Hello to all who discover this blog.
I am launching this blog to assemble, as much information as possible, documenting the end of the the human mass hysteria about catastrophic anthropogenic [climate recovery, climate change, global weirding, global warming] (CAGW).
My position has always been and I hope always will be:
- Warming is good
- Man’s effect is minimal
- C02’s effect is minimal
- the media is culpable in this problem
- there is massive financial waste in this problem
- good science has been severely damaged
- plus a large number of other issues…
This blog will contain mostly commentary on specific areas of the climate discussion, with a history, always any projections/predictions that have been made, and a pointed analysis of the CAGW and skeptic point of view.
There will be, as much as possible, a determined effort to not personally attack the actors involved, however certain individuals in their public or private endeavors that crossed the line of decorum or professionalism will not receive that protected status.
I will point out that the origins of my contempt for the science of climate science began while modeling the carbon cycle in prairie soils. The principal researcher initially did not like the results of my Stella 2 model, since it did not clearly look like the “expected” result. Finally they did accept the model, but with a fairly substantial amount of tweeking. By the end of this research, it was clear to me that with a complex enough model, almost any result could be obtained. BTW: I don’t think my model results were necessarily wrong, just highly suspect.
The year was 1995, and so launched by skeptical reading of journal articles. Principally: arctic ice, glaciation and snow fall. A fellow professor, much my senior, scoffed privately how poor the mathematics was surrounding everything he saw and encouraged a skeptical view.
I recall clearly a Chinese study on the changing BMI’s in China and the implication of a growing obesity problem. He cited some data that showed during the years of study young Chinese adults we both taller and heavier. The baseline was something like 5′ tall and 110 lbs. After a 15 year period it was something like 6% increase in height and a 17% increase in weight. Now on the surface, this seems like trouble: almost a triple gain in weight as compared to height. Even the BMI calculations concluded that the BMI increased from 21.5 to 22.4, almost a full BMI point.
But…..mathematicians think differently and I believe correctly here. If we assume that the healthy trend of taller Chinese is considered proportionate growth problem. (I.E. they still look like the same human in shape in both heights) then an increase of 6% in height should result in an increase of (1+.06)^3-1 or 19% increase in weight.
In other words, BMI is a measure of obesity but really says nothing about healthy larger humans caused by factors that are allowing for better growth. In fact, one could easily argue that the 6% increase in young Chinese adults should be coupled with a 19% increase in weight. The data indicates a thinning of the population since they only achieved a 17% increase in weight 2% short of the earlier young adult Chinese form.
Since, most people have assumed the use of BMI is a robust ‘health’ statistic they impart to this statistic an additional property that BMI(2)>BMI(1) is a bad thing. While it says no such thing. And since boundaries are clearly marked, it is completely accepted to take a human with a BMI of 24.9 who eats a light lunch and now becomes a BMI 25, which is overweight, but by suppertime is not overweight, and then at bedtime is again overweight.
And now the rest of my blog…….