<< CAN'T BE TOO CAREFUL ~ MAIN ~ EXPENDITURE EXPENDED >>
NEWS NOT SO BAD
Virginia state climatologist Patrick J. Michaels:
In the last two years, a remarkable amount of disturbing news has been published about global warming, mainly concerning melting of polar ice, tropical storms and hurricanes, and mass extinctions.
The sheer volume of these stories has resulted in some shifts in public attitudes. California has recently passed legislation to limit the emissions of carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas. Several bills are being prepared for submission to the new Congress early next year.
What’s going on? Can the news really be this bad?
The answer is simple: No.
Do read on. Michaels also reminds us of the financial incentives behind gloybal waaarming panic: “Remember that we award scientists over $4 billion a year now to study global warming.”
BTW, I was just checking out the Wikipedia article on greenhouse gases…what a cute non-sequitur can be found right at the beginning of the article:
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gaseous components of the atmosphere that contribute to the “greenhouse effect”. Although uncertainty exists about exactly how earth’s climate responds to these gases, global temperatures are rising.
Yes, how dare these temperatures rise despite us not really understanding why. (But we know it must be due to the greenhouse effect…wink, nudge.) And that’s not a new edit; it’s been there for at least several weeks according to the version history.
Should the eco-nuts burn him at the stake? Or would that be a big anti-enviro-friendly no no?
They can buy some carbon
creditsindulgences. Using funds confiscated from the heretic, of course.Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 12 04 at 10:13 AM • permalinkI don’t get it. Michaels writes:
I counted 115 articles in the last 13 months—52 in Science and 63 in Nature. Twenty-three were in the “neutral/can’t classify” bin. In the remaining two categories, nine were in the “better” class, meaning things wouldn’t be as bad as previously thought, and 83 were in the “worse” box.
...Any finding should have an equal chance of being in either of these two bins…
Why would this last assertion be true? If in fact the situation is worse than we presently think, shouldn’t scientific results tend to reflect that? And isn’t it at least logically possible that this is the case?
I’m a senior in meteorology, and I don’t for a second think the tabloid hype of global warming is fair or informative. But Dr. Michaels’ reasoning here is not at all clear to me.
I’m thinking of giftwrapping carbon credits to give to a few special people in my life for Christmas - you know the ones who have everything
How can I buy some and what shop stocks them?
On a serious note, not being a scientist I can understand the fear and confusion felt by many about climate change
The only thing that keeps me sane in all of this is the proven facts - that the earth’s climate has changed throughout history and why should we even think we can do anything about it?
I’m ready to smack the next person who starts with this “let’s all ride bikes” and “let’s save the Barrier Reef by using organic shampoo” and so on
Bring on more like Mr Michaels who add a voice of reason to this constant carping
And as he mentions - $4 billion for scientists
This kind of $$$$ is needed for cancer research
Posted by aussiemagpie on 2006 12 04 at 10:39 AM • permalinkI counted 115 articles in the last 13 months—52 in Science and 63 in Nature. Twenty-three were in the “neutral/can’t classify” bin. In the remaining two categories, nine were in the “better” class, meaning things wouldn’t be as bad as previously thought, and 83 were in the “worse” box.
Because any finding should have an equal chance of being in either of these two bins, it’s like flipping a coin.
Only if they’re statistically independent—which a group of studies offering conclusions about the same natural phenomenon obviously are not: they ought to be giving more or less the same answer unless some of them have got it wrong. Michaels is making a complete buffoon of himself here.
Posted by Paul Zrimsek on 2006 12 04 at 10:51 AM • permalinkPatrick J. Michaels. You have so angered the State of Virginia and Virginia Tech that I sincerely hope, you enjoy your new occupation.
As for The Cato Institute gig, you have brought them such heat concerning your views and article, that they have changed their headquarters from Washington D.C. to this present unnamed location.
In addition to the headquarter change, ‘they’ have also changed the name of THE Institute. It is now known as The Taco Institute.
Thanks a bunch, pal…:).
#murph
You’ve got to be kidding! Idiots
However one of my dear friends who is a very wealthy Mosman girl (rich old man) and who is totally into this crap - and she’s also a David Hicks “Bring him Home” supporter, would just love some of these little carbon thingies for a present
Posted by aussiemagpie on 2006 12 04 at 11:05 AM • permalinkAaargh! Screaming! Tearing my hair out! When will people get it that global warming/climate change/climate variation is the latest global hoax???
At the extremely elderly age of 50 I have experienced eight major droughts, five flood disasters, and 21 storms of force 5 or greater (which would be termed cyclones in the tropics). All without leaving home here in Newcastle. Give me a break about global warming. It’s just the weather, stupid.
If the simple answer is “no”, then the logical answer is simple… Look for the hard answer! And hard answers cost cold hard cash.
When enough cold hard cash is spent, the number of stakeholders increases. And as more people expect a return on their financial or emotional investment the need for answers can reach a tipping point. Calamity, catastrophe; worldwide crisis. The latest figures* show that global warming has grown into a $4 billion industry, and that’s just in state funded research alone. Who knows how much more it might cost to get to the real answers?
You can be a part of the solution.
Get in on the ground floor of this exciting new business opportunity today! Simply write your date of birth, banking details and social security number on the back of an envelope and send it to Paco’s Pyramid Promotions in your capital city.
*Remember that we award scientists over $4 billion a year now to study global warming.
#7 aussiemagpie wrote:
I’m thinking of giftwrapping carbon credits to give to a few special people in my life for Christmas - you know the ones who have everything
How can I buy some and what shop stocks them?
How about a nicely wrapped lump of coal, or a charcoal briquette? An enclosed note would explain that this gift, as a sacrifice to Gaea, will never be burned and thus will never contribute to global warming. If they are shipped by air parcel no one (present company excepted) would even notice the irony.10. Some Berk over at Lavatory Rodeo is actually telling people to buy carbon offsets as Christmas presents
Hey, don’t laugh. Paco Enterprises has found it very effective to bill environmentally-senstive clients using carbon debits to express amounts due. They can’t stand thinking that their delinquent bills may be suffocating a polar bear somewhere, so they usually pay right on time, or even early.
How much would one of these Prepaid Atonements for Carbon Output cost me anyway?
Posted by Paul Zrimsek on 2006 12 04 at 02:07 PM • permalinkUh-oh, Mr. Michaels has really stepped in it now. He can expect a scolding letter denouncing his denialism from Nanny Rockefeller/Snowe within days.
While the author is spot on about publication bias and “public choice theory”, I don’t know that any measurable shift in public attitude has actually occurred. Yes, California has new emissions legislation, but that’s thanks to our squirrelly legislators and their compatriot Gov. Green. I don’t recall any public outcry demanding such prior to its passage. We’re assured that Calif will lead the way in the climate change industry resulting in billions and billions accrued to private and public coffers. As always, follow the money.
I gotta hand it to the guy who came up with the carbon off-set
scamscheme. Pure genius.Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 12 04 at 04:00 PM • permalinkHeck, PW, make up those certficates, and sell them. Ought to pay for Christmas dinner, at the least!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 12 04 at 04:00 PM • permalinkYou folks are way behind the curve; either that, or our Marketing Dept. has been falling down on the job. Preferred Australian Carbon Offsets were advertised under an earlier posting. They are printed on high-quality rag paper and feature an engraved picture of a factory with a cork in the smokestack, around which a circle of buxom maidens dressed in clingy togas dance with wanton abandon. And from the proceeds of our 50% mark-up on each certificate, Paco Environmental Services donates one dollar toward the purchase of flotation devices for polar bears from Pontoons for Arctic Critters Overboard. Purchases of these certificates may qualify as tax deductible.* They make great stocking-stuffers for environmentalists, bad children, or people you’d just as soon not hear from again.
* Under the tax laws of Equatorial Guinea.
Schools no longer have pie drives or fundraising chocolate sales. Nooooo.
They sell light bulbs. Yes. Light bulbs. They get them from a NSW company which buys carbon credits for each light bulb. The school sells the bulbs and makes some money.
Schools now have ‘sustainability’ officers. There’s a whole new beaurocracy growing up around this
religioncause. Children are being indoctrinated from a very early age.What hope is there?
Carbon credit = goldmine of the gullible.
Oh, look. Here’s a linky.
OOooh, it’s everywhere. Make YOUR life carbon neutral. (If you live in the US or the UK, you can look up your very own, special section!!)
The Natural Ruling Canadian Liberal party has just elected Stephane Dion as its new leader. This man actually takes seriously the propaganda he received from his underlings while being minister of the environment.
Scary.
Environement Canada has a budget of almost $1 billion. Now not all this is for “climate change” but you can be sure a significant portion is, with many a personal livelihood relying on it.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 12 04 at 08:09 PM • permalink#7 aussiemagpie, your route to sanity is basic logic; a good start for science.
Also, remember that if a politician is promising to improve the weather, they are probably charlatons.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 12 04 at 08:12 PM • permalinkErnieG, great thinking. At last I have a use for those meals that go wrong when I fall into a drunken slumber on the couch.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 12 04 at 08:21 PM • permalinkNathan raises a valid critique of Michaels’ mathematics.
However, I think Michaels’ point relates to data altering a prediction rather than raw data.
I can well accept the concept that there will be no “better” or “worse” statistical equality if we are dealing with raw data on global warming - most of the available data supports the conclusion that we are encountering a warming phase of the current interglacial. Ergo, “better” and “worse” will not have statistical equality, and as Nathan has pointed out, is a mathematical nonsense.
However, if the statistical baseline is the prediction of continued global warming of say 0.5 degrees Celsius per century, or indeed an accellerating rate of warming, then new data should have the statistical result of being equally distributed, i.e. “better” or “worse”, otherwise the prediction is itself proven to be incorrect.
I think it was Mark Twain (paraphrasing Disraeli) that “there are lies, damned lies, and statistics”.
#24 Nathan
The mathematical part is OK; it could have been better stated; it might be being misapplied.
I’ll have a go at rephrasing it:
If all the research is applying the best science available, the results should be reasonably consistent and form a ‘cloud’ of estimates around the correct prediction. Over time, one prediction should be a bit high, another a bit low, etc.
What he says he actually sees is a steadily rising estimate. What this suggests is that we’re just bidding in an auction, not homing in on a real value.
I don’t think this is particularly compelling because it assumes that the science is settled. When the science is changing, it’s quite possible to have a steady drift e.g. the estimated age of the universe has steadily increased at a lot more than one year per annum.
Far more compelling evidence on the unscientific nature of the AGW proponents is to be found in their standard “debate is over” line. That’s a fair translation of what the Inquisition told Galileo isn’t it?
Paco—You need to make at least a token gesture to tradition. Your PACO’s are more properly called ‘indulgences,’ or Richard’s International Catholic Hard Assets Retribution Diminishments…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 12 04 at 09:33 PM • permalinkBy the way, word is, California plans to deploy the Guard to shoot down any CO2 molecules that try to drift across the border from those damn red states…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 12 04 at 09:34 PM • permalinkYou mean that the Prepaid Advent Carbon Offset card that I bought to cover some Christmas presents isn’t a genuine PACO product? Crap! That’s $50 I’ll never see again.
Posted by andycanuck on 2006 12 05 at 10:36 AM • permalinkAh, yes, a voice of sanity from the Commonwealth of Virginia’s finest higher learning institution, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
My brother’s an engineering graduate of Tech, Class of 71, and asked me to say that. (Also to stick it to the University of Virginia, Tech’s ancient rival).
Elizabeth
Imperial KeeperPosted by Elizabeth Imperial Keeper on 2006 12 05 at 11:55 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Heresy! Heresy!