Repealing Obamacare has a larger Scientific Consensus than Global Warming

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 1st, 2014

Week in Review

If you’re a fan of alpine skiing you probably were disappointed with the Sochi games.  Because it was too warm.  In fact, they were the warmest Winter Games ever (see It’s Official: Sochi Was the Warmest Winter Olympics Ever by Eric Holthaus posted 2/24/2014 on Slate).

In what was painfully obvious to each and every viewer, the just-completed celebration of snow sports in the southern Russia resort city of Sochi was the warmest Winter Olympics ever.

The Olympics were plagued by spring-like weather: Skiers landed in puddles at the bottom of their runs, snow was trucked in from more northern mountains, and tourists were caught sunbathing between events.

A comprehensive analysis by American meteorologist Matt Lanza, updated on Monday, showed Sochi was head-and-shoulders the warmest Winter Olympics since at least 1950, as far back as reliable weather records go.

Now, to be fair, Sochi had a head start. It has the warmest average climate of any winter Olympics venue in history. But it was even warmer than normal this month in southern Russia: The highest temperature recorded during the games was a whopping 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Six days were in the 60s.

Of course there are those that are saying this is further proof that the planet is warming.  Because of manmade carbon emissions.  And they have the data to prove it.  Because they have ‘reliable’ weather records going all the way back to 1950.  Some 64 years ago.  That is, they have reliable data covering 0.0000013% of the climate history of the planet.  So there you have it.  The science of manmade global warming is settled.  At least they say there is a scientific consensus.

It’s a pity we can’t use such ‘scientific’ sampling like that to determine whether or not to repeal Obamacare.  Because if we did all we would have to do is find 2 people out of one million who say it should be repealed.  For 2 out of one million is 0.000002%.  Which is greater than 0.0000013%.  And the odds of finding 2 people out of one million that would want to repeal Obamacare are pretty good.  Just as good as the odds of finding a favorable weather pattern in 64 years out of a total of 5 billion years of weather to settle the science of global warming.  But the left would never repeal Obamacare if only 0.000002% of the people wanting it repealed.  For they’re refusing to repeal it now even though a recent New York Times/CBS News poll shows 42% of those asked want a full repeal of Obamacare.

For the left 0.0000013% settles science when it comes to their junk science.  But 42% is only a statistical anomaly when it goes against their political agenda.  Showing how ridiculous both global warming and Obamacare are.  And how arrogant and deceitful they are when it comes to their political agenda.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Unlike Global Warming the Science of Evolution has Evolved

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 26th, 2014

Week in Review

Devout global warming alarmists say the science is done.  There is a scientific consensus.  Manmade global warming is real.  Case closed.  And if you deny that global warming exists you are going against settled science.  There is only one problem with this.  There is no such thing as consensus in science.  And science is never settled (see 7,000-Year-Old Human Bones Suggest New Date for Light-Skin Gene by Tia Ghose posted 1/26/2014 on Yahoo! News).

An ancient European hunter-gatherer man had dark skin and blue eyes, a new genetic analysis has revealed.

The analysis of the man, who lived in modern-day Spain only about 7,000 years ago, shows light-skin genes in Europeans evolved much more recently than previously thought.

The findings, which were detailed today (Jan. 26) in the journal Nature, also hint that light skin evolved not to adjust to the lower-light conditions in Europe compared with Africa, but instead to the new diet that emerged after the agricultural revolution, said study co-author Carles Lalueza-Fox, a paleogenomics researcher at Pompeu Fabra University in Spain…

The finding implies that for most of their evolutionary history, Europeans were not what many people today would call ‘Caucasian’, said Guido Barbujani, president of the Associazione Genetica Italiana in Ferrara, Italy, who was not involved in the study.

Instead, “what seems likely, then, is that the dietary changes accompanying the so-called Neolithic revolution, or the transition from food collection to food production, might have caused, or contributed to cause, this change,” Barbujani said.

In the food-production theory, the cereal-rich diet of Neolithic farmers lacked vitamin D, so Europeans rapidly lost their dark-skin pigmentation only once they switched to agriculture, because it was only at that point that they had to synthesize vitamin D from the sun more readily.

This is science.  We had one theory.  And replaced it with another.  As we may do again.  Because science is never settled.  And there is no such thing as consensus.  Which is why global warming is not science.  It’s politics.  Because politicians say there is a consensus.  And that it’s settled.  But in science we don’t take a vote.  We hold one theory true.  And spend our time trying to prove that theory is wrong.  And when a theory withstands all of these efforts to disprove it that theory is a pretty strong theory.  But it doesn’t mean we stop trying to find a better one.  As proven here.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #70: ” There is no such thing as ‘consensus’ in science.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 14th, 2011

Science is not an Exact Science

Science is not an exact science.  It’s a process.  It starts with observation.  You see something.  Hear something.  Feel something.  And it makes you curious.  So you start asking questions.  Why did that happen?  How did that happen?  And will it happen again?  So you start a longer process of observation.  You record data from these observations.  Called empirical data.  And you start seeing patterns in the data.  You start to see order.  Some cause and effect.  You note that whenever ‘A’ happens, you observe ‘B’.  And when ‘C’ happens, you observe ‘D’.  You start to experiment.  You make ‘A’ happen.  And, sure enough, you get ‘B’.  And when you make ‘C’ happen, you get ‘D’.

You can now reliably predict what will happen.  You form a hypothesis.  You break down what you saw through empirical observation and your experimentation into a mathematical formula.  And you discover something.  The formula you put together holds true under a wide set of conditions.  You now see that a lot of things can be accurately predicted by your formula.  Which leads you to a theory.  You do more experimentation.  And more empirical observation.  You’re on to something.  And it’s pretty big.  You test your hypothesis over and over again.  And you always get the same results.  You’ve discovered something.  If your observations and experimentation are correct.  If you haven’t made any false assumptions.  Or conducted your experiments in an uncontrolled environment.  You don’t think you have.  You’re pretty confident you did everything to the highest of scientific standards.  So you publish your results.  And have your peers review your work.

Your peers are very interested.  Some have been working on similar experiments.  They want to compare your work to theirs.  Interest spreads in the scientific community.  And they put your work to the test.  Through more experimentation and empirical observation.  They will push your research to the limits to see if it always holds true.  If it breaks down under certain conditions.  Or if they can find a critical flaw in your logic and/or experimentation that undoes all of your work.  After the peer review, if no one disproves your conclusions, your theory will hold in the scientific community.  Until disproven later.  Because science is not an exact science.  Things can change.

The Scientific Inquiry Never Ends

The scientific process never ends.  Because science isn’t exact.  But it’s often close enough to be useful.  Some theories have problems.  They don’t always hold true.  Then on further research these theories may be refined to fix some of the problems they had.  For example, we once thought the orbits of the planets were circular.  The theory was pretty accurate under empirical observation.  But there were problems.  The planets didn’t always travel in circles.  Then Johannes Kepler came along.  He theorized that the planets moved in elliptical orbits, not circular orbits.  Subsequent empirical observations showed that the planets indeed traveled in ellipses around the sun.  But there were still some observations that Kepler’s Laws didn’t explain.  Isaac Newton then improved on Kepler’s Laws by introducing the force of gravity into his equations.

Each step in the development of these theories improved on the past theory.  This is the scientific process.  The scientific inquiry never ends.  We continually test theories via experimentation and empirical observation.  We never accept past theories as scientific fact.  Every part of science is open to inquiry.  And we often have to revise long held theories based on new discoveries. 

Some of our old theories did quite a lot for us.  They took us to the moon and back.  Gave us jumbo jets.  And smart phones.  Incredible advances in technology.  Yet, we’re revising the science that gave us these things.  Because the scientific process never stands still.  No matter how right or how sure we think we are.  The work of Newton and Einstein was pretty good.  But some think we can improve on them.  Using Quantum field theory.  And String theory.  Which may be able to explain how everything works by looking at subatomic particles.   It could change everything.  But planes will still fly.  And smart phones will still work.  They may just do these things better.

Science by Consensus is not Science

One thing science isn’t is a democracy.  There is no voting.  No consensus.  Some early scientists were attacked when they challenged accepted beliefs.  By their fellow scientists.  And even the church.  It was these lone scientists against the world.  Like Galileo.  Who agreed with Copernicus that the earth revolved around the sun.  Not that the sun revolved around the earth.  Got Galileo in a lot of trouble with the church.  And spent the rest of his life under house arrest for trying to advance this view.  Because it wasn’t the accepted consensus of the time.  The church would later vindicate Galileo.  But it goes to show you that science isn’t a democracy.  Majority opinion doesn’t validate scientific beliefs.  And that a consensus in science is more politics than science.

Science by consensus is not science.  And it can be a very dangerous thing.  It was the accepted consensus that blacks were inferior to whites.  Which justified whites owning blacks as slaves.  It was the scientific consensus in Nazi Germany that the Germans were the master race.  That the Jews were an inferior race.  Subhuman.  And should be exterminated.  A lot of people bought into this ‘science’.  Happy to go along with the scientific consensus.  And it got a lot of people to do some pretty awful things.

Science by consensus is nothing more than mob rule.  It’s a tool to organize the masses.  To use for political gain.  Or for social or financial gain.  Because people will do things more readily if they believe there is a valid reason.  You just have to give them something to believe in.  And there are few things better than junk science.  Like the Alar scare (listed as a carcinogen after mega doses in test animals caused cancer).  Or the Saccharin scare (listed as a carcinogen after mega doses in test animals caused cancer).  And then there’s DDT.  Which almost eradicated malaria from the world.  Few things killed mosquitoes better.  But we also used it as a pesticide in agriculture in much higher doses.  Which apparently made egg shells thin, threatening species of birds.  And ‘possibly’ caused cancer in humans.  So we don’t use this wonder chemical anymore.  And malaria is alive, well and spreading today.  Because of the consensus that it was harmful to the environment.  And to people.  And millions of people die of malaria because of this consensus.

Good Science is built on Experimentation and Observation 

Some people accept some theories as fact.  Like the theory of evolution.  But it’s still called a theory.  Because it’s impossible to submit it to scientific inquiry.  The theory states that life evolved over hundreds of millions of years.  Even billions.  Fossil evidence can provide some information about the past.  But there is no way to test under laboratory conditions a process that occurred over such a vast time period.  So it remains a theory.

Global warming is another theory.  It, too, is impossible to submit to scientific inquiry.  Events happen over too great a time period.  And there are far too many variables involved.  It is difficult to accurately predict tomorrow’s weather let alone the next 10 years of climate.  And even if they have some empirical data that says the earth is warming the data is itself questionable.  Because the same data once predicted the earth was cooling.  And for all the doom and gloom of life-ending climatic changes, the earth went through far greater changes before man ever discovered coal.  The earth has cooled and warmed numerous times.  Great glacial ice sheets advanced and receded over land that became our great cities.   And here we are today.  Still here.

And it’s these big theories that we should be most careful with.  Because good science is built on experimentation and observation.  And if you can’t do either it’s just not science.  It’s only consensus.  Which makes it political.  And though politics can be fascinating, they have no place in science.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Deepwater Horizon Accident Destroyed the American Oil Industry, but not the Gulf of Mexico

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 20th, 2011

Still no American Offshore Oil Production in the Gulf of Mexico

This is the anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico.  The beginning of the world’s greatest environmental catastrophe.  And the ‘day the music died’ for American oil exploration. 

But was it really that bad?  Sure, it was.  There was loss of life.  Eleven men died on that platform.  Brave men working the hard and lonely life of offshore oil production.  Their families no doubt suffering the greatest loss from this catastrophe.  So, in their honor, and everyone working the oil fields, let’s take a glimpse into that life.  And see what it was like in the beginning.  When we first went offshore oil in the Gulf of Mexico.  In the Jimmy Stewart movie Thunder Bay.   

That was then.  That movie had a happy ending.  The shrimpers, fishermen and oil men all lived happily ever after.  Together.  Today, the government itself is after the oil men.  And I doubt even a great American like Jimmy Stewart could stop what’s happening.

The Ecosystem doing just Fine in the Gulf of Mexico

They predicted the end of the world for the Gulf waters.  The oil spewing from Deepwater Horizon was going to kill everything in that ecosystem.  So they predicted.  But the dire predictions of doom and gloom, as usual, have proven more hysteria than fact (see BP Oil Spill: How Bad Is Damage to Gulf One Year Later? by Bryan Walsh, Time, posted 4/19/2011 on Yahoo! News).

Yet nearly a year after the spill began, it seems clear that the worst-case scenario never came true. It’s not that the oil spill had no lasting effects – far from it – but the ecological doomsday many predicted clearly hasn’t taken place. There is recovery where once there was only fear. ” A lot of questions remain, but where we are now is ahead of where people thought we’d be,” Safina says. “Most people expected it would be much worse.”

Good news indeed.  And there’s more.

Yet the damage does seem so far to have been less than feared. Take the oil itself: scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimated last August that much of the oil had remained in the Gulf, where it had dispersed or dissolved. Many environmentalists attacked the report for underplaying the threat of large underwater oil plumes still active in the Gulf, yet later independent scientific studies indeed found that oil had largely disappeared from the water. Turns out we can thank bacteria. Scientists from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; University of California, Santa Barbara; and Texas A&M University traveled to the site of the blown well and found that microbes had digested much of the oil and methane that remained in the water. By autumn, the levels were back to normal. “It’s very surprising it happened so fast,” John Kessler, an oceanographer with Texas A&M, told me earlier this year. “It looks like natural systems can handle an event like this somewhat on their own.”

Is Mother Nature mocking us?  Is she taunting, “Is that the best you can do?”  For it would appear she is.  Here we all were, wrought with worry about oil in the water.  Both of which Mother Nature created.  During our time on this planet.  And long before man began adapting nature for our own needs.  And now, despite all the doom and gloom, the water appears just fine.  As is the stuff that lives in it.

The Gulf’s valuable fisheries also seem to have escaped the worst damage. John W. Tunnell Jr., the associate director of the Harte Research Institute at Texas A&M, estimated in a report that the region’s shrimp fisheries would rebound to normal within two years, while blue-crab populations would be back to normal this year and commercial fish species such as red snapper and grouper largely escaped any negative impact. (Oyster beds, hit hard by the oil, might take up to a decade to recover, however.) It’s possible that the lengthy moratorium on fishing in much of the Gulf during the worst days of the spill – when up to 84,000 sq. mi. (217,600 sq km) were off limits – may have even given some fish species a much needed break from exploitation, allowing them to recover in population.

You know, that’s not bad.  For America’s worst environmental catastrophe.  And the shrimpers and fishermen are going to escape unscathed, too.  A year or two of loss revenue?  The slush fund President Obama shook down BP for will more than cover two years of lost revenue.  And the shrimpers, fishermen and oil men may very well all live happily ever after.  Just like they did in Thunder Bay.

The Environmentalists have Never been Right

You know, this is not surprising.  Because environmentalists are a bunch of fear mongers who haven’t a clue of what they’re talking about.  They’re not scientists.  They’re activists.  Even their ‘scientists’ are activists.  For no matter how wrong they are with their catastrophic forecasts, they just keep shoveling their doom and gloom.   But we should believe them this time.  Because this time, their models are better.  And this time, their ‘science’ is better.  Sure, they may have been a little off before.  But this time they got it right.  This time it’s for real.

So when it comes to forecasting, let’s take a look at some of these oldies but goodies of yesteryear (see Eight Botched Environmental Forecasts by Maxim Lott posted 12/30/2010 on FOX NEWS).

1. Within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.” Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

2. “[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” Michael Oppenheimer, published in “Dead Heat,” St. Martin’s Press, 1990.

3. “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.” Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.

4. “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010.” Associated Press, May 15, 1989.

5. “By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” Life magazine, January 1970.

6. “If present trends continue, the world will be … eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Kenneth E.F. Watt, in “Earth Day,” 1970.

7. “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

8. “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970

In case you’re wondering, they were wrong on all of these predictions.  And sea life?  Even America’s worst oil catastrophe couldn’t kill it off.  You’d think the people making these predictions would be a little embarrassed today.  Not so.  FOX asked them.  They’ll admit that they weren’t 100% correct.  But they say they were still pretty damn close.  And their work is still relevant.

Particularly fascinating about this wild-ass guessing that they call science is this statement by Dr. Paul Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb” and president of Stanford University’s Center for Conservation Biology about the trend of global temperatures (see Item 6 above).

“Present trends didn’t continue,” Ehrlich said of Watt’s prediction. “There was considerable debate in the climatological community in the ’60s about whether there would be cooling or warming … Discoveries in the ’70s and ’80s showed that the warming was going to be the overwhelming force.”

Ehrlich told FoxNews.com that the consequences of future warming could be dire.

So the scientific consensus that chose cooling over warming was wrong.  They should have been warning us about the end of the world due to global warming, not global cooling.  There, I’m glad we cleared that up.  For awhile there, in the Seventies, we were living in fear of the wrong fear.  Boy, is my face red.  From embarrassment.  Not cooling.  Or warming.

The lesson learned?  Don’t take any investment advice from an environmental scientist.  Because their track record proves that they’re not very smart.  And that they’re pretty bad guessers, too.

Global Cooling Elbowing its way past Global Warming in Chicago

Or maybe the dumb environmentalist scientists were right after all (see Temperatures Lowest For Time Of Year Since 1940s posted 4/20/2011 on CBS Chicago).

Not only has Chicago dealt with chilly rain, hail and even snow this week, but temperatures Tuesday were at their lowest for this late spring date since the 1940s…

In the early evening hours, just walking a few blocks along the streets of Chicago felt like going out to sea in an open boat during a rainstorm in northern Canada. Anyone walking against the wind was blasted continuously in the face with cold droplets of rain, and given the strength of the winds, an umbrella was as good as useless.

Score one for the dumb guys in the Seventies.  They were right.  It’s getting cooler.  The glaciers must be on the move in northern Canada, pushing that arctic weather ahead of them.  Gee, I wonder what will happen when this new ice age slams into the global warming front.  I can’t say for sure but I’ll bet it’ll be a pretty windy day.  Probably best not to schedule any golf when that happens.  I don’t play well on windy days.

Bye, Bye, Miss American Pie

The good news is that the Gulf of Mexico is fine.  The bad news is that the Obama administration has killed the American oil industry for no good reason.  All for the insanity that is global warming.  Or Cooling.  Or Change.  Whatever we’re calling the impending climate disaster heading our way these days.  We’ve acted and made horrible energy policy decisions based on a bunch of ramblings from these pseudo scientists.  And it is killing our economy.  For as Jimmy Stewart said in Thunder Bay, “Without oil this country of ours would stop.  And it’d start to die.”

So we’ve stopped drilling.  But China hasn’t.  Brazil hasn’t.  In fact, we’ve invested in the Brazilian oil industry.  While China works with Cuba to drill for oil in our backyard.  The Gulf of Mexico.  So their economies will grow.  While ours continues to limp along in the recession that just never ends.  As gasoline shoots past $4/gallon once again.  This energy shortage will drive inflation.  Making the basics of life more expensive.  Leaving us with less disposable cash to enjoy life.  Lowering our standard of living.  This in the world’s largest economy.  Well, largest for now.

Bye, bye, Miss American Pie.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,