Under the Weather

I've had a cold and have been achy since Tuesday.

I thought I was getting better, but regressed yesterday.

So I'm under the weather...what the hell does that mean?

Isn't everyone, everyday(unless you're in space), under the weather?

It reminds me of a time, a few years ago, when I walked into a clothing store and heard a salesman say..."It's colder than hell."

It was January and it was cold.

Now I'm no Bible scholar, but I'm thinking isn't everyday colder than hell?

I guess I better brush up on hell because it appears that's where I'm headed for denying "Gore Bull" warming!

Ellen Goodman (her slave name?) opined that...By every measure, the U N 's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change raises the level of alarm. The fact of global warming is "unequivocal."

The certainty of the human role is now somewhere over 90 percent.

Which is about as certain as scientists ever get.

I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny.

Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

How the hell do you make that cataclysmic leap?

First, and foremost, that's an insult to those who perished in the Holocaust and those who survived!

The Holocaust is a proven FACT!

"Gore Bull" warming ISN'T!

Where did the 90% figure come from? Out of her ass like the Holocaust statement?

As I stated yesterday, that per IPCC's own findings...man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth.

That doesn't sound like 90% to me or even unequivocal!

Goodman then divides SCIENCE into Republican and Dummycrats...

There are astonishing gaps between Republican science and Democratic science.

Try these numbers:Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it.

I've been in the college classes with those Dummycrats, they take in every piece of bs that the professor feeds them and never challenge it!

I remember one time, before the prof got to class, one of my classmates asked what I was going to argue with the prof about that day.

I said it depended on whatever bs he was going to try and slide past us.

Another time a prof made an asinine statement and then asked for questions and comments.

I said I didn't agree with his theory and went on to explain my beliefs.

The prof said he didn't agree.

I replied I didn't ask you to agree, you asked for questions and comments.

I just though it important that these kids hear something other than the drivel you're pouring out.

But, I've digressed!

I'll interject an e-mail I received from my brother-in-law-Chris (the rocket scientist).

It comes from an article by James Lewis

Why Global Warming is Probably a Crock

The human-caused global warming hypothesis is completely model-dependent. We can't directly observe cars and cows turning up the earth thermostat. Whatever the human contribution there may be to climate constitutes just a few signals among many hundreds or thousands...

Scientists are always wrong --- they are just less wrong now than they were before (if everything is going well)...

Now there's a basic fact about complexity that helps to understand this. It's a point in probability theory (eek!) about many variables, each one less than 100 percent likely to be true...

Now imagine that all the variables about global climate are known with less than 100 percent certainty. Let's be wildly and unrealistically optimistic and say that climate scientists know each variable to 99 percent certainty! (No such thing, of course). And let's optimistically suppose there are only one-hundred x's, y's, and z's --- all the variables that can change the climate: like the amount of cloud cover over Antarctica, the changing ocean currents in the South Pacific, Mount Helena venting, sun spots, Chinese factories burning more coal every year, evaporation of ocean water (the biggest "greenhouse" gas), the wobbles of earth orbit around the sun, and yes, the multifarious fartings of billions of living creatures on the face of the earth, minus, of course, all the trillions of plants and algae that gobble up all the CO2, nitrogen-containing molecules, and sulfur-smelling exhalations spewed out by all of us animals. Got that? It all goes into our best math model.

So in the best case, the smartest climatologist in the world will know 100 variables, each one to an accuracy of 99 percent. Want to know what the probability of our spiffiest math model would be, if that perfect world existed? Have you ever multiplied (99/100) by itself 100 times? According to the Google calculator it equals a little more than 36.6 percent.

The Bottom line: our best imaginable model has a total probability of one out of three.

That's why human-caused global warming is an hypothesis, not a fact. Anybody who says otherwise isn't doing science, but trying to sell you a bill of goods.

I received his e-mail on February 7 and his conclusion was...

Unfortunately about 90% of the world's population don't study enough math or
science to understand this probability debate.

So that's where the 90% comes from!