Sep 29 2006

Sparring On Global Warming

Published by at 6:41 am under All General Discussions,Global Warming

As those who read this site know I am a Systems Engineer who works mainly on NASA programs now, but also has worked military programs. I have an extensive background in science and mathematics. I understand the world is warming, and has been since the Little Ice Age in the 1300′s. But I have not seen one iota of scientific evidence that mankind is responsible for a majority of the warming, and in fact I have seen sound scientific arguments that man’s impact is probably around 5% of the total trend – making marginal changes in our activities irrelevant to the overal phenomena. Anyway, with that background restated for new readers, there was an interesting exchange recently between the emotional and uneducated media and Sen Inhofe regarding this subject referrenced at Drudge. It is worth a read only for the humorous way a poor, unarmed CNN reporter was slapped upside the head with facts and references.

Enjoy this one and hopefully the media will learn a lesson about science. And that is lots of people, with varying levels of inherent abilities, who have scientific degrees and resumes that show the ability to keep a job. Being able to throw equations into a computer program and generate numbers and pictures does not make the product accurate or correct. And in fact, the ‘products’ coming out of the leftist Global Warming groups has pretty much confirmed the computer engineering axiom “you put grabage in you get garbage out”. The fact is the “Tablet From God” for the GW movement is a chart that has been reviewed by nationally reknowned experts in statistics and determined to not show Global Warming, but an amatuer’s understanding of the statistical models used in the study. That is correct. The Holy Grail for the Global Warming crowd was the product of someone not understanding the mathematical tools they used. This is not surprising, many biologists and earth scientists got through college with limited, easy math – I know I have a BS in Biology. I could have also had a BS in Engineering, Chemistry or Physics if I had the time and money to stay in college a few more years. But as the commercial says, life can come at you fast

The point is the consensus in the scientific community is there is no consensus. There has been no theory that has been able to predict events and therefore graduate to the level of a scientific fact. And when the science which is touted is flawed to its very core by the misuse of mathematics (this is akin to adding wrong) then those results are meaningless. Not less meaningul. There is no fake, but accurate, in science. The theorem either survives scrutiny or not. If you had to have a surgical process applied to your body, you would not want it to be based on poor math skills. So why would we use something like that on our world – which is the life support system for all of us?

The world is warming and we have definately destroyed too much of the green vegitation. If we want to address Co2, then let’s look at terraforming the sub-sahara region by building massive desalination plants on the coast of Africa and bringing water and life inland to reclaim some of the vast arridness. This would increase food production, animal refuges, economic opportunity, and help lift Africa up out of third world status. It would be less costly than Kyoto on our economies and would do more than just provide a sea of green plants to digest the world’s Co2.

6 responses so far

6 Responses to “Sparring On Global Warming”

  1. luc says:

    I agree with your assessment of the situation with regard to global warning and I find your suggestion of terraforming the sub-Sahara region particularly interesting. What I find ironic is the “environmentalists” obsession with the Kyoto Agreement which is intrinsically a “negative” proposition since it involves a reduction in CO2 emissions rather than “positive” approach of removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

    It is not surprising that, considering the uncertainty regarding the science behind the reasons for predictions of global warming, there are few governments willing to spend the resources necessary, and in the allotted time, to reduce CO2 emissions because in reality it means spending a fortune for nothing.
    The terraforming proposal, however, means spending the resources in order to obtain additional foodstuff and other plant products and the reduction in atmospheric CO2 would be a FREE by-product of this activity. Rationally speaking, this should be an easier sell. Why the environmentalists do not see this, beats me!

  2. For Enforcement says:

    I love this debate on global warming, first, I’m pretty much in agreement with everything AJ said above.
    I watched the short segment on CNN Headline news last night with Glenn Beck and Sen. Imhofe.
    Let me congratulate Sen. Imhofe. He has certainly done his homework on GW. (he alerted us to the CNN HN piece that was on.)

    I have to wonder does VP Gore acttually believe in GW? or does he just use it as a political issue and a chance to profit?
    Nothing he does in is life style indicates a belief in GW. Drives large vehicles, Huge houses to heat and cool, etc.
    Someone educated at Harvard should have a little better grasp of reality than he seems to. But it may all be just political with him.

    In a discussion with believers in GW, it usually comes down to: “well, why take a chance? Man may really be affecting GW? why not stop polluting and “hope” it makes a difference, etc.”

    As has been pointed out, there seems to truly be only one thing that could make even a slight diff in CO2 emissions and the Liberals certainly are not in favor of that thing, Nuclear power. There answer is solar power and windmills(except out their window, Cape Cod, etc)

    CO2 (if it is truly going up, and that is also questionable mostly because historic data on that is not good either) will take care of itself. The more there is, the more green plants there will be, since it is fertilizer for them.
    Let me remind you that most of the globe at various times have been covered with giant ferns(which became oil and fossil fuels). Basically the earth seems to have a self regulating mechanism in temps and gases, etc. it’s just that the period of time of balancing may be 30 years or 50 years or 500 years or thousands of years. Right now, the best predictions seem to be that the next cooling cycle will begin about 2020, due to sun cycles.
    The Glenn Beck show mentioned showed some actual footage of commercials from 1975 where the real concern was the coming Global Cooling. It was on us at the time.
    It seems that for increases in warming in the Arctic, we may have offsetting decreases in temps in Anarctica. I sure don’t know.
    Maybe we have to wait for the giant ferns to absorb the extra CO2 to start the next cooling cycle.

  3. trentk269 says:

    You make some good points, AJ. Back in the good ol’ (college) days when I “knew it all” and still trusted newspaper reporters, the beginning of my disaffection with the news media was reading articles about scientific subjects.

    I was a chemistry major, later switching to mechanical engineering. The elementary science blunders made by most reporters convinced me that at the very least they were atrocious listeners, poor note takers, and never bothered to proof read their own work- in short, they bypassed most of the things you’re supposed to learn in high school in order to matriculate through college.

    What I have noticed in the global warming debate, as spun by the MSM, is the repeated assertion that global warming due to the Industrial Revolution is an established scientific consensus, that vulcanism and rain forest contributions are negligible, and that draconian lifestyle changes on the part of America will almost certainly reverse the warming trend. This is almost always accompanied by the dire prediction that this island or that island is in danger of vanishing by submersion, to be closely followed by the Midwest becoming the new Sahara.

    Few if any of these kinds of articles contain real science or scientific opinion of observed data. Most cite political organizations posing as scientific centers , like the Pembina Institute, Pew Research, or the U.N.

    Do newspapers require journalism degrees, and if so, why? Perhaps global warming is produced by all the hot air generated by the shoddy researchers calling themselves journalists.

  4. az redneck says:

    According to Drudge, Gore now includes cigarette smoking as a cause of global warning. I thought it was flatulence from cows. Talk about your scientific illiteracy! LOL

  5. The Macker says:

    You are right to observe that computer models are no better than the assumptions going in.

    Good insight into the scientific illiteracy and innumeracy of the Media.

    Theology of the Left: we humans must recognize our proper place in Goddess Earth’s grand scheme of things. And that place is alongside and not above other forms of life.

  6. wiley says:

    Macker makes an excellent point. The “progressive” secular libs are anti religion, at least for christians and jews. Their religion is the environment, but are they really devoted to it? I’m skeptical. I think it’s their issue de jour. If/when they’re in power (God help us), when they face the real consequences of some of the decisions that may be necessary to match the rhetoric, will they be so vocal and certain? Will the MSM continue touting the global warming crusade? I doubt it — politics & grandstanding.