Blog All Title

It''s 0 here in Minnesota. Zero degrees Fahrenheit. That''s warm compared to the last several days. I woke up to -14 degrees this morning. When you step on the snow you can hear a sound that seems to be part crackle and part screech, and cars makes some very odd noises when they''re awakened from their frozen slumber.

So naturally, during these not so unusually cold periods of Minnesota winter a mans fancy turns to... global warming. What causes this topic to pop into my head? It can''t be the news, since there is a distinct lack of global warming news when it''s cold. Seems like there is no shortage of stories in July when everyone is sweating their buns off, but the reporting dries up when the mercury plummets. Could it be that global warming only exists in the summer? Hard to imagine it''s a crisis if it''s truly a seasonal affair. I suspect the reason for the news blackout is that the idea of the entire earth warming up due to people driving cars and cows farting would sound really stupid and completely illogical when everything for a hundred miles is frozen solid. The whole thing sounds stupid enough in the middle of July, let alone in January.

Some of you are probably shocked that I could possibly doubt the truth of global warming. "He''s mocking global warming - hasn''t he heard what the scientists said? Is he just ignorant?"

I would turn the question around. Are you ignorant? Just how much do you really know about the science behind the global warming movement? I''m sure you''ve heard the news reports and seen the weather channel specials. Perhaps you''ve even been forced to dine upon some "Inconvenient Truths". But how much time have you put into studying the science behind all of this?

If I were you I wouldn''t take the reports of "the world''s scientific climate community" as gospel. A good percentage of the people offering scientific opinions about global warming are being paid to study global warming. They''re also paid to talk about it - to the press, to politicians, and to a sea of fresh, young (untrained) minds. There''s not a whole lot of demand for experts in a field where nothing is happening, so in this industry it pays quite nicely to look for reasons to believe in the global warming theory and find evidence that makes it look true.

This is not an indictment of everyone doing research in the field, just an observation that there is clearly a built in bias in favor of the theory and little incentive to prove it wrong. It''s a well known phenomenon in science that if you think something is true your experiments are more likely to confirm than disprove it. This is because without careful planning and very rigorous methods you will tend to tilt, consciously or unconsciously, in favor of your predetermined conclusion. Every assumption you make will favor your bias, and every error will tend to work in the same fashion. Every software model created is inherently filled with assumptions about how the world works, and every one is an opportunity to add more bias for your believe. Even if you are not intentionally cooking the books the results are still suspect.

Now consider the field of global environmental study. Is it possible to be rigorous? It''s an imperfect science at best. There''s no way to test most theories. No one has a spare earth to experiment on. Measurement is imprecise. How does one get an accurate temperature of the whole earth? Is there not some room for error here as well?

But let''s assume for the sake of argument that the earth is warmer today than it was 50 years ago. What caused it? The global warming fan club will say it''s the cars and the cow farts, but how do they know? They claim that in the last 50 years people have been driving more and the temperature has gone up so they must be linked. But the sun rose this morning and I woke up. Did one cause the other? I woke up first, so did I cause the sun to rise? Some days I like to think so, but I truly doubt it.

Of course the global warmers have theories, but they''re virtually impossible to test and really impossible to prove. You can design computer models to "test" the theories, but then you''re back to the thousands of assumptions a computer programmer has to make to get the model to work, so isn''t the opportunity for error or bias back in play. Well, you may say, we can trust computer scientists to be complete, accurate and exempt from errors, can''t we? (wait a moment, I have to reboot - some of my applications are frozen up tight....)

OK, I''m back. Now where was I? Oh yes, computer models proving that global warming is man made. Let''s just say that we''re a long way from the evidence being in on that claim.

According to some, the earth may be warming and man''s use of fossil fuels may be the cause. What, then, do the ''true believers'' of global warming want. Well, first you''ll need to get out your wallet. They''ve got to have some cash because this is too important to ignore, and we will need a lot of money to study it. Let''s see - claim a problem exists, get money to study it, find out that it''s real, get more money to study it more... you can see where we''re going here. In programming it''s called an infinite loop. In the real world it''s called a pretty-good-job-if-you-can-get-it. A talented group of activists can keep thousands of people traveling around the globe for decades before this gravy train dries up.

The second thing the global warming types want it... more money. Right, it''s not enough that you fund their research with your spare change. Since the (unproven) theory is that driving cars, or more accurately using fossil fuels, causes this problem we need to put additional taxed on energy use to get everyone to cut back. Perhaps the extra money the government collects here will be used to cut back on our taxes somewhere else, but I''m skeptical. Call me a cynic, but I suspect there are people in Washington this very minute with grand ideas to spend money if only they could get more.

The third thing this crowd want is not money - they just want you to change the way you live. They are only asking that you restructure your entire life so you live it the way they think you should. They''ve boiled this down into a neat little concept called a "carbon footprint". Simply put, they want everyone to use less energy and they want the government to pass laws to make sure you do. Now, when they say everyone, they don''t really mean everyone. If you''re a recent Nobel peace prize winner and movie/slide show maker, a famous Hollywood movie star or an important politician or government figure you''re exempt from this requirement. You''re much more important than the normal, little people so if you need your own airplane or fleet of SUVs to get around then energy consumption is no vice. But if you''re someone else who uses a lot of fuel, say a business owner, then all you''re doing is making a profit and that, in and of itself, is a suspect activity so you are obligated to change what you do to comply with their great ideas.

What''s the bottom line? The world may be warmer now than it was a few decades ago. What little evidence we have suggests it''s true. If it is happening we don''t know why, but some people have a theory. The theory can''t be proven, but the same people who have the theory made some computer programs that they claim are proof they are right. Since they have this on their side they want everyone to give them more money so they can continue to work on the theory and to pay more money for everything we buy so in case they are right we''ll use less energy. They would also like us to restructure our lives to live the way they think we should, again in case they are right.

Oh yes, and they want us to stop questioning their assumptions and theories and just believe like they do because "a majority of the world''s climate scientists agree..."