Of course, the AGW alarmists dismiss such observations as “noise” in the data which does not challenge the “settled” science of catastrophic warming caused by CO2.There's more at the link. The global warming crowd loves to tell us that global warming can also cause record cold weather, so that way any situation proves their theory. They also love to dismiss "weather" as unrelated to "climate". We'll let those thoughts keep them warm as they shovel the feet of snow that fell in much of the country his week.
Noise. It’s a term which conjures up static on the radio, mere “interference” with the broadcast that must be tolerated. “Noise” matters not, you must simply ignore it to hear the program. Watch for that term “noise.” It’s a favorite of Al Gore, for example.
I’ll tell you what it means. It means “pixie dust.” It means “I can’t explain what is happening.”
Most importantly, it really means “my CO2-based AGW hypothesis has been falsified” and they don’t want to admit it because there is so much money, power and corruption involved.
Monday, December 28, 2009
"Noise", or Information That Disproves the Theory?
The global warming crowd is having a hard time explaining this very cold winter and the record snowfalls that have shown up already this winter. They like to refer to these items as "noise" in the system. Innocent Bystanders has some thoughts on that:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
While it is true that isolated heavy snow fall, low temperatures, and other weather phenomena are 'noise' to the average of a year, over the entire planet. However, the global warming data reveal decreasing temperatures over the past decade. Whether a single example is 'noise' or a significant event is decided, not by an individual whim, but by whether the event lies outside the statistical significance flag.
On a related, though different topic...since China is emitting so much pollution, as well as CO2, should there not be localized heating there? One would think that the vast land expanse of China would offer some glimmer of proof/disproof of CO2 effects simply by data analysis as compared to the planet at large.
Pack the logic, Robert. You see, we just don't understand academic debate (you and I and folks like us). That's what NYTimes Krugman said, and he knows best.
China, polluter, as proof of anything? Please.
You have got to stop being beguiled by reason. That's not where science is at these days.
Post a Comment