CalvinDude.com

One of the hot-button environmental issues is Global Warming. While some people argue we must be more specific and refer to “anthropogenic Global Warming,” I do not do so. Not because I think humans are not affecting the environment in any way, but because I think it is scientifically impossible to accurately measure the temperature and compare it to historical trends in the first place. And if it is scientifically impossible to do so, then all Global Warming (anthropogenic or natural) is unscientific.

In order to demonstrate the scientific problems with Global Warming, we must first understand a bit of how scientific experiments work. The two key concepts will be our understanding of precision and accuracy. Without these two ideas firmly in place, we cannot even begin to weigh the evidence presented for Global Warming.

While precision and accuracy are often thought of as being identical concepts, in science there is a specific difference between the two. Precision refers to the level of certainty an instrument gives us. For example, if we measure time using an analogue clock with no second-hand, the clock is precise to the minute. That is, we can tell that it is 10:58. But we do not know if it is 10:58:03 or 10:58:57. On the other hand, we could have a clock with a second hand that would be more precise because it would illustrate the seconds. Furthermore, we could have a digital clock that would be able to give us fractions of a second as well.

However, at some point the precision ends. We might be able to use a stopwatch to calculate that something took 10.874 seconds, but we wouldn’t know if it was 10.8744 or 10.8740 or (possibly, depending on the specs of the stopwatch) if it was 10.8739 and rounded.

To tell how precise an instrument is we need to know how many decimal points the measurement goes to. The more numbers after a decimal point, the more precise the measurement is. As a result, 10 seconds is not as precise as 10.0 seconds (since 10 seconds could be rounded from 10.3 or 9.7, etc. while 10.0 could only be rounded from, say 10.03) and 10.000 would be even more precise.

In addition to precision, however, we must take into account the accuracy of the instrument. A stopwatch might give us a precise measurement down to the eighth decimal point (for example), but if the stopwatch is inaccurate then that precision is illusionary. For example, if two stopwatches measure the same amount of time and one says 10.000 seconds passed while another says 9.989 seconds passed, we would know that one (or both) are inaccurate instruments. There is, however, basic general agreement between the two instruments. We would be safe to say they were approximately similar, but we would need to give an error range in order to remain scientific. (And it should be noted that any scientific experiment that does not give you its error range is worthless.)

In addition to instrument accuracy we have to deal with human error. Sometimes, people misread instruments or write down the wrong number. Further, as we again use the stopwatch illustration, we have to deal with the lag between when the event being measured starts and when the experiment observer presses the button to begin the clock. This reaction delay must be figured into the experiments as well.

All that is fine and well, but what does it have to do with Global Warming? Well, first of all we know that Global Warming claims a specific temperature change over the course of the last century. For example, global temperatures are said to have risen about 0.6 degree Celsius since 1900. The problem with this is that our thermometers are far more precise today than they were in 1900 as the advancement of technology continues. Beyond that, we do not know how accurate the experimenters in 1900 were per say, or where exactly their thermometers were placed, or a host of other possible important factors to the experiment.

This is important for the simple fact that 0.6 degrees Celsius is a very small number. In fact, when you consider that most historical weather reports give temperatures in whole numbers (i.e., “On April 4, 1907, the high temperature was 68 degrees F”) this means the recorded temperature is not very precise at all.

This immediately brings us back to an important rule of precision. An experiment is only as precise as the least precise measurement used. For example, suppose you were trying to determine the volume of a cube. We know that volume is length x width x height. If we measure the length as 10.0 meters, the width as 5 meters, and the height as 14.973 meters, we multiply those numbers together to get 748.65 meters cubed. However, since the width is a whole number variable, the precision of the experiment can only be a whole number! We cannot have any decimal portion at all, so the true, scientific volume of the cube is 749 cubic meters. Due to this, the extra precision that we got measuring the height is irrelevant to the final answer. It can only be as precise as the least precise measurement.

Which means that if temperatures at any point in the data are in only whole number increments, we cannot have a temperature change of 0.6 degrees. The precision of the answer is more precise than the data given; it is invalid.

Now someone could argue that it doesn’t matter because the 0.6 degrees is in Celsius rather than in Fahrenheit, which is what virtually all of at least the earliest American data was measured in. However, this brings up another matter. The Fahrenheit scale is inherently more precise than the Celsius scale because the degrees are finer. That is, between freezing and boiling there are only 100 degrees on the Celsius scale, but there are 180 degrees on the Fahrenheit scale. This means that measuring in degrees F is 1.8x more precise than measuring in C. To show why this is a problem, both 87 and 88 degrees F round to 31 C. In fact, assuming infinite precision, 87F = 30.555…C and 88F = 31.111…C, a difference of 0.555…. Or, to put it another way, about 0.6 degrees C.

This means that virtually all of the touted Global Warming temperature difference could possibly be nothing more than just the imprecision of conversion between C and F.

But there is another problem with the methodology used to calculate Global Warming. It’s based on average data. Unfortunately, I’ve yet to see a report that indicates how the averages are determined. I’ve even emailed specific people who have written on the topic and gotten no response. Granted, I am pretty much unknown; still, this information is necessary for us to be able to make an informed decision as to the veracity of Global Warming.

Let me give an example of what that is the case. If the average is simply the average between the highest temperature of the day and the lowest temperature of the day, two radically different days can give the same average result. For instance, if the high was 80 degrees and the low was 40 degrees, the average would be 60. But the average would also be 60 degrees if the high was 120 and the low was 0. Granted, that is a rather extreme (and unlikely) example; but more realistically, 82H and 38L also average out to 60.

But beyond that, there are even more problems. Two days with identical highs and lows can themselves be radically different once you factor in the temperatures throughout the day. For example, suppose the high and the low occur within a 6 hour range and the two days look like this.

Day 1: hour temperatures from 6 – noon = 40, 50, 55, 60, 70, 80
Day 2: hour temperatures from 6 – noon = 40, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80

(The second day had cloud cover that kept the cooler temperatures in the morning, but once the clouds burned off the heat increased.)

The average (keeping the precision of the “experiment” above) of all the numbers for Day 1 = 59 degrees. The average for Day 2 = 57 degrees. That’s 2 degrees F different, more than 1 whole degree C too…and neither of those matches the 60 degree average between the high and the low alone.

While those numbers are arbitrary, they are not unlikely numbers at all. Indeed, it is very probable that the cloud cover effect could happen in the morning while the afternoon temperatures remain similar.

It is therefore critically important that we know how the averages are calculated. Indeed, another possible way that averages are collected is by simply taking the high temperature for the date and averaging it out for every other year for that same date. I.e., saying “The average high temperature on June 7 is 87 degrees.” In addition to not accurately representing how hot a day actually is (given the above, since two days with the same high can have radically different average temperatures when you break the day down hour-by-hour), we are also left with the fact that averaging on a daily basis ignores an important calendar phenomenon.

Leap year.

Yup, that pesky leap year thing throws off our precision because comparing June 7 of this year to June 7 of last year is not a precise comparison. The Earth is not in exactly the same place as it was that time last year (of course this also ignores the rotation of the solar system, etc. which probably would affect temperature well below the precision our instruments can detect anyway). In fact, it is possible that June 7 of this year is more likely correlated to June 6 of three years ago than June 7 of last year. As a result, “record highs for this date” are also pretty much pointless. They’re okay for giving a general idea of the weather, but they play havoc with trying to maintain any kind of precision on temperatures.

Unfortunately, I do not know which method scientists actually use to try to determine the average temperatures and to come up with their number of 0.6 degrees C. As I stated earlier, no one that I’ve e-mailed about this topic has ever bothered to answer my question. In order to make an informed decision, we must know this.

But even not knowing the actual method used, the methods I’ve shown above would be unable to provide any precise data for the past 100 years. And I do not see how any other method of determining this number could work. As a result, I have no reason to believe in Global Warming at all, let alone anthropogenic Global Warming. Scientists must provide the details of their experiments, the details of how they determined these averages, the error bars for the temperatures collected at the beginning of the 20th Century, etc. before we can even hope to accept it as a theory. Anything less than this disclosure renders Global Warming as unscientific.

ASP News, Denver – Pundits, anchors, and other members of the media waited in eager anticipation for the first speech candidate Pepsi would give after accepting his party’s nomination for President of the United Sodas of America.

Pepsi, marketed as the Choice of a New Generation, has enjoyed wide appeal in the media. “The first time I tried Pepsi, a shiver ran up my leg,” said Chris Matthews, a short-tempered and short man who we assume has a TV show somewhere. “That shiver continues to this day.”

Pollsters are convinced that Pepsi will win the election despite the fact that those they poll do not agree. “We alter the polls consistently, changing the questions here and there, and eventually they get the right numbers,” said one anonymous pollster who wished to remain anonymous because he was spineless.

After months of speculation, Pepsi announced Dr Pepper as his running mate. Dr Pepper ran against Pepsi earlier in the race, denouncing Pepsi as a radical leftist who was too blue. It had widely been assumed that Mr. Pibb would get the nod after her close race with Pepsi.

“After looking over the details,” Pepsi said, “we decided to go with the purple-ish can of prune juice. Dr Pepper’s experience is evident by the ‘Dr’ sans period at the front of his name. Mr. Pibb just couldn’t compete with that. Even though her husband, Mrs. Pibb, was a successful president if you can ignore his record.”

The Pibbs were unavailable for comment.

ASP News, St. Paul – SHOCK!

That is the only word that can describe the scene here in the Xcel Energy Center as Coke Classic, an aged formula long popular with nursing home residents and prescription drug addicts, announced his choice for running mate: Mountain Dew.

“I never saw that one coming,” said Anderson Cooper, who never saw it coming. “Every indicator pointed to Coke Zero topping the short list. Instead, Coke Classic picked someone who is completely GREEN! Mountain Dew has no experience whatsoever. In fact, only drunk co-eds like Mountain Dew, and only then because of her looks.”

Diet Coke had spent months campaigning for the candidate’s coveted VP slot. “This is a complete sell out,” said the junior diet soda from Georgia. “They say it’s not easy being green. Well, it’s about to get a lot tougher.” Diet Coke is now said to be stumping for Pepsi.

The media, working in conjunction with Pepsi’s campaign, has promised to vet Mountain Dew’s credentials. Already, however, it looks like a lost cause for Coke Classic. “Have you ever opened a can of Mountain Dew?” one Pepsi spokesman said. “It looks like a can of urine. What does it say about Coke Classic’s judgment if his pick looks like human waste?”

Sprite, and other women’s rights groups, have denounced Mountain Dew over her views on abortion. “Mountain Dew totally should have aborted that Code Red crap. The only thing we have in common is carbonated water and high fructose corn syrup” said Sprite. “That’s not enough to make me vote for a sell-out.”

ASP News, Someone’s Basement – In other news, 7-Up has announced Ale-8-1 as his running mate. 7-Up, running on the environmentalist green ticket, so far only has the backing of Moon Mist Shasta, the former vice president tuned recycling activist who earned fame last year after the success of his film “An Inconvenient Fizz.”

Critics are already questioning Ale-8’s experience, given his limited distribution in and around the state of Kentucky. “We all know that Kentuckians are just a bunch of racist rednecks,” said Dr Pepper. “What do the hicks down there really know anyway?”

ASP News, Washington DC – The presidential campaign took a nasty turn today as Pepsi and Coke Classic both went negative. Pepsi’s negative campaign was witty and refreshing, as Pepsi called Coke classic a “flat” and “undrinkable” beverage.

Coke Classic responded with a vicious character attack, saying Pepsi had been “left out in the car under the hot sun for too long.” When asked if Coke Classic thought the negative tone of the campaign would hurt him, he responded: “He started it.”

Pepsi retorted with “I know you are but what am I?”

Meanwhile, 7-Up has asked to attend the first presidential debate, scheduled for next week. So far, no one is paying him any attention.

ASP News, Washington DC – The continual vitriol of the campaign took a turn for the worst as Coke Classic accused Pepsi of ties with the pink can, TaB. TaB, which in 1969 contained the now-banned chemical cyclamate, supposedly launched the career of Pepsi from TaB’s living room, if you believe Coke Classic and the people who were there instead of those of us in the media who don’t want you to focus on this.

Pepsi has fired back that TaB is just some can in the neighborhood and that Pepsi was only eight years old when TaB’s cyclamate was banned by the FDA. Coke Classic countered that while “Pepsi” was only eight years old, “Pepsi-Cola” had been around since 1903, and was originally called “Brad’s Drink” in 1898.

Since we’re the media and we are objective, we will ignore everything about TaB. Instead, an important thing to ponder is the fact that Coke Classic is the real hypocrite here. Coke Classic had an original formula, but now is only pretending to remain true to the original formula having substituted high fructose corn syrup for his original sweetener, cane sugar. Furthermore, Coke is made from processed cocaine leaves. Explain that, Coke Classic!

ASP News, Washington DC – The Red party is becoming increasingly desperate as Coke Classic sags in the polls, down by as much as 7/32 of a percentage point. In an attempt to deflect attention from failed economic policies, Coke Classic has accused Pepsi of fraternizing with COLON. COLON, which stands for “Confused Organization of Liberals for Oligarchy Now” has been active in registering 6.8 trillion people in Los Angeles alone.

“It is obvious that there is voter fraud going on,” said one Coke Classic spokesman.

“What is going on is disenfranchisement,” Pepsi spokesman Diet Coke responded. “Coke Classic doesn’t want your vote to count more than once. He is skewering this election away from the will of illegal aliens, felons, and other up-and-coming Blue candidates. That’s why Coke Classic didn’t pick me—I mean Coke Zero for his running mate. He’s racist against the black can!”

In unrelated news, the Red Party released a YouTube video showing a 1990s Pepsi rally where Pepsi stated: “A colon is not that far behind.” Pundits have supposed the Red Party is going for the irony angle, but as we are objective media personalities we don’t understand it.

ASP NEWS, Toledo – Earlier today, Pepsi made an unscheduled stop in Toledo to talk to random sodas. There he met Grape Soda, who asked him: “Why are you planning on increasing my carbonation?”

Pepsi responded, “I want to spread the carbon around.”

Developing…

ASP NEWS, Toledo – Who is Grape Soda?

That is the question the media will focus on until everyone forgets Pepsi’s poor answer to Grape Soda’s question.

Grape Soda is not who he claims to be. For one thing, his name isn’t really Grape Soda. It’s “Big K Diet Grape Soda.” For another thing, he’s not a real soda. He’s a generic brand. In fact, he only costs $0.70 for two liters! Under Pepsi’s plan, only those sodas which cost more than $2.50 for a two liter bottle would be extra-carbonated.

Further examinations have uncovered the possibility of Grape Soda’s fraudulent portrayal of himself while daring to ask a question Pepsi answered truthfully. Big K Diet Grape Soda had indicated his affiliation with King Soopers while his recently released tax records suggest strong ties with Kroger.

In a press conference yesterday afternoon, Diet Coke commented, “Which is it ‘Grape Soda’? These questions demand an answer – you can’t have it both ways!”

As if that weren’t enough, Sprite also noted, “You can’t spell ‘Grape’ without ‘rape.’”

What does “Grape Soda” know, and when did he know it? Why did Coke Classic plant Grape Soda at an unscheduled Pepsi stop? The media demand answers! We will continue digging until our last latex glove is soiled.

ASP NEWS, Washington DC – The Coke Classic campaign has accused the media of bias due to its kid gloves treatment of Pepsi and its anal examination of Big K Diet Grape Soda, the fake soda who Coke Classic planted to trip up Pepsi.

The media, biased? As if! We aren’t biased if there are no objections to our reporting and after Pepsi gives his acceptance speech on January 20, we will help usher in a new world of fairness via the Fairness Doctrine which guarantees the suppression of views that disagree with us.

It is Coke Classic who is against being fair. That’s just a fact. It’s not biased to report the facts, even if we only report half of them and occasionally retract three quarters of the half we do report. That’s what true, objective journalism is all about.

ASP reporters Travis Johnson and Peter Pike contributed to this report.

Peter Pike is the author of the novel Public Transit available on-line and in many black market stores worldwide. His website it http://www.intellectualist.net/.

Johnson and Pike are currently collaborating on a screenplay version of Public Transit. So far, they have finished six pages and consumed fourteen gallons of coffee.

If you had asked me even a month ago, I would have told you that I am not voting for president in this election. There are sufficient ballot issues that would have gotten me to the booth, but I’d simply have written in a candidate for the presidential election.

I can stand neither McCain nor Obama. I view both as pompous windbags (that is, “politicians”) who have no one’s interests but their own in mind.

But as Election Day 2008: A Shiver Runs Up My Leg® draws nearer, it becomes more and more obvious that this election has important implications well beyond simply deciding the next president. And I don’t mean the Supreme Court or legislation passed in Congress either. America is big enough that it will be quite difficult for any radical changes in the next four years, although it is of course possible that it would be a necessary first step toward that radical change in, say, 20 years or so.

What I am referring to is the rampant fraud, the illogical ranting, and the obvious bias of the media’s reports. This election has torn open the cesspool that is Washington politics. It has exposed the rot that’s been beneath the surface for years in the form of ACORN. It has shown us the fallacy of trusting in a system that one party refuses to allow to be examined.

We have seen that if you ask The Chosen One a question that he accidentally answers truthfully, the media will ruin you. We now know more about Joe the Plummer’s taxes than we do about Obamessiah’s connection to William Ayers. We will see supposedly erudite philosophers defend this attack, despite the fact that Joe is not running for office, Obama approached him, and it is Obama’s ANSWER that is problematic. Any attack on Joe is an obvious ad hominem, and in fact is the definition of the “Politics of Personal Destruction” but nevertheless it is justifiable to destroy Joe because Obama forgot to lie.

We have seen that voter irregularities don’t matter if they are irregular to the benefit of the Chosen One. We have seen that people who whine about voter suppression couldn’t care less that a certain group is registering the same person dozens of times. What’s the big deal? We all know who ACORN voters trend toward (ein Politiker der Höpenchange), so this is really a good thing. America must be saved from itself.

In fact, we’re told that voting registration irregularities don’t translate into actual voting irregularities. Despite the fact that they do. And have. Indeed, the GOP has been in the unusual position of defending none other than Hillary Clinton in New Mexico because they’ve found the ACORN voting irregularities translated into votes for Obama in the Democratic primary.

But the mainstream media doesn’t want to investigate anything that could possible harm The One. Unfortunately (for Neo, anyway), they’re not the only game in town. The bloggers are doing the job the MSM can’t be bothered with. Which is okay for the MSM since they can claim: “It’s just in the blogs and not in any serious publication.” (Forget for a moment that Monica Lewinsky was broken by Drudge, the first real blogger; that the Dan Rather bogus Bush/National Guard story was cracked by bloggers who took all of fifteen minutes to type up the forged letters in Microsoft Word to determine they were identical to Word’s format. Throw that in the Memory Hole and trust the Media. We Know What’s Best For You™)

From biased “moderators” of debates to the New York Times whitewashing (RACIST OVERTONES ALERT®) Obamessiah’s record, the media has proven itself to be the most vacuous institution on Earth. Given the overall hatred of President Bush and Congress, my own instinctive feeling is that if we polled the average person about their approval of the media, the media would score a single-digit percentage. This is probably why that poll is never done.

Democrat supporters and the media (but I repeat myself) have ruined elections in America forever through their tactics. And therefore, despite the fact that I still despise John McCain, I will be voting for him on November 4 if for no other reason than because the media tells me I shouldn’t and I’m fed up with them. If the media takes time to stop crucifying plumbers, they just might discover the extent to which they are held in contempt. In fact, they might realize they just earned McCain another vote that would have gone to Khan from Star Trek II instead.

Then again, I’m an obvious closet McCain supporter , so what can you believe?

Question not the Chosen One.

If you question Obamessiah, the media will ruin you.

We now know more about Samuel J. Wurzelbacher than we do about The Great One.

Democrats on Sunday had denounced Palin’s charge and warned that it would trigger reexaminations of McCain’s past. McCain “does not want to play guilt-by-association, or this thing could blow up in his face,” Democratic strategist Paul Begala had warned Sunday.

Source.

Maybe it’s just me, but when the basis of this is due to the guy who was in the Weather Underground, that did such things as, you know, blow up a police station, Begala would probably do better to, you know, AVOID the bomb references…

Oh wait. He’s a Democratic [sic] strategist. Of course he doesn’t know any better.

I’ve mentioned this to a couple of people I work with, but regardless of who wins the presidential election this year, there is going to be one clear loser. The media.

That’s right. Our “objective” media is proving beyond all doubt that objectivity is a myth. More accurately, for them objectivity means “agreeing with the New York Times” which the rest of America knows is a crock.

I do find it funny how one little governor from a state that no one in Washington could find (you know, cuz those wonky maps show it off the coast of Mexico, southwest of Los Angeles, sorta near Hawaii, BUT THIS IS A TRICK because it’s really east of Cleveland) has these people in such a tizzy. If I didn’t despise McCain so much, this election season could actually be fun.

Oh well.

I just got back from watching An American Carol, the new film by David Zucker. It stars Kevin Farley, the brother of the late Chris Farley of “in a van down by the river” fame, and is a typical Zucker-esque film. Over all, I’m not a large fan of the style of humor that Zucker has, since it tends to rely more on slapstick and horrific puns; however, the Zucker brothers have always managed to pull it off to make better than average movies (Airplane!, The Naked Gun series, etc.). David, who is now a conservative, manages to pull it off very effectively without his still-liberal brother, Jerry. (Jerry, in fact, wants to make it clear that he has nothing to do with this movie.)

The movie is blatantly right-wing, and gets bonus points in my book because of that. Liberals are going to hate this movie with a passion. It has everything in it that could possibly offend them. In fact, it reminds me of a Stephen Colbert episode in reverse…

It will be interesting to see what reaction all the liberals who say conservatives have no sense of humor will do now that they are the ones being lampooned. The reviews I’ve read so far are not promising. But then, consistency never has been a liberal strong point.

For the record, if Public Transit ever did become a movie, I’d love for David Zucker to direct it.

That said, the movie isn’t perfect, even for someone who is in the tank for the right wing. Instead of an A+, I’ll have to give it an A-, borderline B+ even. Again, a lot of this has to do with the fact that I’m not a huge fan of the style of humor, and I’d give the same marks for Airplane! for instance. So if you loved Airplane! then you’ll love this movie, assuming you’re not Michael Moore.

One final note. The irony of the movie extended beyond the movie itself. Indeed, it began during the previews for coming attractions. We got to see previews for Zack and Miri Make a Porno and Sexdrive. In other words, the typical liberal fare that constitutes “humor.” The contrast between that and the humor of An American Carol is something that David Zucker would have loved to have planned, I’m sure. Instead, he got it for free. The rest of Hollywood will miss this; but for some reason I doubt “fly-over country” will…

Can’t…stop…listening…..

There is actually something worse than my previous post.

Do people realize how…you know, stupid ‘n stuff, they look doing this?

BTW, since this was sent to me earlier today, I figured I’d pass it on. I’m going to call it Why Presbyterians Shouldn’t Have Praise Bands Because It Makes Them Look Like Dorks (except these guys probably aren’t Presbyterians, but who’s counting?) :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-NOZU2iPA8