Further Debunking the Gore-Bot's Global Warming Hooey

First it was Iowahawk mercilessly mocking Al Gore and his gullible global warming hysteria crowd, and now comes Mrs. DuToit to demolish the "science" behind his inconvenient un-truths. Rush Limbaugh said long ago that man is deluding himself if he thinks that much of anything (short of a nuclear holocaust) we do will have tangible effects on this planet...he was right then and Mrs. DuToit is right now. It's a long post and I'd recommend perusing the entire post, but since not everyone is that interested in the continued destruction of Emperor Gore and his lack of clothes, I've included the high points below.

"Unless you’ve been operating under a self-imposed news boycott, I’m sure you’ve heard the line, “100% of Scientists Agree.” This has been used to support the claims of man-made Global Cooling Warming Climate Change Warming.

Let’s imagine that you have a party and you invite only the scientists who agree with you on the issue of Global [Insert Whatever They are Calling It Today]. At that party you poll the folks to ask if they agree with you. If you report that as “100% of Scientists Agree,” would that be honest? Would it be accurate?

They seem to think so because they have no morals or they’re delusional. Scientists DO NOT agree. Let’s look at this another way…

Let’s say that 30 years ago you started working on algorithms to measure the earth’s historical temperature and weather patterns. You worked on clouds, Joe worked on oceans, Sam worked on wind, and Bob worked on precipitation. Since each of you were working on different facets of it, you decided to share your algorithms with each other. Six or more people, working together, sharing the same algorithms.

If you each created a model, based on those same algorithms, would it be correct to suggest that “all the models agree”? Well, yes, it would be correct, but would it MEAN anything? Would the fact that you made the equivalent of a model photocopy, and then claimed “proof” based on them having the same results, mean that there was proof in numbers?

Of course not. It’s the same model! Having it run on Joe’s computer or Bob’s computer isn’t going to change the outcome, unless the computers were broken. If the dire predictions were unchanged by any change in the data input, say changing the levels of historical co2, and the outcome/prediction didn’t change, would that be a clue that the algorithms had been tweaked to the point of absurdity?

Magicians do that trick all the time. It goes something like this:

Pick a number between one and ten. Got it?
Multiply that number by 0.
Your number is zero.

WOO HOO! I’m psychic!

Want to try it again?

Pick a number between one and ten. Got it?
Multiply that number by 100.
Multiply the result by 10.
Divide the result by 2.
Multiply the result by 0.
Your number is Zero!

See how psychic I am?

THAT is a simplified version of how the climate models work. No matter what data you start with, the machinations of the algorithms have been tweaked to have the same result. This was done because there were so many complaints about the models not being able to accurately forecast the past. So they tweaked the algorithms so they could. But in doing so, they made the data that supports those algorithms irrelevant, just like I did in the example above.

But all of the above is only part of what I want to talk about. What I do want to talk about is the insanity in all of this. The other day I walked through the kitchen, where the TV had been left on, and heard Jane Hall babbling on Fox News Watch about the Al Gore 2004 campaign, “Yes, but Gore was right about Global Warming.” NO, he is NOT right about global warming. Saying it over and over again, or getting a line up of Truth or Consequences contestants to repeat it, does not make it true.

What concerns me about all of this is that we seemed to have reached a kind of gullibility critical mass, where enough people have been taught that hearing something twice is confirmation (regardless that the two claims were both wrong), that we can’t seem to get rid of this nonsense. Then we are treated to continuous rehashing of settled matters, such as the Kyoto Protocol (where even the countries who signed on to it aren’t in compliance with the rules), crap about “Offsets” which sell the same “savings” more than once, or attribute the combined (not shared) portion to all who buy them, and we’re told this is all progress.

There is NOTHING to see here. Even if radical temperature changes could be predicted today, there is still nothing in the data that would suggest that turning down your thermostat or closing factories would have any impact at all. It is such a classic case of smoke and mirrors it is astonishing that people who can walk and chew gum give any of this stuff the time of day.

...

What we DO know is that there used to be wine grapes grown in England, now too cold for that crop. There used to be forests in the Sinai, now desert. Would those two facts alone dispute the claims that global temperatures haven’t always been changing, in very dramatic ways, LONG before man was more than a speck on the planet? And that’s before we look at the sun’s changing output, the effect of volcanoes, or any of the other natural events that cause temperatures to change that we know about.

Look, man is NOT that important. We’re not significant enough. We’re like a single penny in a pile of a hundred trillion pennies. What we do, all that we do and have done since the industrial revolution, is not even measurable in comparison to the stuff the planet does, all by itself or what the sun does. I know that folks want to feel that we’re more than a speck or a mosquito on the back of an elephant, but we’re just not that important. We need to get our egos out of the way.

There is no science here. This is 100% political gobbledygook. And if folks can’t see that, if they don’t understand enough about science or mathematics to grasp these concepts, then they’re going to believe what these politically motivated charlatans are telling them."