I am just another resident of Florida and I can’t say I am enjoying this year’s first tropical storm all that much. This week has been rain and more rain. Up here in Northern Florida, we typically get the non-violent wet portions of tropical storms and tornadoes but very little wind damage if you except the fallen pecan tree limbs. My garden which I finally caught up on is in full bloom as it goes (I will take a picture later if the weather allows and if it’s not dark)
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?
The Holocene Climate Optimum was a period of time 8000-5000 years BP (before present) where temperatures were from 1 to 2 degrees C warmer than today is. Even after all of the “unprecedented warming” that we have seen in the last 100 years we are still cooler than the height of this time period.
So the obvious question is: Why is this time period called the Climate Optimum when it was up to 2 degrees warmer than today AND we are also told by the same climate scientists that 2 degrees of warming would result in catastrophe?
Just yesterday, the blueprint for the world’s first 3D printable gun was released onto the internet. Over 100,000 people downloaded the design and thus the era of the world’s most undetectable gun was born. This gun CAN be made completely from plastic and when you consider that anyone can buy a 3D printer (with the right amount of money) the era of guns that are not controllable at all from Washington has been born. Any attempts to control guns in general and make it more cumbersome to acquire will just from now on push more and more people into this new option. Since the world is the limit on what can be designed and printed, it is likely that guns that are currently regulated will soon become printable with these printers.
The world’s first printable 3D gun, the Liberator.
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.
Worth a reblog.
Just last month, these were the claims:
We’re screwed: 11,000 years’ worth of climate data prove it. It’s among the most compelling bits of proof out there that human beings are behind global warming, and as such has become a target on Mann’s back for climate denialists looking to draw a bead on scientists. — The Atlantic, March 9th
Global Temperatures Highest in 4,000 Years The modern rise that has recreated the temperatures of 5,000 years ago is occurring at an exceedingly rapid clip on a geological time scale, appearing in graphs in the new paper as a sharp vertical spike. — Justin Gillis, New York Times, March 7th
Study: Recent heat spike unlike anything in 11,000 years “Rapid” head spike unlike anything in 11,000 years. Research released Thursday in the journal Science uses fossils of tiny marine organisms to reconstruct global temperatures …. It shows how…
View original post 304 more words
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?
The most common claim that the planet Earth is still warming is common phrases like “this month is the second hottest ever” and today I am here to tell you why this statistic and uttering it is not only mis-leading, but rather straight out lying. Anyone who claims such a thing is being deceitful or perhaps ignorant. This is because we are expected to assume that this means that the planet is currently warming AND that the reason this is happening is due to mankind’s emissions of CO2. But this statistic does not answer either question as I will explain…and that anyone making such a claim is pointing out that the sky is blue and that the reason this is so is because of man. There is no proof of any such claim and of course the logic is faulty because as I will explain, the truth is that you can tell nothing at all from this statistic.
The most pressing question most people have nowadays in the global warming movement is whether the religion is nuttier then a fruitcake or not. Well, a good way to answer this question is always with some old-fashioned compare and contrast with another fruitcake so to speak. So which religion is nuttier? That is quite the question and the only way to solve that dilemma is to have me as an impartial jury, judge and executioner to do the appropriate and complete compare and contrast that is just simply outright impartial.
Are believers in Climatology and/or Scientology nuttier then this fruitcake? That question is answered farther below!
BenfromMO 