This column sums up my view on this subject of global warming, except that I am agnostic on whether it is occurring. I do note that there has been no measurable global warming for a decade. My chief complaint is that all the solutions are the same things the Left always wants; more control by them, less choices for us.
When I was young I lived on an army base in Germany. My grandmother came to visit us once around 1968, less than a quarter century after the Big War. As we walked down the picturesque streets of Heidleburg she looked around, turned to my mother, and said in a too loud voice "Where are all the Nazis?"
I think of that whenever I see all the global warming folderol. Socialism is dead, but the beggars had to go somewhere. Whether the "commanding heights" of the economy are controlled to usher in paradise on earth, or to prevent Hell on earth, they are still to be given over to the Vanguard by Political Means for our own good.
7 comments:
Even responding to this lunacy makes me feel dirty, but I worry that someone will come across this blog, read JJV's post, and conclude that we're all idiots who don't understand numbers.
JJV's conclusion that there has been no measurable global warming for a decade can be supported only if one takes 1998 and compares it to 2007 (or 2006). This is not a rational way to conduct a trend analysis, and this graph from NASA makes it clear why.
1998 was the warmest year in modern history, representing a substantial increase over the trend. For two years after 1998, global means returned to about the level of the years preceding 1998, and then rose again. Looking at the annual means, it's clear that this variability is normal. By selecting an unusally high point as the initial year, JJV is rigging the analysis. He is, in fact, choosing the only starting year in which this trick would work.
The red line on the graph shows the 5-year mean, a much sounder method of analyzing the data, since it smooths out the annual variability. That line shows a clear pattern.
I am shocked - shocked! - that a WSJ op-ed would try to game the numbers. We can only hope that that nice fellow Murdoch will get some fairness and balance in there.
As for someone actually reading this or any other post on this blog, rest assured that the chances of that are exceedingly small; I always suspected as much and now, thanks to Google Analytics, have the stats to prove it. At least our tiny numbers get displayed in attractive bar graphs and stuff.
It is the Left that wants more control and less choices? Except on every major social issue (i.e. marriage, religion, sex, etc.), where it is the Right who wants more (and absolute) control, and no choices.
Absolute control and no choice (for things that you favor) is preferable to increased control and limited choice (for things you're against).
After consultation with Fencergal, I am pained to point out that it should be "fewer" choices. "Less" choice would also be appropriate.
Grammar lesson over.
JCC (with assistance)
Look, it's people like you what cause unrest.
I note, after a bit of an abscence the moral equivalence of the Soviet years has reestablished it self. The traditionalists only want the same control the states have excercised over marriage and family since the beginning of the Republic. This support of traditional values having made us strong and uniquely fecund among the advanced nations (the rest of which are dying off). The Left has proposed total control over all aspects of human living to lower the temperature a degree in 2200. These are seen as equivalents between the great number cruncher CRH and the admitted oenephile, Lietzy. I do not equate the state failing to recognize, as marriage, the union of two sodomites of identical sex which has never been recognized in the history of civilization, with it taking over the entire economic output of America based on an unproven theory pushed by the same people who thought the Marxism as no big deal. There is far more freedom for every American in my America than in Greenpeace's.
Post a Comment