May 29, 2013

Take this guy to the track next time

All right you knuckle-draggin', science-ignoring, global warming denialists! Here's your morning read. If you have a progressive friend on Facebook who watches Jon Stewart all the time, she'll be able to help you with the big words.

The Parliamentary Question that started this was put by Lord Donoughue on 8 November 2012. The Question is as follows.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government … whether they consider a rise in global temperature of 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1880 to be significant. [HL3050]

Doug Keenan, guest-posting at the very interesting looking Bishop Hill blog, takes on that question from the standpoint of selecting the correct statistical model to evaluate the rise.

If that sounded interesting, click away. If not, you're not going to like the post any better than the description. Just turn FOX News back on and see if there are any more Cheetos® in the sofa cushions.

Hat-tip: Robert Tracinski [subscribe]

Deleterious Anthropogenic Warming of the Globe Posted by John Kranz at May 29, 2013 1:42 PM

No Cheetos in here, but plenty of Fruit Loops and Apple Jacks and ... waitaminute. Did you say Parliament is debating "statistical significance?" How do we get Congress to do that?

The long and interesting linked blog post ends thusly:

To conclude, the primary basis for global-warming alarmism is unfounded. The Met Office has been making false claims about the significance of climatic changes to Parliament—as well as to the government, the media, and others — claims which have seriously affected both policies and opinions. When questioned about those claims in Parliament, the Met Office did everything feasible to avoid telling the truth.

The UK government essentially admitted, very reluctantly, that "the primary basis for global-warming alarmism is unfounded."

[Dramatic pause.]

Posted by: johngalt at May 29, 2013 2:40 PM | What do you think? [1]