Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Uncorrelated

Don't miss two posts by admitted dork MaxedOutMama, showing that global warming has nothing to do with CO2 emissions. Rather, warming appears to be a product of increased sunspot activity. But Kyoto is based on CO2; if greenhouse gasses aren't the cause, the West is flushing money down the toilet ($66 billion so far to slow warming by 0.000683091 °C).

Still think global warming is "consensus" or science? It ain't--it's what passes for a wet dream in academia. Science is what's falsible; environmentalism lacks logic, its unprovable doctrines are akin to religion. In fact, though greenies won't admit it, the hockey-stick curve-fit don't fit the data (R2 = 0.02), meaning, "the sign is correct only 54% of the time just better than random, the product mean test has a t-distribution and is insignificant, the CE statistic is negative. No wonder they don’t want anyone to look at these statistics."

Last year, warming charlatans received over $2 billion in U.S. government funding. Meaning we're paying for warming follies twice. Imagine the savings if we simply gave every tenured climatologist a 12-month supply of Viagra? Remember, we're talking about professors: call it 10 pills, about $50 a year. What's in your wallet?

1 comment:

Haakon B. Dahl said...

The article which supposedly lays the blame for global warming on sunspot activity does no such thing. The article specifically refutes the 1991 graph which MaxedOutMama and others have presented. The recent uptrend in solar activity is ascribed to mathematical errors, and corrected data is shown on other graphs. The article also pointedly takes to task people who continue to publish the old refuted data, and who use it to support their "Global warming isn't due to CO2" arguments.
I agree with you that most of the global warming bunk we hear is the product of an almost religious belief system. The only scientific cycle proven so far is the positive feedback loop between global warming research funds and results which call for funding further global warming research.
However, through not reading the article carefully enough, and simply posting the prettiest graph, MaxedOutMama has simply made the same mistake as the global-warmingistas; that of selecting attractive data without regard to veracity.
We may yet refute the CO2 connection, but this article has MANIFESTLY not done so.
Go back and read the article in detail. You wll be disappointed.