Sunday, January 6, 2013

Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Baloney

Statistics means never having to say you're certain, reads the t-shirt, but sometimes it's useful to point out a lack of certainty. In complex systems, it is possible that some result and one variable correlate fairly well, but as we know, correlation is not causality. It's entirely possible that some combination of other variables is in fact the driving factor, and the first variable is just along for the ride.

What's Up With That has found a scholarly paper that looks at climate change and concludes that human activity really has little or nothing to do with it. I have been exposed to statistical analysis, and I recognize the words he's using, but the papers author is going somewhat deeper than I had to. Still, the conclusion:
Panels a and b both show that there is no relationship between temperature and the anthropogenic anomaly, once the warming effect of solar irradiance is taken into consideration. “…our rejection of AGW is not absolute; it might be a false positive, and we cannot rule out the possibility that recent global warming has an anthropogenic footprint. However, this possibility is very small, and is not statistically significant at conventional levels.”
 Emphasis mine. Still, as long as "green" business can act as a money laundering machine for politicians, we'll have to listen to the moonbats.


2 comments:

Brad K. said...

This is the way I recall the original brouhaha over global warming. That is, the 200+ scientists signed off on a 2000 page study that concluded more study was needed to know anything. The Clinton/Gore White House produced the infamous 200 page "executive summary" of that report, and concluded, "ZOMG! Global Warming! Anthropogenic!" and send Gore to the slide show circuit.

Then there were was the lone NASA report that all the planets in the solar system were warming. And the Army report that noted solar system changes. And the Guardian (UK) article with several claims of government-funded scientists that had to "confirm" AGW or lose their funding/jobs.

On the other hand, it can be pretty dramatic, how cutting down old-growth forests, like the Amazon basin, and Asia, and the US east of the Mississippi, and in Europe, quickly and demonstrably change the local and regional climate. The impact of the "reforest the Sahara" project is showing some interesting returns, much more promising than where lumber and paper companies showed how to clear-cut a few mountains at a time, or how setting up a major strip mine affects local weather.

Robin said...

Enjoy this one, Bill