desert areas and longer growing seasons in many cold regions. For people who freeze through negative temperatures all winter in North Dakota or Moscow, Russia, an increase of 5 or 10 degrees would be welcome, and the "computer models" promise the most warming in these areas.
In conclusion, the hysteria (a well-gendered term) over so-called "global warming" is political double talk without scientific basis. Even if it happens it will be 99% caused by natural variations in solar output and such things as volcanoes. The hysterical media and so-called scientists (they aren't) ought to be told to take their report and cram it where the sun don't shine. The report ignores sunshine anyway so that would be an improvement.

Labels:

6 Comments:

Anonymous C said...

Its just fear and paranoia.
A means to an end, in other words money and power.

It is an inconsistent theory at best.

Everyone's all like" Oh no were not having the winter were supposed to be having, Oh wait yes we are, in fact temperatures in the NorthEast are below average for this time of year you Global Warming Morons!"
And they're freezing there asses off up there and even the South is getting cold temperatures!
Are you so-called scientists paying any attention to what is actually happening outside? Its frickin cold out durr it must be winter then!

February 03, 2007 10:30 PM  
Blogger The Geezer said...

Nice analysis, Bob. Wasamatta, didn't you take your nasty pills yesterday?

I knew you had substance in you, and this is the best, most cogent explaination of the junk science known as global warming (AKA the selling of a political philosophy)

The Geez

February 04, 2007 8:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, is this your original writing?

February 07, 2007 6:54 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to Anonymous:
All articles on The World According to Bob are written by Bob. Some articles may contain quoted exerts or references which will have credits to the source.

February 07, 2007 7:10 PM  
Anonymous C said...

Its ridiculous that people have no capacity to understand things for themselves unless they are breast fed televisual bullshit everyday.

Pathetic unoriginal lemmings.

The basic stigmatism of all the so-called "Global Warming" hype is this:

Be paranoid and Be afraid, be very afraid, because the end is near!

Just in case you did not know for instance: in the Northeast those people are freezing cold and under well below average temperatures for this time of year, sub zero wind chills, low dew points, low humidity, Cold!

And in the northern mid west they are worse off still at or below single digits for their daily high temperatures!

And coldness in the deep south as well with numerous freeze or frost warnings in florida and snow for several days in northern and southern Texas!

These are just some obvious observational contradictions during this winter of 2006 and into 2007 to the complete and total morons for the theory of so-called "Global Warming".

You do not have to spend a small fourtune at a "university" to realize these obvious weather situations.

Hey,
Wadsworth Doucheington V:
Pay Attention, Class is in session and its called: Life.

February 17, 2007 5:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

C, you err. It is not about fear and paranoia. Its about having an excuse to over-regulate the fuels industry. Industrial collapse will take us to where these Socialists want us. They are playing it on all fronts. That is the larger agenda.

February 28, 2009 6:23 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home