Saturday, March 6, 2010

Government and (Alleged) AGW

The Beer: The Punk IPA came out nicely. It could stand a little more aging time, but it is certainly drinkable.

The Bicycle: The Madone is clean. I just need to put it back together. Maybe a short ride tomorrow.

The VRWC: Timothy Wirth makes a really poor argument in the San Francisco Chronicle.

From our out-of-control health care system to lax banking regulation, vested financial interests are having a field day distorting the facts in service of another year's or decade's profits. Climate change is the latest issue to take a beating. It's the standard Leftist meme: "Vested Interests", evil capitalists. Then a call for "Government" to level the playing field. I call BS. He calls for the government to "stand up for the scientific method". I have to wondeer if Wirth knows the "Scientific Method" at all. In the Scientific Method, one develops a theory. Then one gathers data. Then one tries to disprove the theory. No theory can be tested for all cases, so it must be continually tested until it becomes observable fact. Observable fact: The Earth is round. Theory: All planets are round. The difference? Until we can see all planets in the universe, we can't know for certain they are all round. There is only one Earth. It is observably round (close enough). (Alleged) AGW is not observable within the range of all variables, and I would argue cannot be proven (at least not with current technology).

Further, Wirth's rhetoric and credentials (The United Nations Foundation) kill his credibility.

Look, I'm not the smartest guy in the room (ok, maybe I am if Wirth and I are in the same room), but I know when something doesn't smell right. (Alleged) AGW has always smelled particularly bad. And the religious fervor with which its' adherents attack those who disagree is telling. The government need not defend good science and should not defend bad.


Ordinary Jill said...

You are confusing theories with hypotheses. One tries to disprove a hypothesis, not a theory. Theories themselves are generally not testable. A hypothesis is a testable premise that will either support or undermine a theory. Theory: planets are round. Hypothesis: the Earth is round. You can believe whatever you want about global warming. However, the (north) polar ice cap is undoubtedly shrinking. The northwest passage will soon be a navigable reality. One can reasonably doubt that human burning of fossil fuels is the cause (I think the theory is sound, but there are too many variables to be sure), but even the oil and gas industry acknowledges that the climate is warming (which the industry attributes to natural cycles). Believing that global temperatures, on average, are not rising requires willful cherry-picking of data. It is an act of faith, not reason. You are welcome to your faith, but I suspect that is the reason so few people engage you in this conversation. Most Americans find religious debates to be distateful.

Deekaman said...

Climategate, Hansen has admitted 15 years of zero warming. Al Gore and the head of the IPCC engaged in conflicts of interest regarding carbon trading. "Hockeystick" completely debunked. "Earth In The Balance" and "Inconvenient Truth" shown to be utter BS.

The rug is pulled out from under the foundation of the warmers arguments.

And cherry-picking? You haven't done your homework, Jill. Siting of temperature data has introduced error and many of the coldest spots on Earth were omitted from data. This is at best, sloppy science and at worst,fraud.

The oil and gas industry has pulled out of the climate cartel.

The religious end goes to the "warmers".

Ordinary Jill said...

I read the article you linked. Arctic ice volume is slightly higher than last year's record low, but arctic air temperatures are as high as they've been in 200 years of record keeping. How you use that data to conclude that the climate isn't warming is exactly my point. I have done my research.

Carbon trading is bad economics. That doesn't mean the climate isn't warming. That's like saying that reincarnation is a false religion, so therefore human mortality is a myth.

Deekaman said...

I saw the air temperature data. I can't tell you if it's a leading or lagging metric. Or what things affect it in the Arctic.

My larger point is that the science is either sloppy or fraudulent. Dealing with scientists and engineers daily (and being an engineer myself), I can assure you it gets sloppy. I can also assure you that much research finds what it wants (or doesn't find what it doesn't want).

I can say for fairly certain that climate tends to follow natural ocean and sun cycles much better than any climate model I've been able to decipher.

You are always welcome to the debate here, Jill. We'll even agree sometimes.