Using and Having Standards

By ntrepid Posted in Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Others have already done a good job of covering the money quotes from the Tom Harris article earlier this week ("The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists).  While the whole piece is jam-packed with "reality", one sentence sticks out in my mind as a particularly good indicator for just how dishonest the debate is coming from the global warming alarmist crowd:

"Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Standard parameter?  30 year average?  When was the last time anyone in the Al Gore contingent referenced the 30 year average?  When have you ever seen a headline like "Yesterday's Record High Temps have Increased the 30 Year Average by 0.0000027 Degrees"?  

Instead you always hear the same old mantra about 1998 being the hottest year EVER or how six of the last ten years have been the hottest on record.  Unfortunately for us ignorant masses, those nuggets from the alarmist litany are not only ridiculous but MEANINGLESS...mindless disinformation dutifully repeated by the useful idiots of Team Gore.  Until there is a measurable, sustained impact to the 30 year average temperature this really is a non-issue.  (Actually, I'd argue that a shift to a 50 year or even 100 year average would be statistically more relevant to Global Climate tracking...but who am I to say.)

Something tells me that if the "industry standard" for global temperature change showed any hint of trouble the other side wouldn't avoid it like the plague, the 30 year average graph may show up occasionally in our "science" and "news" periodicals instead of a fraudulent "hockey stick"...and, oh yea, there just might be a real consensus among real scientists about the extent of the problem and possibly even an honest debate on what to do about it.  Wishful thinking.

The second part of the above quote is a little more troublesome for me.  Forget climate experts, any sophomore engineering student with web access could figure out that using the Mercator Projection here is NOT VALID.  This erroneous manipulation and use of the temperature data by the IPCC is either gross incompetence or...much, much worse.  If your doctor manipulated (or made up) test results like this you would sue him and find a new doctor.  For some reason we just give these "researchers" more money and beg them to keep lying to us.

Pollution and environmental resource management should be high on our priority list and are worthy of honest and serious debate.  Those who are waging this never-ending disinformation campaign to elevate real but manageable issues to "imminent global climate catastrophe" status continue to prove themselves to be neither honest nor serious.  

Maybe someone should make a feature length "documentary" to educate people...and reenergize the already settled debate.  I'm sure the real climate experts would enjoy another shot at the mythical scientific consensus and it could only do the general public a whole lot of good.

Thanks Al. Seriously.

That seems like such a basic mathematical issue, to realize you don't use a specialized, distorting nautical map projection when you're doing mathematical analyses based on surface area.

Just more proof that most global warming science is bad science.

and that seems to be the main thing in "climate science."

My 3rd grade teacher told me the Mercator was worthless! Why would they use that?

Just another argument for public schooling, IMHO. :-)

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service