You are currently browsing the Bad Science category.
There is a proposal by some nut-jobs to get in helicopters and fly around shooting camels in order to slow down global warming. Just think about that for a moment. The ‘thought’ behind that is it will reduce the methane emissions enough to… well who knows what they are thinking.
PARIS: The world’s association of camel scientists has fought back angrily over Australian plans to kill wild dromedaries on the grounds that their flatulence adds to global warming.
The idea is “false and stupid… a scientific aberration”, the International Society of Camelid Research and Development (ISOCARD) charged, saying camels were being made culprits for a man-made problem.
Posted July 7th, 2011. 7 comments
There has been a rash of news about how settled the global warming debate really is. From brand new ‘neutral’ discussions that have concluded within a matter of weeks that global warming is real to Geological Society taking a stand that the current situation could be comparable to previous events in the past that were associated with periods of warming.
I very disappointed by the statement put out by the Geological Society. They put together a very nice comprehensive history of the Earth’s climate which is pretty detailed and is very much in alignment with the history that I have put together, but they also make some assumptions that are really not supported. I think the committee that put this together really had a fight on their hands.
Posted June 27th, 2011. 2 comments
Ariel Schwartz writes some really out there articles about the climate, but I think she has gone a bit overboard. Her understanding of the science appears to be about as deep as knowing each and every possible catastrophy that has been projected as a result of global warming, but nothing any deeper than that.
I will tackle the list of dangers that she has listed and add some facts to it. Somehow I doubt that she will appreciate a proper peer review.
Posted June 22nd, 2011. 10 comments
There is a new paper involving the omnipresent Michael Mann that is going to get lots of attention. The paper isn’t even out yet, but already I am very intrigued because the data used in the charts is clearly not the data that it says it is. The graph in the paper shows significantly more warming that the data it claims to be. For a peer-reviewed document that should be the gold standard, this one is already seriously lacking at the first cursory review.
At first glance I saw something wrong with the top chart in this figure.
Posted June 20th, 2011. 10 comments
Geo-Engineering seems to be experiencing a resurgence. The IPCC once again seems to be behind the idea that intentionally interfering with the climate is the way to solve the theorized problem that increased CO2 levels cause. Since all of the ideas will be very expensive and be paid for by tax-payer money and be run by the scientists that propose them, they might seem like good ideas to the scientists that are proposing the idea.
The key quote from the latest article about the IPCC push for Geo-engineering really explains the whole situation.
Posted June 16th, 2011. 2 comments
Truly a fascinating new development is taking place from the Dr. Jones of the CRU. The claim is now out there that global warming is statistically significant once 2010 is taken into account. The claim is based on the fact that with 2009 in the mix, the statistical certainty was only 90%, but now that 2010 is added, the 95% threshold for significance has (finally) been achieved. I have to be honest, it made me laugh.
The data is based on the HadCRUT3 temperature data from 1995-2010. That 15 year period is now the basis for the claim that global warming is real and fully upon us. The basis for this seems to be that the 15 year average is now high enough to be statistically different from the period before it. I could find a number of ways to torture the data to show that, but really it is amusing considering what the climate has been doing for the past 10 of those 15 years.
Posted June 10th, 2011. 3 comments
I previously written (Fraud, Bias, Funding) about problems in the scientific research community. I have taken some criticism because I work in the “private” sector instead of the “public” sector. Anyone who really understands research would not make such a foolish critique. It is the private sector that has driven technology to where it is today. The idea of trying to falsify product that you sell to customers is laughable. The price is no repeat business and that is the end of the business, in most cases at least. Certainly one that is highly competitive.
Now the Scientific American has essentially come out and said the same thing as I have previously written. The Epidemic of False Claims is their new article on the topic. I will post the entire article below, but wanted to show some highlights and discuss.
Posted June 2nd, 2011. 1 comment
The IPCC has released a “draft” report about energy usage for the Earth that might be the worst piece of science ever produced to date by any UN body. That is an incredible achievement in futility. I started writing about it and ended up needing a series of articles to cover just how bad this report really is. The ideas included in this report are so absurd that they make perpetual motion appear reasonable. Dissecting this much bad information will take some time, so I am going to spend the next week or two slowly tearing this thing to pieces. It is so bad that it deserves this kind of detailed attention. I might wrap up early if I finish up, but I will have to include some articles that explain the real science so I can point out just how bad this report really is.
Everything that actually needs to be known about the latest major “draft”report from the IPCC is that the lead author is the renewable energy director of Greenpeace International by the name of Sven Teske. If that doesn’t reek of conflict of interest then nothing ever will. That single fact alone is enough to make me disregard the entire report out of hand because putting someone with a known and vested interest in renewable energy in charge of an international report on the future of the worlds energy ensures the conclusion of the report. There is not even an attempt to make this appear legitimate. That is truly audacious.
Posted May 7th, 2011. 1 comment
Sometimes it is easier to prove a point from other examples. Political pressure often causes governments to hedge their statements about topics that should be strictly scientific. A long article, but the conclusion is well worth the read.
Right after my previous article that discussed the historical problems in Antarctica, I found another article about Antarctica in National Geographic that uses modelling to answer the “mystery” of the Antarctic sea ice increase over the past 30 years. The reason it is a mystery is because that increase in sea ice coverage is contrary to the theory of global warming.
This paper got plenty of attention when it was released last August and many, many problems have been pointed out by others, but most of the discussion has focused on the inappropriate definition of warming that has taken place in the Southern Ocean. The main problem that was brought up last summer was there is very little accurate data prior to 1978 (pre satellite data problem once again, as usual). The paper is specific in its discussion of warming from 1950-1999. The main prior discussion was about the lack of valid data for the pre-1978 period. It is easy to make a warming trend when half the period has no useful data.
Posted April 16th, 2011. 8 comments