scientific consensus? hah!

If you have been following the news much lately, you know that global warming (or some iteration thereof) is making the rounds as the newest threat to life and happiness. Politicians in the US and UN (and even the US Supreme Court) all agree that there is now a consensus that global warming is real, significant, and dire.

Backing off from the last two--the most easily refuted--and let's look at the first one. There is NO scientific consensus on global warming. None. The data itself refutes it, and the numbers we are being shown are very, very selective. And since Americans don't know math anymore, let me summarize: there are lies, damn lies, and statistics that are used to make the damn lies look right. That's what you are getting now.

But wait, there are computer models? They've got to be right! HAH: The models are crap, they can't predict next week and they claim they can predict tens or hundreds of years in the future. Point of interest: I worked on the cutting edge molecular dynamics simulations. You know how many atoms they can take? About 1000, max, at unrealistic temperatures or conditions. And they weren't dynamic--you simulate at a condition, you don't change them mid-calculation. Extrapolate to, say, the global weather system which appears to be dynamic to me.

How many times to we complain that our local weather guy/girl botched it? A bunch. One once said "there is no worse feeling than shoveling snow you didn't predict." We've got a lot more riding on this than a sore back.

More importantly is the trend to only look at the side of the equation that you want to see. Scientists are being paraded out, but you never hear a dissenting opinion. This is unrealistic. Whenever I (I am a scientist) hear a 100% consensus, I tend to question it more strongly. There is always scatter in data, and looking at it 10 ways should give you some reason to think different things. When the Minnesota congress had "hearings" on global warming, they did not have a single dissenting opinion give testimony. This is intellectually despicable.

Scientists may have an incentive not to talk negatively about global warming. The politicians have the pursestrings of their research grants. My advisor had to work over half of his time writing grant applications. His image and reputation were very important in this effort (and don't even get me going on all of the "extra" stuff that wasn't science in those grants: expanding outreach to women/minorities/ethnic groups, etc.) There is a fine line between intellectual integrity and the unemployment line due to lack of funds. There is also the fact that the global warming being considered today is nothing more than the biggest power grab in the history of this society. This opens the door for them to regulate and dictate every facet of our lives, and anyone who doesn't see this is not thinking clearly.

So to stop this rant, I will just say that the consensus being presented today is false. Our leaders and judges are trying to move an agenda of control where they are pulling the strings.

And they are wrong.