You are currently browsing the Skeptic category.

Temperature Trend by Latitude

In the global warming debate there is the idea that for the first time ever the entire Earth is showing warming. In the past there were aberrations where a single part of the Earth would warm up. An hotly debated example of that is the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) where the idea is presented that the warming 1,000 years ago was only around Greenland and Norway while the rest of the Earth was cool. This leads to the idea that what is happening now is unprecedented.

I decided to take a closer look at the modern temperature data for the Earth by different region. I chose the UAH data for this because it has the most data by specific latitude. Using three specific zones it is possible to break the Earth down into three specific regions that are nearly identical in coverage.

Posted June 20th, 2011.

1 comment

Evidence that Advanced Education Reduces Understanding

The Economist has put together a large special edition about the problems facing California. It is a very sobering article about the problems that have been developing for the past 30 years. The overall message of the article is that the initiative process has been disastrous for California because people will vote for a “good” thing, but not understand the consequences. As a result many seemingly “good ideas” are bad for the state as a whole. It does not blame parties, it blames the voters for the problems.

The one section I am going to focus on used some in depth polling of the electorate of the state. The results are simply stunning to say the very least. The opening paragraph is so good and so relevant to the discussion that I have to quote it.

“A POPULAR GOVERNMENT without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to Farce or Tragedy or perhaps both,” James Madison wrote. “A people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.” The question in any democracy, but especially a direct democracy in which citizens legislate at the ballot box, is how much voters do in fact know.

Posted May 3rd, 2011.


Studying Climate Change on Pluto?

I love science articles about space. Unfortunately this one decided to bring climate change into the discussion. A proper parsing of the article would indicate that what they are actually discussing is the behavior of the seasons on Pluto which last several decades. Since Pluto is outbound on its elliptical orbit now it will be entering into a colder season for a while. Some people might even call that Autumn.

Of course the cause of seasons on Pluto will be dominated by the differences in Perihelion (4.4 billion km) and Aphelion (7.4 billion km) instead of the tilt and geographic distribution like on the Earth.

Posted April 21st, 2011.


2,000 Years of “Rate of Temperature Change”

The word unprecedented is often used when warmists are discussing the rate that the Earth’s temperature is rising. Oddly enough they have never once shown a chart that showed the rate of change. They show the recent increase in temperature or they show a hockey stick of the past 1,000 years. The end result is always about the same, a chart that shows the Earth has never before behaved in this manner.

As usual, that claim is incorrect. Many Skeptic websites like to discuss the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) as proof that the current warming is not unprecedented, but once again that has nothing to do with the rate of temperature change. The Earth could be cooler than the MWP and still have a rate that was unprecedented. A rate that was significantly higher than usual would indicate that something was going on with the Earth’s climate that was new. That would certainly give some weight to the argument that global warming was real and was happening.

Posted April 4th, 2011.


Reaching Different Conclusions from the Same Data

The global warming debate is often frustrating because even making the simplest point is fraught with difficulty because people get so wound up. Once a person is wound up it is very difficult to have a rational discussion. So when I came across this article I knew it was a golden opportunity to display and example of scientists that can look at the same exact data and reach totally opposite conclusions. The topic makes it even better because it is about velociraptors which are just plain cool.

So what I will do is present the data and then summarize the competing theories about the data. In this way it will be clear how both sides came to their conclusions about the hunting behavior of velociraptors.

Posted April 3rd, 2011.


The Blended Temperature Set

I have previously discussed the temperature set that I have put together for my usage here. It has been updated a bit since then and people have been asking questions so I guess this would be a good time to provide an update and compare it to other temperature sets. It is important that people understand what the temperature set I use is and where it comes from. I have always been transparent about my usage of the blended temperature set.

There are two reasons I chose this particular path. The first is that it is scientifically proper to chose one temperature source and then stick to it. Each of the different sets has different benefits and problems. Often times it is possible to determine the conclusion of a persons argument based on the temperature set they chose to use. A person that is using the UAH set is probable to be a skeptic. An argument using the GISS temperature set is likely to be a warmist. I consider that simple bias as a good reason to go a different route and stick to it.

Posted March 16th, 2011.


Psychologist Proves System of “Believes” Trumps Actual Science.

This is a rare departure for this website. This is a genuine New York Times article that I consider interesting and useful. It is not directly related to climate in any way, but I believe it is very relevant to the issue of Climate Scientists. I wrote previously about the problem of scientific bias that shows up in climate science. The problem is real, but proving the issue is a challenge because many simply won’t acknowledge the reality.

One common argument presented to me is that the majority of climate scientists believe global warming is real. If I say that doesn’t matter, the instant retort is that I must believe that it is a conspiracy and therefore I must be a conspiracy nut. That approach is boring as it achieves nothing. This article in the NYT shows that no conspiracy is needed to prevent dissenting views from being spoken or published. I remain a little shocked that the NYT published an article that so clearly shows the fundamental problem with the academic circles.

Posted February 9th, 2011.


100 Posts for The Inconvenient Skeptic

A milestone has been reached for this website that I would like to share with everyone. The 100th post went up on January 31st, 2011. It is a proud moment for me and while I feel I got off to a rough start, I have certainly learned a lot in the past few months. I am also doing a final edit on the book and will be going the ebook publishing route. I hope to have it out sometime in March. The book is a much more linear discussion about the Earth’s climate than I have found on any website.

While the website started out as a way to get information out about the book, it has truly taken on a life of it’s own. I enjoy covering the news of the day and since I am always crunching numbers and charts, it is an easy way to quickly share the information that I am constantly putting together. It is also helpful to see that so many people read the articles I put together and mostly enjoy them. Here is some of the statistics on the first 4 months of The Inconvenient Skeptic.

Posted January 31st, 2011.


Nuclear Power: If you really care about CO2!!!

One very frustrating and confusing aspect of the global warming debate is the idea’s generally supported by warmists to replace fossil fuel for energy. The focus is on “green” energy like wind, solar and some support for hydroelectric. Certainly the focus is on wind and solar power. The problem is that these are very unreliable sources of energy. Anyone who considers CO2 as the greatest threat to mankind must accept nuclear power. There is no viable alternative. Nothing else even comes close. So it really bothers me when warmists oppose nuclear power. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the real world. It is not possible to take global warming seriously from anyone who does not support nuclear power.

Posted January 29th, 2011.


People of Science and Global Warming

There have been many statements about the scientific consensus that global warming exists and is caused by the CO2 emissions released by the burning of fossil fuels. The most amusing statement is that most scientists that publish research on climate change, believe in climate change. That would be like saying that most preachers of a particular religion, believe in that religion. Especially since most jobs in the study of climate change, require proven belief in climate change. Of course they are not the only scientifically trained people in the world. What about the engineers, meteorologists and other scientists that deal with the practical side of science and weather on a daily basis. What exactly do they believe when it comes to global warming?

Posted January 18th, 2011.


Web Design & Dev by

Mazal Simantov Digital Creativity