Global Warming - Recognizing Bad Arguments
The purpose of this site is to expose the worthless arguments
claiming that people are hurting the Earth.
Don't get me wrong, when there is scientific data, I want to hear it,
regardless of which position it supports.
(All data is useful.)
However, in my opinion,
any program or article that uses these types of arguments (and they are frequently used) is suspect.
"Most scientist agree"
This is the most often used argument in the public press,
but they never reference a study to prove it.
When you try to find a study, the actual number of climate scientists
that believe that humans are causing Global Warming is
only about 15% - in other words, all of them.
(Give me a break.)
This started out as
Well, that got a lot of scientists, including many
that are experts in the field, to stand up and disagree.
Now, it's been softened to
Most scientists agree ...
as in this first sentence from a
Washington Post front page article
Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing Earth to warm ...
So, in my opinion, as soon as you see a line like this, you know that
the article is highly biased and you should not expect any useful data.
Remember, in science, facts are never decided by a vote -
only experiments and data collection decide facts.
"It is well known that"
"It is well known that ..." is one of the lamest arguments there is.
It is easy to provide hundreds of examples where
Well Known "facts" were later proved to be false, such as
Remember, in science, it does not matter
how "well known" something is, only experiments and observed data decide facts.
- The Earth is flat
- The Earth is center of universe
- The Earth is the only planet with life (still waiting to be disproved ...
pending future discovery)
- Rocks don't fall from the sky because there are no rocks in the sky
Yet, Global Warming articles and videos are full of this crap.
On the other hand,
perhaps these claims indicate that Global Warming is more religion than science
(after all, most religious beliefs are also well known).
Not Enough Years of Temperature Data
Most articles claiming anthropogenic Global Warming
use temperature charts to support their argument ...
but it really bothers me that they show only about 20 years of data -
just those years that show a continuous increase.
There are many graphs showing
average temperatures over the past
500 million years ... but those are probably not relevant.
The current climate cycle (the Ice Ages - plural) started over one million years ago.
Each glaciation (ice age) lasted for about
100 to 125 thousand years. Between these cold periods were warm periods
of about 10 thousand years (and it is currently about 10 thousand years
since the beginning of the current warming period).
Thus, in order to see what the real patterns are, you must examine
at least 3 of these cold/warm cycles - about
450 thousand years.
However, I am willing to cut the writers some slack ... as long as they show enough
data so that the audience knows that the climate is normally variable.
I have selected a minimum period of 1,000 years since that covers
a major cooling known as
The Little Ice Age.
(Actually, there are many temperature charts covering this period ... and they
do not agree.)
At any rate,
I claim that any reports that present graphs of
temperature data that covers a period of less than 1,000 years
should be considered worthless simply because they are trying
to lie to the audience by omitting data that does not support
By the way, the first link above shows that the Earth is in a 500 million year
cooling trend and that, if humans don't do something very significant to warm up the planet,
the Earth may soon be too cold to support life ... maybe, that's why
the Global Warming crowd don't want you to see that data.
I see this all the time - but it took me a while to catch it.
The report shows ice core (or some other) data that has been
smoothed with a moving filter. Then, at one end of the graph,
raw data is added. Then this graph is used as "proof" that
the Earth is heating more rapidly than at any time in history.
Let me be clear, these "scientists" (NOT) are
mixing averaged data with actual data,
not saying so,
and then drawing conclusions.
This is nothing but fraud.
To be specific
As a result, if you apply the same moving averages to the current data
that was applied to the rest of the data on the graph, you
can't even see the "significant" increase.
That is why I claim that using graphs of this type is simply fraud.
- Due to how ice freezes, the temperature and CO2 data extracted from
ice cores is filtered (averaged) with a
variable length 1,000 to 7,000 year moving average.
Not only is the filter period variable, but we have no way to determine it
year by year.
- Because thermometers were not used, all data before about 1850 AD
was determined by looking at historical documents. As a result, one conservative
value is that the data should be considered as being filtered with a 50 year
moving average. (I'll admit, I am making this value up based on the apparent
smoothness of the graphs that I have seen. I do NOT have a reference for this
50 year value.)
As a specific example,
NOVA provides 4 graphs.
Thus, even though the data may be good, the graphs, in fact, lie because you can not
combine apples and oranges and make lemons.
- The second graph from the top shows 1,000 years of data with what looks like a 50 year
moving average. Then current data is added at the right without any averaging.
Not only does the graph NOT SHOW the Little Ice Age, but the recent data is more than
twice as high as it would be if the same filter was applied.
- The bottom graph shows 400,000 years of CO2 data smoothed with a moving average
of unknown length.
Again, the current data is added at the right without any averaging.
In this case, properly averaging the data could place the first 3 peaks
above today's averaged CO2 concentration. A more correct interpretation
is that even if the real peaks in the past were more than 100 times today's value,
they would not be visible
because they were averaged out to the rather low peaks shown.
The Boogie Man Card
This is the argument that bothers me the most
"Even if it can not be proved, we must ..."
Basically, this says
I know the science is weak ... but I mean well
To me, this is simply the plea of a politician asking for your vote.
It is also a warning to grab your wallet ...
These are some additional examples
What if you're wrong
It could happen
By the time the science is done, it may be too late
There may be a trigger that we can't predict, therefore, all change must stop
So, the boogie man card is another indicator that the "Science Report"
is just another bogus political ad.