Last update : Saturday, 03 January 2009
To impress your audience, the use of flashy charts is crucial. Not only does it show what you want to prove in an attractive and eye catching manner, it also camouflages the data, your biased filtering and manipulation. Nobody is interested in staring at a list of raw data as it is and if requested, there is always a perfectly logical explanation for filtering out ‘unclean’ data, read unfit to reach the desired conclusion.
Oh yes, Earth’s climate is turning up the thermostat a tad. Whether CO2 influences the temperature or vice versa, it’s the sun that does the trick and/or your neighbor’s contribution is no more than peeing in a flooding river even when he switches off all his LED’s and wears an extra pullover. The debate about this looming extinction predicament of The Human Kind has taken a wider path than the next Nostradamus review in line. The folly it has taken is already documented by the vast amount of opportunistic proves, disproves and solutions illustrated in the publications overview 2006-2007
If someone walked up to you tomorrow and claimed that “The universe is changing and we’re all doomed if we don’t act now!”, a raised eyebrow would be the least to expect from any common sensed being. Scientomological (still to be invented by H. Simpson), creationism revisited it is. The similarities in believe or reasoning and the faulty premise are the same. Claiming the that life was Dei-created at some vague moment in time and subsequent changes, give or take a Dei-flood or two –one for each continent-, are mere micro adjustments; is the same as hollering that The Climate is actually changing, compared to any other convenient era, and it’s all due to the late Human CO2 production.
Despite the exploitation of the phenomenon for political, commercial, medical, social, technological, religious, environmental and sometimes absurdly scientific; all complacent bravery is just that and wastes time in claiming to close a tap instead of saving the furniture.
Living in most industrialized nations a little warming up wouldn’t change much for the worst, give or take not skiing in your backyard, saving for air condition or for the lack of that opening your fridge regularly, or being in the heat wave-death risk factor statistics. In the worst-case scenario, some coastal flooding precautions, or indeed a little inland migration and re-designing your garden to welcome sub-tropical fauna and flora or discourage same pests should suffice. Too bad if you “were” subtropical, next you’ll be Sahara material but a bit of leftover oil deposits can do wonders provide you accept some degree of oil-sniffing global occupation and imposed fallacy of freedom and democracy.
A valuable and already pursued initiative would be to use the otherwise worthless desert land to invest in decent sunlight energy capture, smartly taking into account impact on the natural habitat of whatever dwells there naturally. Some degree of wiring up to less Saharan but energy needy area’s is just a replacement of the current gas/oil pipelines.
Which brings us to the real challenge.
1972: The Club of Rome's report predicts we will run out of oil 15 years ago today, with some emphasis on the demographic factor in the equation. Compared to 1972 (3.860 billion), there are a few more humans -and their needed prey and unneeded pets- around: 6.6 billion plus same for pigs, cows, cats or dogs. In that respect the proverbial “hockey stick” argument is a very true one. Put the human population hockey stick next to the temperature one and the correlation is just as convincing. It’s the same logic that would prove that LED or AirCo production causes global warming, or that local dung fly demographics causes manure increase.
It wouldn't surprise any common sense that all this non-photosynthetic live hood increases CO2 output but this addresses co-factors or consequences and not the causes. A campaign to wind down on procreating is considerably less popular than advising to turn down the heating or switch off one's computer LED's. Imagine the rebuttal to "Save the planet for our (grand)children" would be "Stop making so many (grand)children " ... political suicide.
Instead, "Restrict oil consumption and save a Polar bear" suits both industrial and environmental parties, the first to buy some time and the last to have a noble Cause.
Without a doubt, the worst way to combat absurd science is to apply equally illogical principles and be faced with common sense rebuttal in the process. In comparison to the lost creationist battle against natural evolution of bio organisms, the same mistake of disproving new style anthropomorphic omphaloskepsis by scientific arguments need not be made. True scientists are usually raised to be prudent, often in view of their possible career. In view of that, and excluding opportunists and frauds, the temperature records relating to Global Warming are usually compared to historic data. One somewhat National Geographic dramaturgic style prevails in the discussion though: it is all happening within our species lifetime, in less than a couple of decades even. Apparently ignoring (=a bad premise) that a planet has shown mechanisms to deal with temperature fluctuations in its history and condemned to cool to a dead rock even though warmed by a sufficiently nearby sun, the mere surge of our own species will cause our extinction. The infamous Dinosaurs didn’t cause their own, albeit having evolved out of survivable ranges and with simply more adaptable creatures around to take over neglected niches. Perhaps even more disturbing than a common chimp ancestor, this notion of being controlled by common planetary household wimps seems unacceptable. Whether H. sapiens caused it or not, surely it can control it. After all, it didn’t evolve last era’s second or did it?
One just has to observe the pandemic hysteria from a slightly beyond the 10% continental surface of Earth to know that this folly is not about temperature changes. Every crisis has its culprit. Take your own pick with a profitable edge from the sun, cloud cover, methane, volcanoes and... CO2, a harmless but beneficial gas to plants and our own metabolism, probably the most buffered and subject to various self-regulating mechanisms amongst others and the choice is obvious. Humans “produce” it while exploiting their evolutionary progress from historical bio fuel supplies.
If I was attending to my future profits, I’d make sure all this precious bio fuel wouldn’t get wasted on warming people’s butts, what a waste that is. Invest in isolation, energy saving and curb a few baloney CO2 consumers like cheap flights and to-be-replaced cars. More spending to serve a new economic niche.
Those who want to save the world have made a critical error in their haste to convince the masses. Burning all the historic bio fuel of our planet and giving the human species a serious help in industrial and scientific development would raise the CO2 level. A dead brainer really.
The problem with that preserved legacy is that it is a limited supply of goodies and baddies. Therefore a notable warming climate, together with the imprinted conviction that the rest of humanity is ruining the planet for their children (half of whom should not have been procreated in the first place), the simple logic of burn=warming and a greenhouse effect has led to that error. The problem with choosing Global “Warming” as the doom scenario is that it can easily backfire if the temperature curve goes down. Say when the sun has its periodical sunspot dip.
What in the name of “Save The Planet” are we supposed to do then? Burn as much fossil fuel as possible, or at least what is left over? Melt the North Pole ice?
A more foolproof idea had been to call the scam “Climate Change” but that would not have hit any headline because that is common knowledge to the Squirt and the like.
Desperately wrong conclusions
- Merely 6 months observation gap and the temperature drops by 5°C (Aug 2007 – Jan 2008)
- Global temperature is increasing again.
- Global temperature has declined by more less than 5 °C since the start of observations.
- Global Warming efforts show an adverse effect.
- It’s summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
- Seasonal variation affects the availability of Southern Hemisphere observations.
- Trend line shows Global Cooling
- The ‘hockey stick’ theory is bended
- “days ago” is really “observations ago
- The trend line just follows the seasonal variability
- The worst, ten observations ago, is over.
Desperately wrong conclusions
- Merely 6 months observation gap and the global pressure drops by 6 mmHg (Aug 2007 – Jan 2008)
- Global Warming climate change increases the occurrence of high-pressure systems.
- Friday the 13th (1005,074025974030000 Hpa): need I say more?
- Global warming decreases the occurrence of cyclones.
- Trend line shows increasing Global Pressure
- Proof of reversed ‘hockey stick’ theory
- Global pressure trend is the reverse of the temperature
- Earth’s atmosphere is depressurizing
Desperately wrong conclusions
- Merely 6 months observation gap and we loose 3 % humidity (Aug 2007 – Jan 2008)
- Global Warming doesn’t affect humidity of the atmosphere.
- Atmospheric humidity changes, if any, don’t cause Global Warming, it’s CO2 that does it.
- Warming or not, it will always rain at the wrong time and place.
Desperately wrong conclusions
- Merely 6 months observation observation gap but the wind stays stable (Aug 2007 – Jan 2008)
- The erratic effects of Global Warming on wind velocity are rapidly increasing.
- Based on historical data, global wind velocity shows a mysterious decline during the last month.
- Based on historical data, global wind velocity shows a mysterious recovery towards normal values.
- The recent variability of historical average is due to statistical manipulation.
- Trend: It’s getting windier but where are the hurricanes?