Thursday, April 14, 2011

What is it with the Left and science?

In an extraordinarily example of Leftist nitpicking, Arthur Smith finds that Roy Spencer's latest temperature model has a 6 trillion degree error. This is just another example from the Left of the shameless use of "science" and so-called "mathematical proof"  (although I concede Smith may be a Republican) (but its still shameless);

First, returning to the results of my previous post, Spencer's model reduces to Eq. 18: 
(18) T(t) = Te + A0e-t/τ + β Q(t)/c h 
(see the previous post for definitions). Note that since c h/α = τ the factor multiplying Q(t) can also be written as β/τ α. The convoluted PDO index (PDOI) function, Q(t), is defined as (see eq. 16): 
(19) Q(t) = ∫-∞t PDOI(s) e- (t - s)/τ ds 
and note that it depends on the PDO index going back in time (to negative infinity in the integral) - though values from more than a few multiples of the time constant τ in the past contribute only a minuscule amount to the total. Spencer seems to have used a particular source for the PDO index (downloadable here) which begins in 1900, so at least for the first few decades of the 20th century Q(t) is missing important information about pre-1900 index values

And on and on it goes. Finally reaching the rather ho hum proof that;

It turns out you need to set the starting temperature to negative six trillion degrees in 993, in order to match Spencer's model for the 20th century. 6 trillion degrees. Wow. Now that's global warming!
Of course no where does Smith explain why -6 trillion degrees could not be the real world starting point. Show me one peer-reviewed study that categorically rules this out.

(thanks to reader Professor Bob)


  1. Hi Andrew - you are so right with the Left and science. It just reminds me of their shrill cries over the ozone layer and UV light. There's no harm from UV rays! Its just a conspiracy of the Left to keep us all away from beaches. I urge all true conservatives to go out there and sunbake as long as possible!

  2. Exactly. Ozone concentration is only 8ppm, and we know that CO2 concentration does nothing and that's 390ppm, yet the Left would have us believe that ozone protects us from so-called "harmful" radiation. It is hard to believe the duplicity of this government.

  3. And what's more, the silly scare-mongering over radioactivity. How long will the Left be stupid?

    Andrew, you keep telling us Chernobyl was perfectly safe, and I would believe you over any of the left wing scientists who have actually taken measurements, applied proper methodology and done study in the area.

    The best thing you could do now, Andrew, would be to go to Fukushima, do an episode of your new show from directly outside the reactor and drink some of the water.

    That will show the Left you mean everything you say!

  4. "How long will the Left be stupid?"

    Oh Anonymous, how long is a piece of string??????!!!!

    Says it all, really. Doesn't it? Does it not??

    Oh, I mean unless Andrew has something to add. I hope he will because we need his fine leadership.

    Oh er... what was the question...??

  5. I, for one, will continue to vouch for the complete safety of all radiation.

    After losing a slightly rash bet with a doctor friend of mine, I have been undergoing whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) for the last ten years. As funny as that may sound (and how we laughed in those early years), and apart from hair loss (alopecia), nausea, vomiting, lethargy, otitis media and severe cerebral edema, the real inconvenience is the daily trips to the hospital. You certainly won't hear that in the mainstream media.

    As for the alarmist claims of radiation necrosis - well it doesn't take a lot of Googling to realise the science isn't settled on that one.

  6. And don't get me started on tobacco. Andrew, you must have lots of Liberal Party friends with strong links to the tobacco industry - I'm sure you'll agree. All this hoo-ha over smoking causing cancer is another attempt by the Left to bring down big business. Name just ten people who's cancer can be conclusively linked to smoking!

    There, nobody answered so I must be right!

  7. Reading this, I came as close as I have come in my 50 years on earth, to pissing myself. Well, apart from the first 5 or 6.

    keep up the good work.

  8. "and how we laughed in those early years"

    Its good to have a laugh about radiation because even if we don't believe in climate change, we can still believe in radiation as a clean source of energy, if it were ever needed, not that it is, but if it were then we'd have a great source of irritation for Greens who believe in climate change but don't believe in radiation, so we're happy and they're not and that's all that really matters, isn't that right Andrew!!!?!!

  9. I cannot believe Dr Roy's blogscience could ever be wrong. Come on! It's printed on the internet!!!