One More Time

PEOPLE WHO GO ALL ECUMENICAL with the warmiast crowd and say, “beyond doubt, the earth is/has been warming” obviously haven’t been paying attention.

It doesn’t frakkin’ matter how many data sets “corroborate” the “warming.” The only ones with decent global coverage are the satellites, and they don’t have enough resolution in either time or space. The rest of them are pitifully inadequate to even track regional climate, let alone global climate. They have too few stations, stations that are poorly sited (and that’s being charitable), stations that are designed for telling you whether to carry your umbrella today not measure global temperature changes across a hundred-year scale, and stations with too short a timeline, or too spotty coverage, to provide even the fuzziest picture of what global temperatures have been like.

As each “dataset” is examined, only those which have been designed for the purpose of tracking global climate and transparent process appear to stand up to scrutiny. The rest have been badly mis-managed, and display all of the earmarks listed above — and then some.

The bottom line is, we don’t know whether the planet is warming because, except for where we’ve looked when we’ve looked, we don’t know what the temperature was in any given time at any given place. And as for the whole planet…

(Don’t make me laugh…)

If the planet is warming, what temperature is it right now? What was it yesterday? The day before?

Since your precious datasets have massive holes in their coverage, and can only be correlated with one another about like Frankenstein’s monster’s body parts relate to each other, it inevitably follows that the very evidence which might falsify your claim has not been recorded. The data points which might refute your claims as to global average temperatures are unknown — though it cannot be denied that they existed at the appropriate points in time. Yes, there was a temperature in Frostbite Falls at Sunset on July 24, 2006. But, since there was no USHCN thermometer there to record it, that temperature was not entered into the “dataset.” This renders the dataset incomplete and irrelevant as regards any resemblence to the reality we are trying to mapy. Given the enormously complex structure of the atmosphere, making claims with insufficient information is tantamount to … well … fraud.

The “fact” of global warming: Has. Not. Been. Established. I submit to you it cannot be established to any degree of reliability. And, since the claim cannot be substantiated, it cannot be falsified, it is not, therefore, science. Kyew, as they say, ee-dee.

Oh, and don’t EVEN come over here with that bullshit about being able to interpolate. If you don’t know enough about chaotic systems to know you CAN’T reasonably interpolate them BECAUSE they’re chaotic, then you’re not qualified to play in this game. If you don’t have hard data, you know fuck-all about the conditions you claim to be mapping.

Now, it’s true that science always has to operate with less-than-ideal data. Quite true. You can’t get all the readings you want, and they won’t all be of the quality you’d like. We all know what that means: you do more runs. You refine your instrumentation. You refine your techniques. You come back next season and do it again. And, when your claims have to do with minuscule changes in temperature (finer-grained than your instruments are capable of detecting) over a hundred-year time scale, “next season” takes a long time.

And you sure as shit don’t turn the world upside down on bum data and a single run.

Stop trying to buttress your scientific ecumenical street cred with bogus claims. That dog won’t hunt.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *