Monday, July 20, 2009

AGW – All the Cool Joo Haters Do It! (A Guest Post/Response)

I recently published a blog post on AGW, Anthropogenic Global Warming, and many of you were kind enough to read all the way through and comment on the post. A very special thank you goes out to each of you who took the time to read the post! One of our favorite commenters, One Salient Oversight raised several questions in the comment section, I am proud to present AGW II: A New Heap.

There exists a consensus amongst scientists that AGW is real. This pseudo-fact is tossed about quite liberally. Let’s dissect this statement just a smidge, shall we? We need to define a couple of terms, just so we’re all on the same page, mmkay?

1. Consensus - An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole
2. Opinion - a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty
3. Science - A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.
4. Fact – Something that actually exists; reality; truth.
5. Law – (Science) a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.

Now that we have the terms defined, let’s translate the previously mentioned statement supplanting actual definitions.

There exists a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty, reached by a group who study a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of reality/truth, systematically arranged and showing the operations of phenomena invariable under the same conditions, as a whole that AGW is real.

Plain English: There is a belief resting on grounds insufficient to produce certainty, amongst those who dedicate themselves to studying facts and laws that are repeatable under controlled conditions that AGW, something which cannot be repeated under controlled conditions, exists.

A belief in spite of truth… Isn’t that what many scientists and liberals accuse Christians of employing?!

Consensus implies that the position held on AGW was ‘reached by a group as a whole,’ and yet we know that there are more than 30,000 scientists including some 9,000 PHD’s who do not subscribe to the AGW myth… Therefore, the statement, as grammatically incorrect as it already is, is patently false on its surface.

So, for the record, and you can quote me: “THERE EXISTS NO CONSENSUS AMONGST SCIENTISTS THAT AGW IS REAL.” AGW is not science, it is at best theory and at worst a hoax of the most despicable kind.

Speaking of science and AGW, where are all those results of laboratory tests showing that AGW is indisputably real, fact and by definition: science?! Oh, that’s right, there aren’t any… Even the computer models make Algore look like an ass on a stick.

Polar Ice Caps – Oh noez! they’re all melting, and we’re all gonna die!!!!!!!1!1! Except, that’s not true… The Antarctic sea ice is expanding at a record level. Oh yeah, and the Arctic sea ice… it’s still there, too.

It’s warmer than it’s ever been, ever! Really?! This planet has been around by some estimates more than 10,000,000,000 years. (As an aside, if you spent a dollar a day for each day that the earth has been in existence, you still wouldn’t have spent as PeeBo has flushed down the economic toilet with the Porkulus Bill, but I digress) The most reliable measurement of global temperatures has been in existence since 1850. Now that may seem like a long time because it predates the Twinkies in your pantry by about 3 weeks, however, in the scheme of the overall age of this planet, that’s what we call statistically insignificant. It would be data non grata… worthless without MAJOR extrapolation. The longest instrumental temperature recording has been around a whopping 350 years. Assuming the earth is 100 times younger than the oldest estimates, 10,000,000 years, 350 years represents 0.000035%. That number is so small I’d be guessing when I said it’s 35 thousandths of one percent. (As another aside, 35 thousandths of one percent would be the number of US voters who voted for Dennis Kucinich in the last election) So, based on 0.000035% of data available, we are ready to declare, unequivocally, the earth is warmer than it’s ever been… I’d call that highly irresponsible, but then I’m not Algore.

The reality is that this earth has been though violent extremes in temperature and will continue to do so, regardless of you taking your Tahoe down to the Piggly Wiggly to grab some Ho Ho’s and a case of Mt. Dew.

If you’re curious about the whole AGW thing, be very careful! Belief in AGW is indisputably rooted in anti-Semitism! Damn joos are responsible for everything bad! Belief in AGW has also been proven to cause the following; a decrease your sperm count, back hair, midget infestations, anal seepage and cock fighting, amongst others!

Please take the time to comment.

This is Classical Liberal's response to comments received from his LAST POST. Y'all worry the shit out of him to get started on his own blog. He already has the site set up with nothing on the damn thing.

29 comments:

paul mitchell said...

I am pretty sure that I do NOT want to know what anal seepage even is. Let's skip that lesson, okee-dokee?

classicaliberal said...

Paul, don't be embarrassed about your problem, I'm sure that people will begin to post responses to your very important question, real soon!

paul mitchell said...

Thankfully my Firefox rollover gave me a glimpse of that. Dude.

Skunkfeathers said...

Anal seepage? Ewwww. That's a Depends issue, I rectum.

*ducking boos and throwd toilet paper*

I don't go in for AGW or human-caused global warming, either scams of the AlGore sect.

Simply put, climate is cyclical, and is geologic and solar-driven, period. It makes the libs feel better to believe that we evil humans can trump Nature, but only because they believe they can control Nature (aka, Barry's claim we'll control the Earth temperatures...blithering idiot).

paul mitchell said...

Skunkfeathers, with your hobby of trying to ride lightning, I am hopeful that you have picked up on some weather related knowledge along the way.

Worship at the altar of AGW is fucking stupid.

Andy said...

Skunks is quite possibly the craziest human I've come across, except for my oldest daughter-in-law. Anybody that does their best to end up in the middle of tornadoes, and mess around with Ms. Alabalala from Nigeria, while posing as Santa Claus is just too cool to kill.

btw Skunks, if you're reading this...the "trout pond" story made me laugh like a joo on his first ham sammich!

TD, (I mean Paul), I am so way glad that you have convinced CL to start posting stuff. I'm very happy to learn that OSO is an Australian...I always wondered what planet he lived on.

CL, I know you are from CA, because you have mentioned that before. But I don't know if that's California, or Canada. I'd be interested to know. You actually write a whole lot like Paul does, and I find it very informative.

"...computer models make Algore look like an ass on a stick." That is freakin' hilarious, even though I have no idea what it means...not your fault...I just don't speak Californian, or Canadian. But I know it's freakin' hilarious!

On a serious note, I appreciate you coming alongside Paul on this blog. I mean...obviously you know math, science, physics, and other junk that will be very helpful to TD, seeing as he is from Mississippi.

You guy have a lot to do if the public will ever reject the farce of The Goracle. Keep up the good work. I'm hitting the Blitz Corner as often as is proper to get everybody they check.

And, since Paul commanded...I'm bugging the dookie out of you to go ahead on and post on your blog you've already set up. I ain't gonna use the ugly word that TD did, but consider it said...

classicaliberal said...

Andy, to be honest, I'm not sure which of those options is the greater evil: Californy or Canuckistan.

Either way, I'm from Cowlyfohnyuh, as the Governator is fond of saying. I live in the former land of milk and honey; now the land of Milk and Honey.

This is the land formerly known as the Golden State, now known as Detroit the Sequel.

I promise to post a bloggy at my webbynets soonish. Soon as I can figger out how to operate on as much sleep as Paul gets. Not quite there yet.

One Salient Oversight said...

Let me answer two things:

1) Consensus. This does not mean "100%". It does, however, mean more than a super majority (two-thirds majority). There is a consensus amongst climate scientists that our current experience of global warming is anthropogenic.

2) Which science is which? If I want an expert opinion on mathematics I go to a mathematician. If I want an expert opinion on biology I go to a biologist. If you want an expert opinion on world climate, you go to a climatologist. If you don't like what an expert says, then go to another, and then another, until a consensus emerges.

95% of experts, that is, climatologists who are researching global warming, are of the opinion that our current experience of global warming is anthropogenic.

See my article here.

As for the scientists who disagree... well, as much as a mathematician or a biologist or an engineer or a geologist can understand another branch of science that is not their own, they are entitled to their opinion. But their status as "experts" is not to be granted in a field of study that is not their own.

One Salient Oversight said...

BTW those two links you provided about antisemitism contained nothing about Jews.

One Salient Oversight said...

In regards to measuring temperatures, scientists have long used alternative methods of measurement based upon other evidence.

Temperatures, CO2 levels and particulates in the atmosphere can be determined back hundreds of thousands of years through the examination of such things as ice core samples and geological evidence.

And it is that evidence which forms the basis of our understanding of world temperatures going back long periods of time.

One Salient Oversight said...

Now, as to the 30,000 scientists. I decided to peruse the page and pick out five names at random and search them in Google. If I couldn't find them I went on to another name. Here they are:

Michel Boudart - Chemistry
Victor E. Buhrke - Wrote a book on X-rays
Frank E Emory - Medicine
Myron Kayton - Engineering
James Ryan Neville - Magnetism

Just by taking that random sample, it is so very obvious that most of the scientists on this list have no expertise in climatology.

The IPCC, however, has an annotated list of its contributors, where they studied and where they are working. And they are climatologists.

Allow me to use an analogy here.

If I went to the doctor and said "I have this huge lump in my stomach", and if he puts me through tests and says "You have cancer", what should I do? Well, seeking a second opinion is fine. But what if the person I seek an opinion from is not a doctor? What if I consult a mathematician who says that he doesn't think it's cancer? What if I consult an electrical engineer who says that he doesn't think it's cancer? If I did that I would be foolish.

In the same way, the only intelligent thing to do is to listen to the experts, not just anyone with a background in science. When it comes to global warming, you listen to the climatologists - and 95% of them say that our current experience of warming is anthropogenic.

paul mitchell said...

OSO, while I certainly appreciate the attempts at skewing the point, I certainly do NOT want "scientists" that are PAID by the government to find what the government PAYS them to find, which is the case with the IPCC. Wonder what the IPCC's actual task was?

It was to determine the best ways to EXTORT money from the US and route it to other "poorer" countries.

Yes, at the same time the IPCC was meeting, REAL scientists were sending their DATA to Bower's Senate committee telling them that the IPCC was FULL OF SHIT. Yeah, I have a post on that under the NOT Global Warming tag.

AND, when you say that mathematicians are not the MOST important people in the extrapolation and interpretation of WEATHER data, you forget the hierarchy of science. Mathematicians are the supreme beings in the science realm.

And if you want to use ONLY the asininity of "climate scientists," or climatologists, then you are getting about 1/1000th of the information regarding anything, because this is a field that was INVENTED a very short time ago.

James Hansen is only one of the fruitbags that runs around spouting the AGW Trooferisms. Odd thing about Hansen though, he was the "scientist" quoted most often during the mid-1970s that was screeching we were all about to freeze to death. He's a atmospheric physicist, you know? Oh, and he is also a flaming idiot nutcase from way the fuck back.

I submit that if government ever gets out of the money redistribution business, your heroes on the AGW front shall be relegated to the very same heap of "scientists" that follow the Bible of Darwinism or those that practiced phrenology.

Just saying.

One Salient Oversight said...

Paul,

You make the assumption that everything the government does is wrong. You also assume that climate scientists the world over are conspiring to create false information for their own ends.

This is what I want you to do, and if you don't do it you're a tutu-wearing, lipstick wearing, stocking wearing Eunuch:

Next time you get sick, I want you to consult a mathematician. Not a doctor. Not a nurse. No health professionals at all. I want you to consult a mathematician and take medical advice from him.

Medicine is, after all, a science. And as you point out, mathematics are the "supreme beings" in science. So when you get that lump in your stomach or cut open your leg with a saw, I want you to go to your nearest Mathematician and get him to help you. If you don't then your words mean nothing.

paul mitchell said...

OSO, first let me say that the US government does perform one function very well. We had the most powerful military on the face of the Earth, until Barry changed course. Beyond that funding of our armed forces, there is not another single function that they perform even to the mediocre standards set by this blog.

As far as your hypothetical is concerned, I am unbreakable. I never get sick, but I shall play that forward anyway.

You assume that mathematics is not the foundation for all science, yet even your examples depend on mathematics to even recognize the very symptoms of the maladies you suggest. Without mathematics, an X-ray would have never been possible, nor the simple taking of blood pressure, nor the unraveling of the DNA genome. Math is king and is utterly ignored by "climate scientists" that extrapolate data from September and use it for October. (That example was the exact thing that Hansen did to PROVE his baseless claims at NASA, because he is a FRAUD.)

OSO, global warming alarmists ignore the primary thing that is required by their shitfittery, the increase in temperatures, which is not happening. This little hiccup is shown overwhelmingly by basic addition and subtraction, you know, MATH.

spBarney spFrank said...

Did thomone thay anuth?

Heh. My anti-spam code word wath
"brave," I kid you noth!

classicaliberal said...

OSO-

Thanks, again for taking the time to read the post. You use an analogy stating that your doctor finds that you have cancer then you, seeking a second opinion, go to a mathematician. Unfortunately, this analogy is not what we'd call apples to apples. Apples to Apples would be: Your doctor (General Practitioner) finds cancer in your esophagus, so in seeking a second opinion you go to an Endocrinologist. The Endocrinologist while not a specialist in cancer of the esophagus will be skilled enough to tell you that you do, in fact, have cancer. This is because an Endocrinologist had to take general medical studies in order to become a specialist in hormonal medicine.

Likewise, a PHD in Physics is going to have a more than basic understanding of climatology because they had to take classes on climate studies in order to complete their degree.

To insinuate that PHD's in Physics, Chemistry, Quantum Mechanics and other fields have no clue as to climate science is like saying a Math Teacher has no clue as to English Language because they only teach Math.

paul mitchell said...

To translate Classical Liberal's above comment, "Booyah!"

classicaliberal said...

"Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts at universities and government labs around the world..." Were there no climatologists employed privately? I am, and always will be skeptical of any study or poll released where the bulk (in this case all) of the respondents are employed by the government or universities. Why specifically in this case? Because, the report states that a full 90% of the respondents are from the US. Most college science programs exist on the 'generosity' of tax dollars (read: government money). This means, in order to secure funding for future scientific studies, the science program at the universities and government agencies for that matter must keep within the good graces of their primary benefactor. This means, if the cause du jour happens to be AGW, surprise!! all the related studies from programs funded by government money find that AGW is real and is without a doubt caused by man.

classicaliberal said...

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to go back to the whole Scientist thing. The fact is that there exists no consensus amongst scientists that AGW is real, or that it is causing any harm, let alone catastrophic harm as we are being led to believe.

classicaliberal said...

As to temperature recordings and estimated world temperatures... I understand that ice strata and tree rings can be analyzed to give a general idea as to whether or not it was hot outside. How accurate is the estimate? How detailed can the estimations get? If it was hotter than average one year, how long was it hotter than average for? One week of that year? One month?

I have a problem when people look into the past and declare definitively that something happened a certain way, when there was no method in place to measure said event at the time. For example, the earth's age. Give me a room with 100 scientists, and after posing them the question of the earth's age, I'll give you 100 different answers.

Another example, Carbon Dating. Carbon Dating happens to be our current and most widely accepted method for determining the age of any manner of historic article. The problem with carbon dating is, I can send the very same article to three different labs, and return with three very different age ranges for the article.

Historical Temperature data is at best an educated guess.

classicaliberal said...

Shameless self-promotion, the blog is up and running.

One Salient Oversight said...

Paul,

At no point did I say or even imply that Mathematics isn't the foundation of science. I actually believe it.

The problem is though that mathematicians (those with PhDs) know their subject very very well but do not know other subjects well. At universities, students can opt to take all sorts of science subjects without having to progress beyond 1st year mathematics. This means that chemists, biologists, geologists and others graduate, enter postgrad study and do research without having to complete an entire degree in Mathematics.

As a school teacher, I don't even pretend to think I can match the mathematics skills of maths teachers. And they, similarly, don't pretend to match my skills in history, geography and English lit.

One Salient Oversight said...

Classicaliberal, you cannot say "these climatologists work for the government, therefore they are biased and their conclusions are wrong". To do so would be extremely ideological.

What you need to do is to take their opinion on merit alone.

A friend of mine is a climate scientist. He believes in anthropogenic global warming. He has a PhD in climatology. He works, however, for an insurance company since he has the skills to create risk models for people who live in flood-prone areas (his speciality is floods). He believes the research of climate scientists, even though he works in private industry.

One Salient Oversight said...

Actually, my friend is here

paul mitchell said...

OSO, I am glad that you admit that mathematics is the KING of science, our debate has a good starting point since you acknowledge THE KING.

Since we are having record cold temps this year, should we advocate immediately increasing our CO2 output? Or is this just another symptom of AGW, you know, it being COLDER means that warming is happening? Doesn't that seem contradictory?

There must at some point be a modicum of intelligence interjected into this "debate." Standards must be put in place that are followed and mathematicians employed to interpret the data.

Simply flipping from ICE AGE! ICE AGE! to INFERNO AGE! INFERNO AGE! to CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE! CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE! all within thirty years ignores FACTS and DATA and wastes MY MONEY. I'm tired of it.

And I am actually enjoying this past week in the crazy realm of AGW, since Mississippi has never, ever had two weeks in a row where the temperature in July did not top 90 degrees Fahrenheit. If AGW is actually happening, it is LOWERING temps, so I think it is good!

Just saying.

paul mitchell said...

OSO, while I certainly appreciate the attempts at skewing the point, I certainly do NOT want "scientists" that are PAID by the government to find what the government PAYS them to find, which is the case with the IPCC. Wonder what the IPCC's actual task was?

It was to determine the best ways to EXTORT money from the US and route it to other "poorer" countries.

Yes, at the same time the IPCC was meeting, REAL scientists were sending their DATA to Bower's Senate committee telling them that the IPCC was FULL OF SHIT. Yeah, I have a post on that under the NOT Global Warming tag.

AND, when you say that mathematicians are not the MOST important people in the extrapolation and interpretation of WEATHER data, you forget the hierarchy of science. Mathematicians are the supreme beings in the science realm.

And if you want to use ONLY the asininity of "climate scientists," or climatologists, then you are getting about 1/1000th of the information regarding anything, because this is a field that was INVENTED a very short time ago.

James Hansen is only one of the fruitbags that runs around spouting the AGW Trooferisms. Odd thing about Hansen though, he was the "scientist" quoted most often during the mid-1970s that was screeching we were all about to freeze to death. He's a atmospheric physicist, you know? Oh, and he is also a flaming idiot nutcase from way the fuck back.

I submit that if government ever gets out of the money redistribution business, your heroes on the AGW front shall be relegated to the very same heap of "scientists" that follow the Bible of Darwinism or those that practiced phrenology.

Just saying.

classicaliberal said...

"Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts at universities and government labs around the world..." Were there no climatologists employed privately? I am, and always will be skeptical of any study or poll released where the bulk (in this case all) of the respondents are employed by the government or universities. Why specifically in this case? Because, the report states that a full 90% of the respondents are from the US. Most college science programs exist on the 'generosity' of tax dollars (read: government money). This means, in order to secure funding for future scientific studies, the science program at the universities and government agencies for that matter must keep within the good graces of their primary benefactor. This means, if the cause du jour happens to be AGW, surprise!! all the related studies from programs funded by government money find that AGW is real and is without a doubt caused by man.

paul mitchell said...

OSO, I am glad that you admit that mathematics is the KING of science, our debate has a good starting point since you acknowledge THE KING.

Since we are having record cold temps this year, should we advocate immediately increasing our CO2 output? Or is this just another symptom of AGW, you know, it being COLDER means that warming is happening? Doesn't that seem contradictory?

There must at some point be a modicum of intelligence interjected into this "debate." Standards must be put in place that are followed and mathematicians employed to interpret the data.

Simply flipping from ICE AGE! ICE AGE! to INFERNO AGE! INFERNO AGE! to CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE! CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE! all within thirty years ignores FACTS and DATA and wastes MY MONEY. I'm tired of it.

And I am actually enjoying this past week in the crazy realm of AGW, since Mississippi has never, ever had two weeks in a row where the temperature in July did not top 90 degrees Fahrenheit. If AGW is actually happening, it is LOWERING temps, so I think it is good!

Just saying.

One Salient Oversight said...

Let me answer two things:

1) Consensus. This does not mean "100%". It does, however, mean more than a super majority (two-thirds majority). There is a consensus amongst climate scientists that our current experience of global warming is anthropogenic.

2) Which science is which? If I want an expert opinion on mathematics I go to a mathematician. If I want an expert opinion on biology I go to a biologist. If you want an expert opinion on world climate, you go to a climatologist. If you don't like what an expert says, then go to another, and then another, until a consensus emerges.

95% of experts, that is, climatologists who are researching global warming, are of the opinion that our current experience of global warming is anthropogenic.

See my article here.

As for the scientists who disagree... well, as much as a mathematician or a biologist or an engineer or a geologist can understand another branch of science that is not their own, they are entitled to their opinion. But their status as "experts" is not to be granted in a field of study that is not their own.

Post a Comment