How to Lie With Statistics: Climate Change addendum

According to the U.S. Senate’s “Update On The Latest Climate Change Science,” 98 percent of scientists “agree” that global warming is occuring and that humans are the cause.

In fact, according to WeatherBell’s chief meteorologist Joe Bastardi, the “update” should be an addendum to the classic book “How To Lie With Statistics.”

Bastardi says the 98 percent should be 97.4 and it’s based on the responses of “0.75% of [10,272 earth scientists] polled, just 77 to 79 scientists, certainly a minute fraction of [the world’s] 5.8 million scientists.”

Such incredible mendacity by the U.S. Senate should not really be a surprise, of course, as our politicians lie about everything else, so why not this subject as well? It is odd that they can’t correctly round 97.4 but they were probably in a rush to go pick up their latest bribe from the climate-change lobby—the folks who will be spending our tax money to, um, “change” the climate.

Meanwhile the American Meteorological Society (whose AMS seal you will often see flash on the screen as your local forecaster begins his thing) recently issued a similar pronouncement, that CO2 is driving the climate, and purporting to have the backing of its 11,000 members in saying so.

On the contrary, Bastardi, a society member, asserts, there are many society dissenters whose views that the sun and the oceans should have at least equal standing as climate drivers are being ignored. Thus, don’t be surprised to hear that your local forecaster (whose knowledge of climate science is minimal) supports CO2 as the source of “climate change.”

What we have here is the science version of the Military Industrial Complex, which everyone has heard of. In which the military and defense industries work to promote tax-supported development of more and more weapons which has the effect of promoting more wars.

In the science version, the government is corrupting science to promote a political agenda. Academic scientists (which are most scientists) cannot keep their jobs, much less be promoted, without research, which cannot be done without money and most of it comes from the feds. Want funding? Get on the CO2 political bandwagon. Don’t and you will suffer.

Writes Bastardi: “The AMS has advocacy of public policy as one of its primary goals. When I was a councilor in the 2000s I argued that the society ought to advocate good science and not policy. There are already many organizations dealing with policy. [B]ut the society is catering to its many academics who have never had such a windfall of grant money.”

And what a windfall: “It has been estimated $10 Billion [tax] dollars has gone to fund this one sided science. The US government shells out $7B of your tax dollars each year to its agencies to study and develop policy about global warming.”

Right now, all of this is supporting the views of Obysmal and the Democrats. If Romney is elected, it will be supporting the views of Republicans. How convenient for the politicians (regardless of party) whose proposed “solutions” involve many more taxes, less oil development leading to higher gasoline prices and gradually eliminating coal which will mean higher electricity prices, and as a corollary to these changes, fewer travel options.

For us, the hapless taxpayers, that is. For themselves, well, the pols often exclude themselves from the laws they pass by providing themselves either outright exemptions or else subsidies of one kind or another.

They are our “servants” in name only. We are, increasingly, theirs and nothing illustrates it better than their lying about climate change.

0 responses to “How to Lie With Statistics: Climate Change addendum

  1. There is also the question of just exactly what is a “scientist”?

    I worked in R&D for over 30 years, participating in various ways in creation of novel polymers and applications of polymer blends. I hold in common eight or ten patents on that work.

    Does that make me a “scientist”? Evidently not. I would like to know because if there is somewhere I could pay my dues to the club, I’d join.

  2. I don’t see why you can’t claim the title, J.D., for whatever good it might do you.

  3. Point I was alluding to is that pretty much any asshole can claim to be a scientist – Al Gore comes to mind…

    Actually doing science and/or engineering is a very different thing than claiming to know all about it. One of the first clues that someone isn’t much of a scientist is that they claim to know all about a subject. Which is not possible for a human.

  4. I think such claims are directed at the ignorant which, apparently, is most people, or at least those not trained in science or even interested in it. The claims fall flat with anyone who has any idea of how much work it takes to be proficient in just one specialty and how that doesn’t qualify you for being proficient in another, unrelated one.