What are the odds?

Graham Readfearn—Desmog Blog

“From hot to fractionally less hot, here are the planet’s ten warmest years on record – 2015, 2014, 2010, 2005, 2007, 2013, 2009, 1998, 2002 and 2006.

These are the numbers according to NASA and include measurements taken on land and at sea in a record that goes back to the year 1880.

Now that’s a pretty remarkable run of hot years for an era when, according to the rusted-on professional climate science denialists, global warming was supposed to have stopped.

But what are the chances of getting a run of “hottest on record” years like that – 14 of the 16 hottest years all happening since 2000 – without all the extra greenhouse gases that humans have been judiciously stockpiling in the atmosphere and oceans?

Well, the chances of this happening, climate scientist Professor Michael Mann tells me, are… wait for it…  one-in-13000.  Mann, of Penn State University, is the lead author of a new paper published in Nature’s Scientific Reports.

The study takes in data up to 2014, when the chance of that hot streak was one-in-10000.  Since the study was submitted, Mann has re-run the numbers to include the new “hottest year” of 2015, giving us the one-in-13000 number.”

Hillary won several primary delegates with a 15 in 1000 odds for coin tosses. Odds are just that—odds. They matter only in Las Vegas and other gambling institutions. “Odds” do not prove causality. Even p-values are of very limited use in establishing cause.  In the past, a low p-value was said to show causality, but over time, the goal was to produce a p-value of a desired size and one could manipulate the data to get that answer. Plus, some low p-values “proved” theories that could not be verified with additional research.  It happens over and over that what is a 1 in a million chance happens, sometimes three or four times in a short period. There is NOTHING in this study that proves humans are causing anything or that the globe will get hotter. Statistics are highly manipulative and can be used to prove anything you like if you care nothing about science or procedure. My college statistics books included “How to Lie with Statistics”. We also covered in marketing psychology how to influence people by presenting statistics in a certain way and getting them to buy our products. None of this is about actual “hard” science—it’s guesswork with a computer and carefully chosen wording to SELL the product. Science is about sales now, not truth.

The same technique is used with so-called extreme events.  A 100 year flood does not mean a flood of this size occurs once in a hundred years, but people believe it does because that’s what it sounds like.  It means a flood of this size has a 1% chance of occurring in any one year.  A flood of said size can occur two years in row, also.

Science has less than 200 years of temperature measurement, much of it adjusted or estimated, yet we are to believe that the current warm years are the harbinger of doom.  That’s no rational.  We do not know any such thing.

DSCN4733

What are the odds of seeing me?

Pretty Colors

Remember when people basically laughed at the primitive notions of gods controlling the weather and other such pseudoscience? Well, the primitive nature gods are back, except this time they have scientifically sounding names like CO2. CO2 is a god that can wipe out Tibetan plateaus (which in the primitive past would have been caused by a god of another name), cause more extreme weather sometime in the future (the CO2 god is not very cooperative about giving dates—too many problems with false information carelessly put out there by followers that made the god look foolish), cause hot weather, cold weather, drought, blizzards and all manor of weather of chaos. Some question the god CO2, asking how can warming of the planet, brought about by the great god CO2, can cause blizzards? Blasphemy!!! You uneducated heathens. HOW DARE YOU? The god of CO2 will dump FEET of snow on you. Should you also have the audacity to question any of the teachings of the god, you will be called Deniers and Heretics and jailed if the followers have their ways. In the old days, people sacrificed virgins, but those are very tough to come by now, so jailing is the proper action.

If you have any doubt, check out:
Michael Mann was convinced of global warming by COLOR maps. NOT DATA—pretty colored maps. It works well with all toddlers, you know. Color something red and it’s hot, blue and it’s cold. Works even for stoves, if you color them blue, the toddler will touch the stove even if he is told it’s hot.  Blue means cold.  Here we have a supposed scientist witha PhD (those are certainly worthless nowadays) who suddenly saw a pretty map and freaked out. As we have long suspected, THERE WAS NO SCIENCE.
This brings up a good point—all maps in science should be done in GRAYSCALE. No published maps in anything but grayscale and the media should be forbidden from using color maps. All color maps should be referred to as “propaganda tools” and children should be taught to mock and laugh at the maps and graphs. Colors are for toddlers, not grownups. Even if an entire branch of so-called science is based on a toddler looking at a colored map.  Perhaps if we had grown-ups in climate science activists and peddlers…..Sorry, activists and peddlers are rarely grown-up and ALWAYS rely on deception to sell their point.  What was I thinking…..

From The Sydney Morning Herald: Age, gender, race? Climate scepticism is predominantly party political

This shows fairly definitively that climate change is not about science, but rather politics. Why? Try to think of another scientific idea where politics matters. There is, of course, nutritional science, which involves the government telling people what to eat—politics, not science. How about the existence of the Higgs boson? Is that a Democrat versus Republican thing? The speed of light? How gravity works? None of these are influenced by politics. Why? Because no political gain can be obtained by altering or controlling the information. On the other hand, climate and nutrition can both be used to control the population, to outlaw things politicians don’t want and to legalize things politicians do want. Science is not politics, but politics can take certain sciences and create a dialogue that leads to the desired outcome, often removing any resemblance to science in the product being peddled.  Democrats want more government, as do some Republicans, it seems, so Democrats believe the “science” that serves their purpose—global warming will kill us all. Same for Republicans. Many just want the government out of their lives so they follow the “science” that serves their purpose—global warming scam. Yet neither actually follow the “science” in many cases. They are following the politics, thus the correlation. If climate science wasn’t based on politics instead of science, people might be more willing to believe it outside of party lines, especially if the scientists actually followed scientific method and stopped prescribing solutions and becoming activists. As I have said in other posts, an activist is NOT a scientist. The two are mutually exclusive. (If anyone needs a venn diagram to see this as “science”, I can oblige. I’m kind of being sarcastic. It would be grayscale, of course.)

(http://www.smh.com.au/environment/age-gender-race-climate-scepticism-is-predominantly-party-political-20160222-gn05y0.html#ixzz410JuGhA4 )

Climate science has already dragged in religion in an attemp to sell the political actions.  How long can it be before psychics and other similar individuals are added?  Then there’s the conspiracy theories they push (yes, global warming believers are very strong believers in conspiracies especially when it involves the Koch brothers.  They are some sort of evil entity that threaten the planet for profit.  Interesting conspiracy ideation.)  It’s a very sad day each time science is protituted by politics in the hope of gaining control over populations, while destroying science and any hope of finding the truth.  It’s about winning, not about truth.

 

Thumb1_e3888fb8-f213-4787-bb14-a62a9aa38565_1024x1024

Selling trinkets for “science”—the old gypsy wagon returns!

(Inspired by a posting on Greenie Watch)

Latest developments

News on the global warming front:

Environmentalists reportedly tried unsuccessfully to revoke Doug Ericksen’s degree in political science and environmental policy because the senator opposed mandatory cap-and-trade and low-carbon fuel standards. (http://watchdog.org/220270/environmentalists/)

Seems you either tow the line with the radical environmentalist philosophies or else. Trying to take away a degree that was earned as punishment for disagreement may be a new low. (Actually, see below for the newest low.)

Seems it’s very chilly the world over (except for India) and yet it’s almost the hottest April on record. One has to wonder how there can be snow on Memorial Day in Maine, snow in New Zealand, below average temperatures over much of the US and yet it’s hotter than ever. Of course, the global warming advocates are going to say “That’s not global” (neither is India. yet that has not stopped the headlines about global warming and dying citizens of India) but it seems to be very, very widespread. This is a good example of where using “average” can lead to very different ideas than just looking at the temperatures themselves. No one has yet to explain clearly and concisely why averaging widely disparate values after homogenizing them is better than just looking at the data.

Speaking of homogenized values, I am still searching for an explanation of why people are putting their faith in data that is constantly adjusted and often estimated. If the data is that poor, we have a serious problem. Every uncertainty, from the estimated values to the corrections for time of day, missing stations, and many others, the uncertainty accumulated would huge. Consider that temperatures vary radically as little as 5 miles away. A day can start out hot and then get much colder and vice versa. Yes, there are mathematical formulas used for the adjustments. Some are automated. I don’t know that I see this as sinister, but more as a huge introduction of uncertainty. Using data that has to be massaged at every turn is not very good science. The impatience with waiting for accurate data is part of the problem.

Consider: You go to your physician and he weighs you. He then subtracts the 2 lbs he guesses your shoes weigh. Your blood pressure reading seems a bit off. There were problems with the cuff in the past, so he subtracts 10 points top and bottom to cover the cuff not being accurate. Then he takes your temperature. This is adjusted by 2 degrees because he has not been able to get the thermometer properly calibrated. When writing your prescription, he gives you 80 tablets for 90 days at one per day because most people skip a few days so why include those days? He then bills you for a 15 minute visit and adjusts the cost based on his computer software not calculating accurately. At some point in all of this, one should begin to wonder about how accurate your doctor’s diagnosis and examinations are. The cumulative error starts to grow and grow.

Yet, temperatures used in global warming calculations are adjusted over and over. The fact that we do not have a good record of temperatures should have been a clue that it’s highly unlikely we can reach 95% certainty on the predictions. Rather than admit this, the adjustments continue, as the public starts to wonder about the reality of global warming. Add that to the obvious mismatch between what people see and what is being told to us, and one can see why global warming’s credibility is waning.

Update on a new low for so-called climate science: http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/whitehouse-compares-climate-denial-to-civil-racketeering-perpetrated-by-tobacco-industry

If you can’t win on evidence, sue the dissenters and silence them. What the actual admission here is that the government is weak and powerless, with a very poor argument that they cannot sell to the American people. The fossil fuel companies, taxes and regulated by the government, are sooo much more believable than Obama or Kerry or Senator Whitehouse that the only way the government can foist its draconian rules upon the people of the United States is to sue them to silence them. These individuals might as well be holding up signs that say “We are losers and not believable.”

Not that this is not in line with most pseudoscience. Personal injury lawyers make millions off of bad science by convincing jurors big companies are evil and lie. One must ask how much the personal injury lawyer makes and why doesn’t that corrupt him? Same question for those receiving government funding. How can they not be corrupted? Except by the magic that makes those on the global warming side pure and unaffected while everyone else is tainted. Sure–and I have beachfront property in Kansas, if any of you are interested.

Beware

I was attempting to catch up on blogs, having been out of town for three days, and I once again ran into the claim that the fossil fuel industry is to blame for skepticism.

Last night I looked up my “favorite” guy, Philip Anschutz. You remember him–loves Western vistas as long as he owns them. Everyone else can stare at the useless wind turbines he wants to destroy the landscape with. A true environmentalist in that respect–“I have mine, who care about you?” He’s running the Foundation for a Better Life spots on TV again, which undoubtedly means he’s about to shaft another group in his quest to make money.

The interesting thing here is he’s in oil and gas and that’s where his billions came from. So how is it a self-proclaimed conservative and oil guy is trying to desecrate Wyoming with wind turbines–MONEY. It’s always about the money. Not oil and gas, not any particular thing. As I once said to a Wyoming politician, these people would sell their mothers and spouses to the devil to make more money. It doesn’t matter if it damages the environment like the turbines do, it doesn’t matter who you stomp on along the way. Remember, you’ve got yours and no one else deserves to have the Western vistas you look at, no one else deserves to live in a place free of monstrous, useless, bird-killing machines. There is nothing Christian, caring or anything similar to be found in this behaviour. It’s greedy and uncaring. (Note: I am all for free enterprise. What I am not for is the utter hypocrisy in lying to people about wanting them to have a better life while trashing where they live and soaking up money stolen from them through taxation for unworkable projects. Even if Anschutz takes NO tax credits, he still benefits from California’s RPS. He is still forcing people to accept that which does not work. That is not Christian and it’s not caring. It’s the lies that I don’t like, not that he has money or that he uses it as he sees fit. You can do what you want, just don’t lie to me that you care in the least.)

Next time you see a spot for “Foundation for a Better Life”, think HIS better life, not yours. He’s all about himself and his money, not a better life for other people.
Oil and gas companies love climate change–they just eat up billions in subsidies and laugh. Turbines will never replace oil and gas and you greens just made the oil folks so much richer. Congrats.  I’m sure the oil million and billionaires thank you.

The New Year

It’s a new year and I thought I’d try to be a bit more organized and look at climate and global warming from several different angles. This may or may not continue depending on my success in creating ideas for posts.

Most scientifically and mathematically illiterate headline I have found to date:

“We may never have another coldest year in history”
(From Salon, Nov 29, 2014)

It is impossible not to have a coldest year. Coldest is a superlative–it is the lowest temperature recorded. It matters not if it’s -20F or 75F. If it’s the coldest (IE lowest) number, it is by definition the coldest. Mathematically, again, the lowest temperature is coldest and the highest is hottest. You see hottest used all the time to describe the temperature in Antarctica. It is the hottest or warmest year ever there. It seems the media understands hottest just fine. Why they can’t grasp coldest is beyond me, but headlines like this one should immediately alert people to the fact that this writer is completely clueless. You’re not going to find anything resembling science written by him/her, except by accident.

I ran into the argument from a skeptic that if you don’t use your “real” name, it’s okay to ignore you. The logic seems to be that if you don’t care enough to sign your name, why should a reader care what you wrote? Interesting. I thought skepticism was science, not authorities, who is and isn’t using their real name, etc. I fail to see why it’s okay for a skeptic to dismiss information because it was written by an anonymous person but it’s wrong for a global warming advocate to dismiss evidence not written by a professional climate scientist in a peer-reviewed journal. The rule of science says the evidence count. Shutting out evidence for whatever reason is extremely unscientific on either side.

Claims of the “hottest year ever” are out once again. We return to the land versus satellite dilemma. In most sciences, more data points from a more uniform distribution are considered better than fewer. That does not seem to be the case with global warming. Global warming reports that form the basis of news headlines are based on land temperatures, which reportedly show warming. So why not use satellite? The only reason I can find is that land gives the answer some individuals and institutions seem to want.

While I was working on this, Gavin Schmidt admitted to the Daily Mail that 2014 may NOT have been the hottest. It was impossible to decide between three years that were statistically the same. The headline read: “Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record… but we’re only 38% sure we were right” So there is higher than 50-50 chance 2014 was not the warmest year, yet NASA told the media it was the hottest year. Lying does little to make people more believing of the global warming scientists.

(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz3PHwACZiL)

Another dilemma in the global warming saga–is there a pause or not? At first, a pause was denied. Then all kinds of reasons for the pause were advanced. Currently, it’s a toss up on whether the global warming advocates will agree there is a pause or loudly proclaim there is not. Which means “follow the experts” is useless in this case. I am now referring to this as a “leveling” or a “flattening” of temperatures, which gives no clue as to whether the temperatures will stay the same, go up or go down. That reflects the truth of what we know now.

There are cries from many of the global warming camps that “something must be done” before it’s too late. If reports of “Hottest Year Ever” contradict each other and there’s no agreement on whether or not the temperature increase has flattened or stopped, there is no way, scientifically speaking, for us to know what to do. The answers we are hearing now are pure politics.

Scientific badger

Scientific badger

And the “winner” is…..

There are members of the Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry who are calling on the media not call skeptics “skeptics”, but rather “deniers”. One can only think they are angry that skeptics of climate change have done so well while the Skeptical Inquiry folks maybe not so much so. Signers of the petition include Bill Nye, the comedian/actor guy and James Randi, the “appeal to authority” champion and religion/paranormal hater. There are also science writers, journalists, and a film producer. Remember when attacks were constantly made on genuine scientists who signed petitions saying they disagreed with global warming being a huge problem? Now, as seen with J. Cook, anyone can chime in as long as they are on the global warming side. New criteria–you’re only a scientist if WE say so. It’s interesting that skepticism is now defined by dogma and the threat of “if you’re not with us, you’re denying science” when at one time it was just asking questions of science and for data and proof. It appears those days are long gone as far as these individuals are concerned. (One also wonders if this is in part because those who tore apart pseudoscience are very uncomfortable having the same skeptical eye turned on their beliefs.)

This is really not all that surprising. The unskeptical “Skeptical Science” has been out there for years. Psychologically, it seems to be a case of “if you can’t convince them with facts (perhaps because you have so few), then club them with nasty names and shrieking. “Plus, you can claim the name “skeptic” is taken and “denier” is the only remaining name for those not following the designated truths.

I dropped reading many of the conventional skeptic sites when it became apparent that much of what they believed or did not believe was based on appeal to authority, or a hatred of religion and paranormal phenomena. (Note: Religion cannot be proven by science and trying to dissect it with science shows a lack of understanding of both science and religion.) So-called “skeptics” seem to follow the appeal to authority in part because many lack the science education that would let them form their own questions and theories and in part because it’s a CYA move, allowing them to blame scientists for any failed theory. Since they are not scientists, they cannot be held responsible for advocating what turns out to actually be pseudoscience or very bad science.

There’s a question of what the “deniers” are denying. If the scientists are skeptical, are the deniers denying that the scientists are skeptical? What parts of science specifically are they denying? Are they simply questioning if the theory is sufficiently developed to keep pouring billions into measures that do not seem effective and actually are very damaging to the environment? Are they denying that money and politics are the way to “solve” the “problem” as presented–is it really scientific to believe money, socialism and a return to pre-industrial lives are the only possible solution to the dilemma?

The entire proposal bodes very badly for science. Theory of global warming appears to be crumbling due to that lack of statistically significant warming in RSS temperature measurements, there are studies that show the ocean may not be warming as much as believed and people snowed under with 8 feet of snow are not very willing to believe “warming causes cooling”. The science is not convincing to many, including some who work in the field and associated fields and many who have examined the science and found it lacking. Rather than answer questions about the science, the “scientists” (in quotes because no real scientist would ever behave this way) call names, and refuse to address the problem. Those who do try to answer often give explanations that are lacking in believability and science to back them up. Too many of the activists in the field have made wild predictions and statements (ice-free arctic by “X” date, boiling oceans, etc) and these were allowed to stand. Sadly, at this point, the science has basically lost its credibility. All that’s left is name-hoarding, ad hominem attacks and trying to suppress opinions.

Another disturbing trend is trying to “market” the science. That seems to fall under the “if you can’t win them with facts (because you lack such things), dazzle them with BS” or terrify them with promises of a horrible, hot, wet future if they don’t go along with your “solutions”. There’s even an attempt to figure out a way to market to specific political preferences by rewording the solutions to disguise the real intent. Marketing science is truly a desperate attempt at replacing facts and data with BS and fear. Climate science has dragged science into tap dancing, threatening and smearing tactics in an effort to “win” with their theory. They simply cannot admit that the theory may be flawed and needs further research to explain the lack of warming, the natural variations and the failed predictions. Climate science is now playing the role the Church did in suppressing and vilifying Galileo, something science criticized religion for doing. The hypocrisy just screams out at you: “It’s not about science, it’s about winning”.

What is this “early winter” nonsense?

I just left a blog where the writer said the weather was a month ahead of the start of winter, December 21st.  Have people become so ignorant that they do not understand that weather does NOT follow a calendar?  It would seem so.

Winter starts when winter starts, just as summer, fall and spring.  Our calendar has zero effect on what weather we get.  It was bad enough when we determined that we were killing the planet with CO2 (The “It’s not warming, It’s dying” campaign), now we are upset because the foolish weather cannot follow a calendar.  It’s becoming more and more clear how global warming sells.  There is a complete lack of understanding of, or caring about, what actual weather is and does.

So, for those who don’t get it:  Weather is NOT bound by any human creation, certainly not a calendar.  It’s cold and snowing now because it is.  It could September, it could be May.  The weather DOES NOT CARE.

Scientific badger cannot take it some days…...

Scientific badger cannot take it some days……

IPCC psychic predictions

The IPCC psychic predictions:

1. Risk of death, injury, ill-health, or disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states and other small islands, due to storm surges, coastal flooding, and sea-level rise.

Sea level is rising about 3 mm per year. In 100 years, you get 300mm of rise. The IPCC reportedly put a range of 28 to 98 cm by 2100. So 3 feet in 80 years. Don’t see people fleeing like refugees from that rate. Plus, there is a lot of uncertainty in the prediction.  Not to be a killjoy, but coastal zones are always hit with storms and flooding. Humans have lived near coasts and dealt with this for 100’s of years. With better technology and resources, it should be at least as doable as any other time in history.

2. Risk of severe ill-health and disrupted livelihoods for large urban populations due to inland flooding in some regions.

First, “in some areas” is just exactly what a psychic would use. Totally lacking in detail and will positively happen. With or without the AGW theory being correct. Note it does not say “increased risk”.

3. Systemic risks due to extreme weather events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services such as electricity, water supply, and health and emergency services.

Again, not statement of an “increase”, just “risks”. Humans have to deal with extreme weather all the time. If there’s more extreme weather, humans have dealt with it. We have managed even though more people are affected. Critical services and infrastructure are lost frequently. People cope. Should we make improvements to our infrastructure and homes–sure. Warming or no, the storms will keep coming.

4. Risk of mortality and morbidity during periods of extreme heat, particularly for vulnerable urban populations and those working outdoors in urban or rural areas.

Interesting they say “working outdoors in urban or rural areas”. Climate change believers tend to be nitpickers on language and you would have thought they would have realized this actually reads that people in semi-rural or semi-urban areas are not included. How did that one get past the editor? Why not just say “outdoors”?
Extreme hot and extreme cold can kill, now and in the future. Cold kills fewer people in the US in part due to “snowbirds”–people who move from one climate to another, kind of like migratory birds, only the migration occurs in cars, rather than walking or flying. Perhaps people will improve on that system. Also, people who like hot gravitate to hot, same for people who like cold.
For centuries, people have worked outside in extreme heat and extreme cold.

5. Risk of food insecurity and the breakdown of food systems linked to warming, drought, flooding, and precipitation variability and extremes, particularly for poorer populations in urban and rural settings.

Again, nothing new. Drought and famine have existed for the entirety of human history. It has alway s been harder on the poor. They failed to mention cooling causes famine also–the Irish potato famine comes to mind. There is absolute certainty that some of these things will happen. No real predictions short of what has always happened will continue to happen.

6. Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.

I believe this describes the dust bowl–that pre-global warming disaster that changed the way we farm. Same old thing humans have always contended with. Only now we have more advanced technology and better ways to deal with this. Poorer nations will catch up as they always have.

7. Risk of loss of marine and coastal ecosystems, biodiversity, and the ecosystem goods, functions, and services they provide for coastal livelihoods, especially for fishing communities in the tropics and the Arctic.

The “risk” is that systems will change, not be lost. That is exactly what nature has always done–change, adapt. Is is fascinating that the same scientists who may heartily espouse evolution can be the same one shouting loudest that nothing should change or that the change can be “too fast”. As for livelihoods, buggy whip manufacturers were displaced by cars, furriers put out of much business by the PC animal rights crowds, machinery replaced humans in many areas. The world went on.

8. Risk of loss of terrestrial and inland water ecosystems, biodiversity, and the ecosystem goods, functions, and services they provide for livelihoods.
Loss and movement of water systems is nothing new. The ecosystems will change, not be lost (unless you argue that every time there is an evolutionary change, it’s bad because something is lost–that evolution is bad). Yes, some species will be lost, no matter if the planet warms or not. It’s call survival of the adequately fit. Nothing new.

The IPCC report reads like what a carnival psychic would say–vague predictions many of which are going to happen with or without AGW. It’s sad that pseudoscientific vague predictions have been called science when discussing the climate.

Several places I read on the report said:
“there is no new science in this report, which assesses recent science since the previous IPCC report in 2007”
No new science but an increase in likelihood that humans are causing climate change? How does that work? Same way a psychic does–by saying whatever you think someone wants to hear and hoping no one asks about the details.

Another interesting statement in the report:
“Attribution of observed impacts in the WGII AR5 generally links responses of natural and human systems to observed climate change, regardless of its cause.”
Translation: Nature or human caused, it matters not so far as what we try to scare you with. If we separated them, you might see that nature really is a lot more dominate than we admit. No need for those pesky details.

There is talk of adaptation in the document, but not in many of the press releases. It’s fascinating how science gets trampled all to death in the name of saving the planet, which we have little evidence needs saving. Perhaps they changed to the psychic method because actual predictions of melting glaciers, hotspots and Arctic ice were so problematic in the past. It appears there’s much, much more to learn about natural climate change, CO2 and modeling before we can move past the psychic predictions.

 

Scientific badger

Scientific badger

 

 

 

 

Exploit the dead–the ends justify the means

It had to happen. All crisis and human life lost must be blamed on humans causing climate change. And here it is: Mother Jones
One Reason It May Be Harder to Find Flight 370: We Messed Up the Currents.
It’s not enough that humans are soooo powerful they messed up the atmosphere, but they messed up the oceans too. Let’s see–tgdaily had this:
A new study by the University of Pennsylvania’s Irina Marinov and Raffaele Bernardello and colleagues from McGill University has found that recent climate change may be acting to slow down one of these conveyer belts, with potentially serious consequences for the future of the planet’s climate.
Read more at http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/91136-report-deep-ocean-current-may-slow-due-to-climate-change#sheKk39GBik3pe54.99
MAY be slowing. Not is, not will, not we are sure about this. Not anything but MAY BE.

Actually, ocean current exerts a great deal of influence on climate itself. I checked out aip.org on ocean and it’s part in global warming, but ran across the statement “What was much more certain was that the oceans were rapidly warming and growing more acidic” at which point I stopped. My new rule is if the writer is so scientifically illiterate that they do not know that a ph of 8.1 is BASIC and not acid, I will have to check everything they write due to their obvious lack of scientific knowledge. Does it matter they have a PhD in physics? Actually, how do you get a PhD when you’re too scientifically illiterate to know the difference between an acid and a base? This is just making me think “peer-review” and “degrees” are meaningless. Anyone with any real knowledge of science knows 8.1 is base. A base cannot become more “acidic” if it is not acidic to start with.  It is BASE until it drops below 7.  It is so amazing to me that people who claim to be brilliant can be so very, very lacking in scientific knowledge. In my class, people with PhD’s could not correctly identify the base/alkali nature of the ocean. It’s so incredibly wrong, wrong, wrong.  And it makes me question everything they say because if they don’t understand something this simple, how can they be trusted to understand something as complex as climate?

This constant lack of correct terminology and lying about chemical properties and who knows what else may in part explain why Mother Jones is fully willing to sensationalize a downed plane and use the dead as a banner for claiming climate change is the reason we couldn’t find the plane. It’s the most obnoxious, arrogant, and evil behaviour out there. Global warming is its own worst enemy, damning humans and caring nothing about lives unless they can be exploited.