I Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself

The National Post has an opinion column by Lorne Gunter today discussing the Argo buoys and the data they've been producing (hat tip to RealClearPolitics for the link). This paragraph is a good summary of the article's thesis:

So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys' findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters' hypotheses, must be wrong.

And in this excerpt, Gunter cuts through Dr. Willis's evasive babblings:

Just look how tenaciously some scientists are prepared to cling to the climate change dogma. "It may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming," Dr. Willis told NPR.

Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion. Or when I gain a few pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss.

Well said.

Does this make any sense?

Yes, I'm a global warming denier, sometimes denying man-made global warming, and sometimes just denying the whole notion outright. The earth warms, the earth cools, it's a dynamic system that is constantly changing. So what? I saw this article on Drudge today and was mystified by the following paragraph:

"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."

Now, I understand that the scientist being quoted is examining data from a brief span of time (five years), but it's clear to me that he accepts the premise that the earth has been warming and is continuing to do so, most likely because of man's activities. Why does this research necessarily have to prove or disprove global warming? If Willis's hypothesis was that evidence for global warming would manifest itself in rising ocean temperatures, he needs to admit that the evidence doesn't support his hypothesis. Of course, it's sometimes just easier to blame your measurement devices for bad or misleading data:

One possibility is that the sea has, in fact, warmed and expanded — and scientists are somehow misinterpreting the data from the diving buoys.

These sensors are part of JPL NASA's Argo array. Hardly high school science fair stuff. It does appear that there were some data errors identified, as this article explains.

Update as of 5/30/07: Recent analyses have revealed that results from some of the ocean float and shipboard sensor data used in this study were incorrect. As a result, the study's conclusion that the oceans cooled between 2003 and 2005 can not be substantiated at this time. The study authors are currently working to correct these data errors and recompute ocean temperature changes.

The NPR article is dated 3/19/08, so can we assume the data has been reevaluated and that the initial results have been validated since the 5/30/07 update?

What I find interesting is that few scientists who hold global warming theory as fact haven't found it necessary to question the validity of all of the temperature and weather stations used to collect and compile the data used in support of their theory. Anthony Watts has compiled some great information about weather stations and the effect their placement can have on their data here.

Expelled

I've long said that monolithic Darwinism poses a grave threat to our free society. Its Inquisitors have expunged any semblance of honest debate in most disciplines of science and have created unintended consequences not only throughout the scientific community but society as a whole. I'll be interested to see how Ben Stein tackles this matter in his upcoming movie. Click the post title or here to see the trailer and find out more.

Gamer

I'm an avid gamer and lately have moved back to board games. In addition to pulling out Axis and Allies: Revised for a quick solo play, I'm getting ready to play Air & Armor. I've never played that game against an opponent and can't really say I've played a scenario to completion. I'm going to give it a go during the next few days, though. I also have Europe Engulfed sitting on the shelf, staring at me lovingly. I've barely played it, but think I can get into it fairly quickly. The core system for the game is pretty accessible, but it has lots of chrome and exceptions to steepen the learning curve.

I'm also bidding on a slew of games on eBay with the intention of expanding my collection. I've also been anxiously watching GMT's reprint schedule for a few games just in case I can't get them affordably on eBay. The list of future acquisitions includes Combat Commander: Europe, Twilight Struggle, Asia Engulfed, and Fire Team. Silent War is also a very appealing game, not least of all because it's a solitaire game of enormous scope.

I'm not sure what brought on this sudden resurgence of board gaming interest for me, but it might have something to do with our interminable winter.

Check out my new Board Game Geek widget on the right!