Here’s how cold it is (because why not be cliche?): even though the hot water is pumping full force through the radiators, which normally is uncomfortably humid and stifling (I tend to like things on the chillier side as far as indoor temp controls go), I had to fill my coffee mug with water and microwave it before putting my coffee in it this morning so my coffee didn’t immediately cool off and become undrinkable. It’s not as bad as the people throwing boiling water in the air to watch it become snow, but it is cold. Minnesota has apparently been colder than the surface of Mars. Contextually I’m not even sure that’s impressive but it sounds cool. Anyway, it’s only supposed to last a day so I’m just going to avoid being outside too much and marvel at the climate change people who, yet again, assigned the nefarious hand of man to what is basically (more than likely if you need some kind of concession) a normal weather fluctuation. To the weather “scientists”, armchair and otherwise, all weather is related to man-made climate change. Yes, we affect our ecosystem. Of course we do. And sure, we could be having some effect on weather patterns. But I’d say it’s negligible at best and the gloom and doom of (as Jon Stewart used to brilliantly put it) “The Storm of the Century of the Week” is just starting to sound silly because I thought it was common knowledge at this point that climate change and global warming screaming was mostly about money. Given all the jacked up data that’s been scrubbed and then presented as fact and then refuted. Here’s the relevant part of this piece (I think four paragraphs is within fair use standards…)
To illustrate how far this problem reaches, a few years ago there was a scientific scandal with remarkable similarities, in respect of the non-publishing of negative data, to the Tamiflu scandal. A relentless, independent scientific auditor in Canada named Stephen McIntyre grew suspicious of a graph being promoted by governments to portray today’s global temperatures as warming far faster than any in the past 1400 years – the famous “hockey stick” graph. When he dug into the data behind the graph, to the fury of its authors, especially Michael Mann, he found not only problems with the data and the analysis of it but a whole directory of results labelled “CENSORED”.
This proved to contain five calculations of what the graph would have looked like without any tree-ring samples from bristlecone pine trees. None of the five graphs showed a hockey-stick upturn in the late 20th century: “This shows about as vividly as one could imagine that the hockey stick is made out of bristlecone pine,” wrote McIntyre drily. (The bristlecone pine was well known to have grown larger tree rings in recent years for non-climate reasons: goats tearing the bark, which regrew rapidly, and extra carbon dioxide making trees grow faster.)
McIntyre later unearthed the same problem when the hockey-stick graph was relaunched to overcome his critique, with Siberian larch trees instead of bristlecones. This time the lead author, Keith Briffa, of the University of East Anglia, had used only a small sample of 12 larch trees for recent years, ignoring a much larger data set of the same age from the same region. If the analysis was repeated with all the larch trees there was no hockey-stick shape to the graph. Explanations for the omission were unconvincing.
Given these were the most prominent and recognisable graphs used to show evidence of unprecedented climate change in recent decades, and to justify unusual energy policies that hit poor people especially hard, this case of cherry-picked publication was just as potentially shocking and costly as Tamiflugate. Omission of inconvenient data is a sin in government science as well as in the private sector.
In other words — and I know it’s painful so just sit down — climate scientists have been known to lie. And yes, I know about the report. I also know that this stuff has been happening as well. I think the thing that gets to me here is the tendency for otherwise sharp people to just believe what is hardly settled science because, I don’t know, it’s popular? Human nature dictates we want to be accepted so I get that I suppose, but homogeneity of thought just keeps you stuck on status quo, right? See quote at the top of the page. Anyway, not to sound like a crackpot, but if we do have some control over weather patterns it has little to do with pollution and more to do with technology. And I’m just going to leave that there and let your little minds wander. For now, I think Freddoso put it best:
…is like saying it caused a recent tornado or hurricane. MT @ezraklein: Saying global warming isn't real because it's cold out…
— David Freddoso (@freddoso) January 7, 2014
Okay other stuff. I can only gently talk about irrational thinking for so long before I start to get annoyed…
Was just talking to Hallissey about how the British Isles tend to employ the awesome C word in number three and how that’s gauche here. It’s a word that packs a punch.
Figuring out a tip is actually easier than they present it here, which is why so many kids get frustrated with math. Always over complicating…but good tips here.
As gross as they are, at least they’re honest spoiled brats. The ones who’ve been trained to smile and appear generous of spirit are the ones you really have to keep an eye on…
My friend Bay insists he brought these to DC from Brooklyn. It totally wouldn’t surprise me. They are good, by the way. But I suspect only if you like pickles. Which I do. A great deal.
It is entertainment. But I think I need a house in the country. Just to rest.