Another Way to Profit from Global Warming!

by Terry 9/22/2009 11:33:00 AM

Melting Ice Caps Expose Hundreds Of Secret Arctic Lairs

“ZACKENBERG RESEARCH STATION, GREENLAND—Claiming it to be one of the most dramatic and visible signs of climate change to date, researchers said Monday that receding polar ice caps have revealed nearly 200 clandestine lairs once buried deep beneath hundreds of feet of Arctic ice.”

I will have to alter my plans and build my secret hideout in the desert. I think I should contact a real estate broker in the Gobi desert and buy some large tracks of dead, arid land with my shell company. If I act now, I will be strategically poised to resell to the evildoers relocating from the arctic.

Currently rated 1.5 by 19 people

  • Currently 1.473683/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


Climate Change | Personal

Global Warming is Irreversible – We are so going to die

by Terry 1/27/2009 4:27:00 PM

Wow. It is official. Our society is doomed to collapse in an overheated dustbowl, no matter what we do. The only solution is to throw more resources at stopping the inevitable.

“I guess if it's irreversible, to me it seems all the more reason you might want to do something about it”
- Susan Solomon, ‘who is among the world's top climate scientists’

Actually, what really scares me is the stupidity of this and other recent news releases. This is more truth by repeated assertion than science. Science proposes theories based on observable facts and repeatable experiments. News agencies, no longer journalists I think, have apparently lost the ability to fact check, or differ between a statement of opinion and verified data reality.

For example, New data show much of Antarctica is warming more than previously thought.

Which is refuted here in Antarctica warming? An evolution of viewpoint and Despite the hot air, the Antarctic is not warming up.

The common thread in the initial statements of impending disaster is the underlying theories are presented as unalterable truths when they are really weak theories bases on unverifiable models using admittedly manufactured data. This is not science but a show – shriek for more funding.

Frankly, I could care less if there is global warming or cooling, although I would prefer warming, as it is easier to grow food in a desert than on a glacier. What I do care about is the shrieking call to Do Something, particularly when the something to do is not defined, or is wrapped in vague statements.

We must reduce carbon! Ok, by how much and in what form? How do you know this? Can you account for natural variation? How do you know you have? How do your models change with different assumptions? How do you know your assumptions are correct? What is your margin of error?

In 1999 I was asked to evaluate the compliance with ‘Year 2000’ computing requirements with the company I worked for. I was creating a legal document to verify our company had done its darned best to thwart the specter of a Y2K disaster. My evaluation of the data showed a 60% margin of error. That is, we were likely as bare naked as we were dressed for success. My employer said to me, in no uncertain terms, that I will show that the company is 90% compliant. Sure. That is easy. I will tell the truth. And I told my boss as much, to her great displeasure. My final document said the company was possibly 90% compliant. It also said very clearly that errors were so large we may only be 30% compliant, we may know with greater certainty in January of 2000 and the only way to actually know was to reduce uncertainty.

What is missing from our ‘top scientists’ are actual statements on what is fact and what is fiction. By fiction, I mean what are assumptions and not real data. What our top scientists need to start saying and our news agencies need to start reporting are the truths about the weakness of a reported theory and what in the theory is falsifiable. We need to stop believing in truth because someone said it is so. Maybe I should say this more often.

Currently rated 1.0 by 1 people

  • Currently 1/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


Climate Change | Personal | Policy

CO2 may be good

by Terry 5/29/2008 10:27:00 AM

I read Freeman Dyson’s review of A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies, by William Nordhaus, earlier this week. Afterwards, I started wondering about the historical, or rather pre-historical, levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This morning I saw, on Jerry Pournelle’s journal, a link to a sourced article, The Past and Future of Climate, by David Archibald, which presents data related to that very question.

All of this really means we need more research before we race to go Do Something. That is, we should have a much better understanding on what exactly is happening and what human measures will have, if any, before enacting costly change.

For example, reading the two articles makes me ask, if an increase in atmospheric CO2 increases plant growth, and seasonal plant growth measurably decreases CO2 levels, what impact will increase growth rates have on global CO2 levels? If the answer is obvious, then think about the possible variables. I do not see any certainty. For example, if the earth is still warming or even cooling, from, say, a change in solar activity, how will this affect growing season length and carbon uptake? Will a cooling period be buffered by increase plant growth, despite shorter seasons? What is the possible economic impact?

The science is not settled. Nullius in Verba indeed.

Currently rated 1.6 by 35 people

  • Currently 1.628573/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


Climate Change | Opinion

Political climate changes

by Terry 5/6/2008 4:16:00 PM

I updated my Climate Change page ( a couple of times this week. There is increasing awareness that Al Gore and Political Scientist (I am using the term jokingly) Dr. James Hansen, are largely full of crap. It is amazing what you can prove by repeated assertion and making up your data.

I will never argue against the idea the Earth is not experiencing climate change. In fact I will argue for it. But I disagree that the ‘evidence’ is explicitly pointing to a global warming catastrophe in the next few decades or even centuries. To make that case, there needs to be more research and lots of verifiable data; data that can be constantly re-verified and validated. What we have now is in large part religious fervor drowning out any opposing views.

Currently rated 3.0 by 1 people

  • Currently 3/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


Climate Change | Opinion | Policy

Powered by BlogEngine.NET
Theme by Mads Kristensen

About Terry Losansky

Terry Dee Losansky

I am a software architect, actively practice and teach martial arts and live in Snoqualmie, Washington. I have an amazing daughter who is the jewel of my life.

E-mail me Send mail
Terry's Facebook profile


<<  May 2021  >>

View posts in large calendar

Recent comments



The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent my employer's view in anyway.

© Copyright 2021

Sign in