LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Facts debunk global warming alarmism | The Australian
Introduction of a carbon dioxide tax to prevent (imaginary) warming, euphemistically disguised as an emissions trading scheme, is a politician's, ticket clipper's and mafia chief's dream. All will welcome a new source of income based on an invisible, colourless, odourless, tasteless and often unmeasurable gas. No commodity changes hands during its trading, and should carbon dioxide emissions actually decrease because of the existence of a carbon dioxide market (which is highly unlikely), the odds are that it will have no measurable effect on climate anyway. Nonetheless, the glistening pot of gold which beckons to be mined from the innocent public is proving nigh irresistible, and it is going to need a strong taxpayer revolt to stop it in Australia.
The present global financial crisis should be inducing politicians not to squander money on non-solutions to non-problems. Yet to support their plans for emissions taxation Western governments, including ours, are still propagating scientifically juvenile greenhouse propaganda underpinned only by circumstantial evidence and GCM computer gamesmanship.
Perhaps a reassessment will finally occur when two-metre thick ice develops again on Father Thames at London Bridge, or when cooling causes massive crop failure in the world's granary belts.
No that won't do it. These fascists have their voodoo and they ain't going to let it go. They will move the goal posts to suit.
Lets audit the work of the denier who authored this article (I prefer the word 'denier' in this case, 'skepticism' is the nobel use of rational scrutiny, this article is nothing of the sort - creationists would cry if they had stooped so low to write such rubbish). As usual I only care about the claimed facts and interpretation of those facts. The he-said she-said guess-some-motive political parts are just opinion that can not be put to test.
The article opens up being inaccurate and misleading in just the first sentence. Quite an achievement:
This claim has been taken verbatim from this source without attribution:THE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that October in the US was marked by 63 record snowfalls and 115 lowest-ever temperatures.
NOAA: U.S. breaks or ties 115 cold and sets 63 new snowfall records Watts Up With That?
The esteemed author cannot even get this right though, despite it being handed on a plate. The blog explains that the numbers refer to a single day, specifically October 29th 2008. Not the whole of October. That's the inaccurate part.
Now for the misleading part. You are supposed to read both the blog and Australian article and think "WOW! 115 cold records broken!". That's how they are geared up. What they don't tell you (and hence how they mislead) is that 115 cold records in a day in the whole of the USA simply aint that much relative to cold snaps in previous years.
Below you can see the number of cold record temperature broken every day in the US for the last 7 years. Each horizontal bar represents 100 record cold temperatures broken. You can see the 115 record cold for October 29th on the right hand side, it just creeps over the first horizontal bar. But look at the past, in particular look how often cold record temps cross that first bar, and frequently they go much further.
So there really wasn't anything remarkable about October the 29th. But of course 115 cold records broken sounds remarkable so the denialists rush out to print it in their blogs and media stories.
Like I said, this is the first sentence of the article and already it is being inaccurate and misleading. A whole post has just been devoted to just that first sentence.
I can't be bothered to go any further, it doesn't get any better.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks