I recently discovered a super cool interactive booklet thing by the Scientific American about renewable resources. You just have to see it.
Archive for the ‘Global Warming’ Category
Posts relating to global warming science and pseudoscience.
Posts relating to global warming science and pseudoscience.
Posted by Michael Dickens on November 1, 2009
Posted by Michael Dickens on September 16, 2009
Poe’s Law states that any parody of fundamentalism will inevitably be taken for the real thing. Here’s a demonstration. One of these is a quote by an actual global warming denier, and the other is written by me. Try to guess which is which.
Nazi Germany. Stalinist Russia. Gore’s America. Three of the greatest oppressive regimes of all time. Al Gore and his “loyal followers” are brainwashing the rest of America with their antiscientific global warming propaganda. These alarmists are just triyng to create the First American Dictatorship of Al Gore. Global warming is completely fabricated. How could carbon dioxide possibly matter when up against a force as powerful as THE SUN?! It should be obvious to everyone that Al Gore is a rotten liar and his followers just want to be acolytes and soldiers in the great government overthrow that they are all planning. We have to stop them! Even our president Barack Hussein Obama is on their side! The 2008 election was the doom of our nation. Now I can only hope that China conquers America before Al Gore can take over, even as terrible as that would be.
Global warming pundits and their elitist masters know the American population has been so dumbed down intellectually that they can pass off scientific nonsense as reality if they can make it alarmist enough and enshroud it with enough scientific gobble-gook. The dumbed down masses, who are yearn to be politically correct, will eagerly climb on board and run with it. A dumbed down society is moved more by emotion and sensationalism than logic and reason. And no I am not an atheist. I just use the brain that G-d has given me to think and reason in order to come to logical conclusions. I don’t base conclusions on hype or ideology.
Posted by Michael Dickens on September 6, 2009
Al Gore and T-Bone Pickens are HEAVILY invested in the wind-propeller turbine programs. These things are not energy efficient. One blade is 80 feet long.
Wooooowwww… great argument.
Posted by Michael Dickens on August 29, 2009
So-called “global warming” is just a secret plot by wacko tree huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st-century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don’t let them get away with it!
–Chip Giller, founder of grist.org
Posted by Michael Dickens on August 17, 2009
Posted by Michael Dickens on August 9, 2009
Although there is an overwhelming consensus supporting anthropogenic global warming, in the sake of fairness I am providing a list of resources for climate change skeptics.
This page is subject to frequent editing.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
A popular documentary rebutting An Inconvenient Truth and explaining what global warming is really about.
The title is rather self-explanatory: this website’s purpose is “refuting the myth of man-made global warming.” It also contains compiled information from many other websites such as CO2Science.org and Climate Audit. This site is recommended.
As you may have guessed, this website is dedicated to exposing “junk science” for what it is.
Winner of the 2008 Weblogs Award for best science blog, this commentary by Anthony Watts is filled with information.
RESOURCES FOR DATA
A site run by Anthony Watts designed to show the bias in surface thermometers.
See Global Warming Resources for more data.
Posted by Michael Dickens on July 30, 2009
Posted by Michael Dickens on July 19, 2009
Inspired by this and this, I am going to design my own climatological credibility spectrum. When it comes to global warming, how much weight should be given to each person’s word? I am going to name the different types of people and organizations, as well as how much weight I think they should be given. The weightings are mere estimates, so don’t take them too seriously.
layperson = 1
professional = 3
scientist = 10
earth scientist = 20
climatologist = 30
Is the scientist actively publishing? If so, multiply by three.
Petition = 50 * ln((number of people in the petition) – 200)
Justification: Petitions with less than 200 people are not considered. It is logarithmic because as you continue to add more people, the petition only becomes so much more reliable. For example, if the petition has 300 people, the value of the petition is 230. If the petition has 600, the value is 285. 1000 people equate to a value of 328. A million people are valued at 691.
University = 3000, more or less. It depends on the size of the university.
Peer reviewed paper = 5000
Scientific organization = 100 * square root (number of members)
Justification: The weighting does not increase substantially as the organization gets larger, but it is still significantly more credible than a petition. AAAS, with about 130,000 members, has a weighting of about 36,000. An organization with 20,000 members is worth 14,000; 5000 equates to 7000.
Actually, the weighting for a scientific organization doesn’t make much sense; for larger organizations, a single climatologist is worth about a one hundredth as much as a climatologist outside of a scientific organization. But after all, the opinion of a scientific organization doesn’t necessarily represent the opinion of every single person inside of the organization, so I suppose it’s fair.
Thoughts? Feedback? How can I improve the weightings?
Posted by Michael Dickens on July 18, 2009
Also known as the Oregon Petition, the Global Warming Petition Project is a misrepresentative attempt to make an appeal to authority. It was a petition sent out to various scientists in an attempt to get some support for the global warming skepticism point of view.
The exact statement was this:
Research Review of Global Warming Evidence
Below is an eight page review of information on the subject of “global warming,” and a petition in the form of a reply card. Please consider these materials carefully.
The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.
This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.
First, let’s look at the wording of this statement. It is widely agreed that increased carbon dioxide provides beneficial effects. But it is also widely agreed that the disasters outweigh the benefits. The statement is also a fairly weak statement, so that all scientists who are on the fence or even leaning a little towards “global warming is real” will still agree with the statement.
The statement was sent to scientists along with a with an attached pseudoscientific paper. The paper was “designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article…is a reprint and has passed peer review.” 
“Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation.”  Scientific American extrapolated and concluded that only about 200 climatologists still agreed with the petition; “a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.”
The petition also contains several duplicate names and numerous names of fictitious characters. The fictitious names may be a coincidence, but the duplicate names call into question the credibility of the study.
The Oregon Petition is therefore not a reliable source.
 http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/what-if-the-oregon-petition-names-were-real/ (A rebuttal much more detailed than my short little thing, with a multitude of links at the end.)
Posted by Michael Dickens on July 17, 2009
(Sorry if this isn’t up to my usual standards; I haven’t slept in over 12 hours.)
Did you know that global temperatures are driven by postal stamp prices? Oh wait, they’re not, because JOANNE NOVA IS A MINDLESS BIGOT WITH A TWISTED VIEW OF SCIENCE AND LOGIC.
Joanne Nova tries to prove it with this graph:
As you can see, there is a clear correlation between postal charges and global temperature. But correlation with CO2 is minimal.
Well first of all, the graph is just plain wrong. The CO2 curve has been distorted. Either the data is horribly misrepresented, or downright wrong. Here is what it really looks like when you compare temperature and CO2:
The article seems to be saying that correlation does not imply causation. Well, that is true. However, the correlation between CO2 and temperature is far stronger than Nova has represented it as. We have a record of strong correlation going back hundreds of thousands of years. But more importantly, we know that CO2 absorbs light and emits it as infrared radiation. This heats the earth. Duh.
Nova is epic fail, but she gave me a good laugh.