This week the Pravda Press had screaming headlines
that 2014 was the “hottest year on record.”
However, if you dig into the numbers, the records referred to only go
back to 1880. They are the records of
land based mercury thermometers. Digging
further, you find that the difference between 2014 and the next hottest year
was under .04 degrees. So I made this
comment:
All years
are above average here in Lake Wobegon. If the best liberals can do is measured
in hundredths of a degree, we're dealing with statistical noise. The difference
is well within the margin of error. No thermometer available in 1880 was
accurate to .05 degrees. Even ignorant rednecks like me know this ain't a big
enough difference to talk about. In making a big deal out of this, liberals
sound like Pinky and the Brain have decided to use the threat of global warming
to do what liberals try to do every night, try to take over the world.
In defending
the “hottest on record” screaming headlines, some commenters tried to argue
that statistically the error of observation is reduced by the large number of
observations. One commenter told me I
needed to take a remedial course in statistics.
I had this response:
Me: MS
Statistics 1972 University of Illinois. You: MSNBC. Your comment makes no
statistical sense and ignores history. If individual readings are only accurate
to .1 degree, no amount of multiple observations are going to improve the
accuracy of your instruments. The observations come mainly from urban areas
which have gotten hotter over time due to increases in paved area. The time
span from 1880 to now is an eye blink in geologic time. Even if the readings
are as incredibly accurate as you say, they prove no connection between industrial
activity and temperature fluctuation. The models used to establish a connection
have no statistical significance. The logical conclusion is that you are a
disciple of Jonathan Gruber using complication to obscure a power grab (pun
intended) of unprecedented proportions. I don't want to live under a
dictatorship of East and West Coast Liberal idiots controlling all energy use
and forcing rednecks back to horse and buggy technology. You guys are rich
enough to pay for dikes to protect your property in the event that the oceans
actually do rise. I see no reason I should have to subsidize the foolish
superstitions of the 1% by paying exorbitant prices for alternative energy or
doing without energy altogether.
At ths
point, the liberal commenter complained that the above was a personal
attack. He also said he never watched
MSNBC and didn’t know who Jonathan Gruber was.
As always in these arguments, liberal commenters refer to the sanctity
of science and proclaim debate as unscientific.
So I hit back with this:
It would
seem that you can dish it out but you can't take it. If you tell someone they
are so ignorant they need to take a course to remediate their knowledge, that's
a personal insult. If you get a response in kind, you should not be surprised.
Jonathan Gruber designed Obamacare to be so complex nobody would figure out
that it was really a tax increase. The "science" you are pushing is
really a political program of increased centralized government control. If
government controls all energy use, they control the entire economy with no
checks or balances possible to keep them from becoming abusive. If your
education was so narrowly focused on gender studies that you can't see that,
then I feel sorry for you. Renewable energy is 11.2% of the total energy
generated in the United States. There is no way we can depend on renewable
energy for all of our energy needs in the near future. Forcing a rapid
conversion to all renewable energy would be prohibitively expensive. The only
way we might get to much lower emissions in the intermediate term is with
nuclear power. However, tree huggers like you don't want that either. We're
left with horses, which I can tell you from personal experience are not all
that much fun to clean up after. You are a victim of group think. Whether you
watch MSNBC or not, you really are spouting the party line on global warming.
The models that predict increasing temperatures due to CO2 emissions are not
statistically significant. Temperatures in the last 15-20 years have not moved
in a statistically significant way. Math is hard for Liberals, but it still is
there even if you ignore it. Just to be crystal clear, the burden of proof is
that you have to show 1) a significant increase in temperature and 2) a direct
provable link to burning fossil fuel. Since you haven't shown either one,
you've got no case that would warrant scrapping the Constitution to save the
planet. In order to remediate your total ignorance of economics, please
consider watching some video here:
(This is a
link to Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose PBS TV Series. It is a great introduction to Supply Side
Economics.)
This is the
article I was reacting to: