While I study….

While I learn about back radiation, the earth’s  energy balance (or lack thereof) and dig through the dozens of sites that explain these phenomena in various ways, here’s an article on statistics for your consideration:

“Why, Dr Briggs,” asks the earnest Student, “Why must we study all this gobbledegook about philosophy when it’s more important to learn all the neat methods of handling data? Why can’t we just get right to it like in all those other textbooks and classes?”

Read on:

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=11543

 

On the list of stupid, irresponsible statements by a government official:

Wyoming has the highest per capita CO2 emissions.  Seriously, the government is so desperate to damage a state that produces oil, gas and coal that they use a ridiculous statistic like “per capita” usage?  How stupid do you have to be to not realize what a ruse this is–there is no way Wyoming, with a little over half a million people, creates more CO2 in actual volume, than California with over 30,5 million.  There is no wonder whatsoever why people have realized that so much of global warming is just lie after lie, deception after deception.  Why listen at all???

Scientific badger

Scientific badger

Advertisements

3 comments on “While I study….

  1. youkipper says:

    Not sure why you link to William M Briggs when he has little credibility and no published research on climatology;
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/william-m-briggs-numerologist-to-the-stars/
    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/01/william-m-briggs-has-misunders/

    But I’m even less sure you understand what “per capita” means. It is a very common term in basic statistics so how is it “a ridiculous statistic”?

    Is it ridiculous to use it when referring to income, infant deaths, or infections?

    I recently watched this interesting video by a highly acclaimed statistician talking about the recent IPCC report. I thought it was independent and a very balanced view and yes he did look at per capita;

    BTW what do you think of the joint statement by the Royal Society and the National Academy of Sciences;
    http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/
    http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf

    • I link to Briggs because he is a fully qualified statistician. The major problem with him seems to be he is on the wrong side. He has published in peer-reviewed journals, so that should be sufficient, should it not? I can’t find the article at the moment–I have other things to get to. I will look it up and link later.

      Per capita means you take a number and divide it by the number of people in the area you are referencing. Taking a huge number concerning CO2 emissions and ascribing them to the smallest state in the union is ridiculous. If every single person, business and mine ran every piece of energy using equipment 24/7, I doubt Wyoming could produce anywhere near the amount of CO2 attributed to the people. It’s dishonest–the CO2 is produced via energy used in other states, etc. You seriously believe 500,000 people can produce more CO2 that 30.2 million? How?
      (No, it’s not ridiculous to use it for income, infections (unless they are contracted out of state and brought in on a regular basis) or infant deaths. All of these occur within the state. Energy usage does not, nor does the oil usage, gas usage etc.)

      I’m still reading the Royal Society document at the moment. Will let you know. Will check out the video when I can. I have spent multiple hours researching the class material on the physics of climate change, so I don’t have a lot of time for other things right now. My search engines are not cooperating….

    • I did find one comment interesting:

      “No. Even if emissions of greenhouse gases were to suddenly stop, Earth’s surface temperature
      would not cool and return to the level in the pre-industrial era for thousands of years.
      If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to ‘pre-industrial’ levels due to its very slow transfer to the deep ocean and ultimate burial in ocean.”

      I have read this elsewhere, too. My concern with this is it is basically telling people stopping now won’t help. It might help 5 generations in the future, but not before. Women were pleading with Obama to stop climate change after Hurricane Sandy, fully believing that action would mean fewer hurricanes in their lives and their children’s. When the first major hurricane takes out an east coast town after carbon taxes are levied or fuel rationing occurs or whatever, there is going to be a huge amount of anger and resentment and backlash. It seems risky to continue to allow people to believe a change in our CO2 emissions can help in less than 5 generations if the evidence says it cannot.
      (I’m not saying I believe this, I’m just commenting on what effect this could have the global warming message if it’s real and important.)

Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s