Barnum Science
An article in the American Thinker today casts aspersions on the ``hockey stick`` graph much touted by enthusiasts of man-made Global Warming.
He makes the argument:
At the root of the argument for Kyoto are a series of reconstructions hat claim to model what earth’s temperature probably was before human activity caused the burning of massive quantities of fossil fuels. But these reconstructions of paleoclimate by Mann, Bradley and Hughes [MBH98], and various confirmatory studies, such as Briffa et al [Briffa01]. all depend on proxies various observable things believed to correlate with temperature, like the width of tree rings. These proxies are needed because our ancestors foolishly didn’t invent the thermometer until around 1600, and didn’t start keeping good temperature records until much later.
These reconstructions then depend on mathematical or statistical models to convert the real data, say tree ring widths, into proxy temperature data. Combined with the much smaller collection of real temperature data, the assumption is that we can reconstruct the ancient climate and give an approximate graph of the Earth’s temperature.
Most non-specialists assume you just plug a set of numbers into a computer and get a nice graph. But real statistical data is “dirty” and needs to be cleaned or “conditioned” in order to analyze it. Outlying data, measurement errors, and equipment failures, all have to be dealt with.
The problem is that this process of conditioning can have the effect of throwing away any data that doesn’t fit the original hypothesis. The study which casts doubt on the hockey stick graphs has tested the conditioning practices of one of the major studies.
Don`t miss the rest of this piece!
Global Warming has always been a statistical shell game based on inconclusive data. Considering the dire predictions generated by this junk science (remember the 10 years left predictions made 30 years ago?) and the disregard for competing data (there is evidence that the Earth may actually be moving into a cooling pattern, Mars is warming also, the Medieval Warming Period, etc.) one must suspect that more is involved than just climatology. Could there be a hidden agenda?
One hundred years from now schoolchildren will smile when they learn of this quaint, fashionable, silly theory which gripped the hearts and minds of so many at the end of the twentieth and beginning of the twenty first centuries. It will be reminiscent of the end-of-the-world tent revivals of the 19th century where the traveling parson preached hellfire and brimstone coming next week (and passed the collection plate-certainly the GW fanatics have done enough of that!) and the local yokels sold their worldly goods and sat on mountaintops awaiting the end.
As P.T. Barnum pointed out, ``there`s a sucker born every minute.`` Barnum would have been proud of this bunch.
He makes the argument:
At the root of the argument for Kyoto are a series of reconstructions hat claim to model what earth’s temperature probably was before human activity caused the burning of massive quantities of fossil fuels. But these reconstructions of paleoclimate by Mann, Bradley and Hughes [MBH98], and various confirmatory studies, such as Briffa et al [Briffa01]. all depend on proxies various observable things believed to correlate with temperature, like the width of tree rings. These proxies are needed because our ancestors foolishly didn’t invent the thermometer until around 1600, and didn’t start keeping good temperature records until much later.
These reconstructions then depend on mathematical or statistical models to convert the real data, say tree ring widths, into proxy temperature data. Combined with the much smaller collection of real temperature data, the assumption is that we can reconstruct the ancient climate and give an approximate graph of the Earth’s temperature.
Most non-specialists assume you just plug a set of numbers into a computer and get a nice graph. But real statistical data is “dirty” and needs to be cleaned or “conditioned” in order to analyze it. Outlying data, measurement errors, and equipment failures, all have to be dealt with.
The problem is that this process of conditioning can have the effect of throwing away any data that doesn’t fit the original hypothesis. The study which casts doubt on the hockey stick graphs has tested the conditioning practices of one of the major studies.
Don`t miss the rest of this piece!
Global Warming has always been a statistical shell game based on inconclusive data. Considering the dire predictions generated by this junk science (remember the 10 years left predictions made 30 years ago?) and the disregard for competing data (there is evidence that the Earth may actually be moving into a cooling pattern, Mars is warming also, the Medieval Warming Period, etc.) one must suspect that more is involved than just climatology. Could there be a hidden agenda?
One hundred years from now schoolchildren will smile when they learn of this quaint, fashionable, silly theory which gripped the hearts and minds of so many at the end of the twentieth and beginning of the twenty first centuries. It will be reminiscent of the end-of-the-world tent revivals of the 19th century where the traveling parson preached hellfire and brimstone coming next week (and passed the collection plate-certainly the GW fanatics have done enough of that!) and the local yokels sold their worldly goods and sat on mountaintops awaiting the end.
As P.T. Barnum pointed out, ``there`s a sucker born every minute.`` Barnum would have been proud of this bunch.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:08 AM
2 Comments:
I was recently in Canada when a strong snowstorm came through dumping 4 feet on us in two days. The weatherman said it was caused by -- you guessed it -- global warming. I shook my head. If you call everything brown, then nothing is brown because, as a word, "brown" has lost its meaning. If global warming causes everything, it causes nothing. As a term, it has become meaningless other than as a club with which to beat conservatives.
Hi Patrickmead!
You have hit the nail on the head; the Left has always engaged in deconstruction which means, essentially, to alter the meaning of words through inappropriate use or overuse. What do we think of when we hear the words discrimination, or gay, for example? These words have changed from their original meaning. So too, overuse of a word deconstructs it. Consider the word racist; it has become a term of derision (generally reserved for conservatives) which used to be filled by other, more sexual invectives. (Those invectives have been deconstructed to be merely in poor taste-some of them used to be unspeakable.)
The whole purpose of deconstruction is to change the meaning of language and thereby change the way people think. This is what George Orwell meant by ``newspeak``; the deconstruction of language to make non-leftist thinking difficult (or impossible). Deconstructionism was codified by Jacques Derrida, but has a venerable history going back to the 19th century, as Orwell`s newspeak illustrates. Change the meaning of words, and you change the thought behind words.
Consider the very clinical nature of language used by abortion proponents; they speak of trimesters, fetal tissue, embryos, etc. This is to avoid speaking of pregnancy, human flesh, and unborn children.
Consider the way the Left and the media has misused terms in the current war; instead of terrorists we have insurgents, instead of murderers we have militants. These are all efforts at deconstruction. They are attempts to anesthetize the acts of the enemy (der fiend) so as to anesthetize the public outrage at their behavior.
Consider rap ``music``; the hip-hop culture has deconstructed words on a massive scale, making rape, murder, sexual perversion, and mayhem into acceptable topics for musical appreciation. The point of rap is to make these abominable things cool. (Cool can be said to be a deconstructed word, in a way!) By eroding the words the rap culture has eroded the natural antipathy towards the acts, and teenagers are blasting away at each-other or shagging like lynx.
Bill Clinton was the master of deconstructionism. Remember ``it depends on what the meaning of is is``? Remember his definition of fellatio as not being a sex act?
Words have meanings, and deconstruction has consequences. America was treated to a plague of oral sex as a result of Wild Bill`s deconstruction. (He did cause the coinage of the word Lewinsky to mean, well, you know...)
I was arguing with a liberal at the Reform Club about Global Warming, and he invariably launched into a diatribe against Exxon and Haliburton when I pointed out that over 1500 scientists have signed an anti-Kyoto petition. See, Big Oil and Military Industrial Complex have become synonyms for EVIL to those on the left thanks to deconstruction, and to tie anyone or anything to anybody in this class is to prove they are evil and inauthentic.
Why should we believe this? Because the left has deconstructed their names and those words to mean ``evil corporatism``. Global Warming is more of the same; instead of being merely a theory on climate, it has become a leviathan tied to greedy white dudes in America, to evil oil companies, to those who want to rape the planet in search of their own profit and aggrandizement while gleefully enslaving the poor. GW has become the cause of ever bad thing. If it rains or if there is draught, if there are storms, hurricanes, earthquakes Tsunamis (remember THAT one!) or if things are exactly according to the norm, Global Warming is at fault. That means WE are at fault for our hatred, racism, and avarice!
The left has had this power because of their control of the dissemination of information. They have long held the Universities and education, as well as controlled the print media and then television. Hollywood has been theirs for quite some time, and Madison Avenue has seen to it that liberal messages are advanced in advertising. By controling the images and symbols we see, as well as the usage of words, they have been able to subtly change the language to advance their cause.
New technology has allowed us to fight back against this hijacking of our words and thoughts, but it is an uphill battle. But wage it we must, or lose at the end of the day.
Post a Comment
<< Home