Thursday, May 5, 2011

More evidence of a scam

As I've said before, belief in man-made global warming will soon be laughed out of existence.

Reader Professor BobC runs a keen eye over the supposedly increasing atmospheric CO2 levels:

If you look at the caption I've given fig. 1, it says the increase in CO2 is natural CO2 variation. The warmists would have you believe that burning of fossil fuels is not part of the natural cycle and so somehow this increase in CO2 is anthropogenic.

Fig. 1 Natural CO2 Variation

Professor BobC continues:

If we now take a closer look at the last 5 years (Fig. 2 - which I've stretched a bit to help with visibility) we can see that, contrary to IPCC alarmism, there is no statistically significant uptrend.

Fig. 2

Case closed on the warmists I'd say.


  1. That first graph looks suspicisiosly like a hockey stick. I thought the warmists would have listened when we told them that there were no hockey sticks when Christ was born because the Romans banned them. Sheesh, when will they start to listen!

  2. Your post will be misleading to anyone who doesn't understand what statistical significance actually means.

    Quite simply, four years may not to be a large enough sample to get significance in this type of data (ie data with a fair amount of variability). This doesn't mean that there isn't a trend in place, it only means you need a larger sample data set (ie more years) to show statistical significance.

    For example, lets hypothetically presume that one has data for C02 for say 50 years, and the data illustrates a particular trend that is statistically significant. It is irrelevent whether that trend is up, down or sideways. But if you take any four years out of that data set, the odds of finding a statistical trend of anything within that 4 years of data is drastically reduced. Kappish?

  3. If Bob had stretched Fig. 2 more (for visibility, of course) I reckon it would have looked completely flat.

  4. "If you look at the caption I've given fig. 1" Well this is the main point isn't? It is vital to quote one's own captioning.

    You won't find that sort of scientific freedom in all those fancy nancy IPCC reports.

  5. It would be easier Anon if the y-axis was made to span 0-400 rather than 380-394.

  6. Gordicans,

    In a traditional sense, then sure, 4 years is too short for statistical significance.

    Now, I don't want to embarrass you further, but I think you'll find in the modern world of blog science it is pretty common practice to use tiny data samples.

  7. It's cold here now.

  8. Anonymous said 'It's cold here now."

    I noticed that today as well. How can global warming be real when today is much colder than usual and the forecast for the weekend is for rain?

  9. Of course it's getting warmer at Mauna Loa - it's an active volcano FFS. If the temp there has been rising for the past few years, that means it's about to blow. RUN, YOU FOOLS!

  10. DickMunchin @1, As any right thinking, straight talking, commonsense person knows the Romans banned hockey because it was too hot to play during the Roman warming period. But just try telling that to one of those lefty, warmist, flannery following fools.

  11. It is well for everyone to remember that graphs don't naturally occur in nature. Their a man-made construct ,just like a hockey stick.

  12. Damn wish I'd said that.

    Anyway when the sun came out briefly this afternoon I thought maybe it would be necessary to review the data. Then it rained and I soundly kicked myself for falling for that old alarmism.

  13. Andrew - you always show up the Left for their biggest problem - commentary on fields in which they have no knowledge whatsoever! I'd trust your Google Diploma far more than their years of research in the field. Well done!