H/T PhilinCalifornia for the idea
Yep, its proven that when Obama stated this in his climate change speech on June 23rd:
So the question is not whether we need to act. The overwhelming judgment of science — of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements — has put all that to rest. Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest. They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.
That 97% number he used comes from the paper written by John Cook of Skeptical Science. I guess I could point out how Cook is not a scientist, but rather a cartoonist, but why waste the fun in seeing who the president of the US listens to on science matters. Recently, we found out that the owner of that blog, John Cook Photoshops himself and his friends into NAZI portraits for fun. The first picture of Cook himself is here:
It’s not a bad picture I guess if you enjoy dressing yourself up as a NAZI. But maybe photo-shopping your picture on top of an old nazi uniform does not make you a NAZI. Perhaps in some bizarre creepy fashion show they thought it was funny. Always a possibility, but as of yet we have not heard why they thought this was a good idea, or any justification for that matter, I am not going to state flat-out that we know what Cook is, but the picture HE had on his website originally does show him in a NAZI uniform. What are we supposed to assume by this if he remains silent?
I am just baffled that anyone would take advice on science from someone like that I guess. In other words, the leader of the free world takes his advice from a cartoonist from Australia who thinks its fun to photo-shop his picture on top of an old NAZI picture? The more you read into the science of global warming, the more bizarre it gets. I expect loads of more fun as the current stasis of our climate system continues.
In an earlier POST I discussed the broad dimensions of the lie that “this month was the 8th hottest ever”. I discussed this earlier from a top-down perspective where I showed that the data is expected to show exactly that and that this data is obviously worthless in determining a trend. In fact, as I showed, we would be SURPRISED to NOT find the hottest decade ever in the last decade. Now I tackle the question from a statistical point of view. Why is this a common and rather stupid mistake to make?
I think we have all heard this claim for years (That CO2 causes our planet to change drastically) but here I show logically why this is claim is based on false premises. The scientific method explains why it is necessary to first disprove the null hypothesis. The short explanation is that this ensures continuity of ideas and logic. If you do not keep this continuity, you double down on your original mistake and thusly anything you publish or explain within this frame of reference is always going to be wrong. In other words, climate science is not doomed because it is wrong per se, but it is doomed because it is based on a premise that is unproven.
Science at Oregon State University is no longer being applied honestly or even in any resemblance to the scientific method. Instead of measuring statistics properly and coming to a good conclusion based off of solid data, we have incidents such as the recent Marcott paper where the data says one thing, and the scientist says another.
The story in this case seems to be that after they performed wrong calculations to get the data they wanted, they put a tiny disclaimer in after the fact that their conclusions in the paper are not based on proper methods. Basically, in the actual paper’s abstract they make several “opinions of the author” and yet they imply strongly that their conclusions come from actual data. What is even worse is that Dr. Marcott admits to it and yet the paper still remains and the news articles remain the same as well. This is easy to see how this could be construed as outright fraud since the brand new PHD Dr. Marcott is performing incorrect methods and yet after admitting it does not change any of the conclusions he made in the abstract. He was caught in the act of lying and instead of apologizing and changing the incorrect lines, he double downs on dishonesty and says that its OK to lie in his conclusions because he put a disclaimer at a separate website that explains that his methods are “not robust.” This does not answer the questions of why he is being dishonest in the first place however. Perhaps we need to start posing the questions for Oregon State University. If we can not expect your scientists to ever tell the truth, how in the world can we the people trust you with our money? And if you can not even apply the scientific method correctly, why should we trust our children in your hands when you obviously just teach them to lie, cheat, and steal instead of following proper science?
Well, in essence, we have two fails in a row for the New York Times, the first comes from the vaulted “Fail-Gate” where I hate to point the finger at the New York Times when they simply parroted an article trotted out by every other media outlet in this country, but heck, they did it to themselves by not fact-checking it themselves. Read more here.
Not many people are aware of the scope and depth of new regulations that are being set on industry in general. This is not just true in the coal industry, but I use coal as an example to show how over-regulating anything creates issues and how these regulations are in other words going to destroy the coal industry in the US. While most opponents of AGW are focusing on the science or on laws, the current president has set into stone regulations through the EPA and other organizations that make in impossible to make a profit today in opening up new coal plants (and other industry) through mostly blunt instruments that do nothing but destroy the ability of coal to function.
I discussed a little bit about this in how President Obama wants to “bankrupt coal” in a previous blog post as far as how it does not work economically: Right here.
Here is a map of the actual closures slated for the next 10-15 years:
As it should be noted, these closures are spread out in many different areas of the country.