Tag Archives: climate change

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.

Those pathetic climate models

Real scientists (as opposed to those corrupted by the federal dole) know the climate is far too complicated for any computer model yet devised to measure what’s happening today, let alone a hundred years in the future.

Like they say, GIGO:  garbage in, garbage out. So this is not a surprise:

“49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for [its] role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.”

Read. It. All.

Glaciers advancing, not retreating

The carbon dioxide cult takes another hit in the mouth. Oh, the humanity!

Banning Dihydrogen Monoxide

Give the Green Weenies a highfalutin’ name for something, tell them it’s just awful for the climate and for children and other living things, and they’ll vote to ban it. Thus for dihydrogen monoxide. The No. 1 greenhouse gas. Also known as water vapor.

Via The White Sepulchre.

The Day After Tomorrow? Nope

Boo-hoo. Hollywood strikes out again. Its 2004 climate-change doom-and-gloom flicker, “The Day After Tomorrow,” predicting an ice age for Britain and Europe thanks to global warming slowing the Gulf Stream ocean current, isn’t surviving scientific scrutiny. What small changes there’ve been in the Atlantic current since sat inspections began in 1993 apparently are only part of a natural cycle.

Via Snoopy The Goon.

Texas suit against EPA

I’m glad Gov. Perry and AG Abbott are  suing to stop Obamalot’s EPA from damaging the Texas and U.S. economies in pursuit of resolving, at best, speculative man-made global warming. Hanging the suit on the credibility of EPA’s reliance on the IPCC report looks smart.

But it seems that whether the agency’s planned intervention survives will depend largely on a 2007 supreme court decision allowing it to claim carbon dioxide is a health-damaging pollutant. To reverse that would take another suit entirely, though it might be done on appeal if the Texas suit is turned back for that or some allied reason.

MORE:  Whatever the legacy media thinks about it, Texas has done everybody a favor in trying to stop the EPA’s runaway regulation train.

Behind the climate hoax

climate_moneyVia the Science and Public Policy Institute.