What he says

WHY GLOBAL WARMING IS PROBABLY A CROCK
by James Lewis

As a scientist I've learned never to say "never." So human-caused global warming is always a hypothesis to hold, at least until climate science becomes mature. (Climate science is very immature right now: Physicists just don't know how to deal with hypercomplex systems like the earth weather. That's why a recent NASA scientist was wildly wrong when he called anthropogenic warming "just basic physics." Basic physics is what you do in the laboratory. If hypercomplex systems were predictable, NASA would have foolproof space shuttles --- because they are a lot simpler than the climate. So this is just pseudoscientific twaddle from NASA's vaunted Politically Correct Division. It makes me despair when even scientists conveniently forget that little word "hypothesis.")

OK. The human-caused global warming hypothesis is completely model-dependent. We can't directly observe cars and cows turning up the earth thermostat. Whatever the human contribution there may be to climate constitutes just a few signals among many hundreds or thousands.

All our models of the earth climate are incomplete. That's why they keep changing, and that's why climate scientists keep finding surprises. As Rummy used to say, there are a ton of "unknown unknowns" out there. The real world is full of x's, y's and z's, far more than we can write little models about. How do you extract the human contribution from a vast number of unknowns?

That's why constant testing is needed, and why it is so frustrating to do frontier science properly.

Science is difficult because nature always has another surprise in store for us, dammit! Einstein rejected quantum mechanics, and was wrong about that. Newton went wrong on the proof of calculus, a problem that didn't get solved until 1900. Scientists are always wrong --- they are just less wrong now than they were before (if everything is going well). Check out the current issue of Science magazine. It's full of surprises. That's what it's for.

Now there's a basic fact about complexity that helps to understand this. It's a point in probability theory (eek!) about many variables, each one less than 100 percent likely to be true.

If I know that my six-sided die isn't loaded, I'll get a specific number on average one out of six rolls. Two rolls of the die produces 1/6 x 1/6 = 1/36. For n rolls of the die, I get (1/6) multiplied by itself n times, or (1/6) to the nth power. That number becomes small very quickly. The more rolls of the die, the less likely it is that some particular sequence will come up. It's the first thing to know in any game of chance. Don't ever bet serious money if that isn't obvious.

Now imagine that all the variables about global climate are known with less than 100 percent certainty. Let's be wildly and unrealistically optimistic and say that climate scientists know each variable to 99 percent certainty! (No such thing, of course). And let's optimistically suppose there are only one-hundred x's, y's, and z's --- all the variables that can change the climate: like the amount of cloud cover over Antarctica, the changing ocean currents in the South Pacific, Mount Helena venting, sun spots, Chinese factories burning more coal every year, evaporation of ocean water (the biggest "greenhouse" gas), the wobbles of earth orbit around the sun, and yes, the multifarious fartings of billions of living creatures on the face of the earth, minus, of course, all the trillions of plants and algae that gobble up all the CO2, nitrogen-containing molecules, and sulfur-smelling exhalations spewed out by all of us animals. Got that? It all goes into our best math model.

So in the best case, the smartest climatologist in the world will know 100 variables, each one to an accuracy of 99 percent. Want to know what the probability of our spiffiest math model would be, if that perfect world existed? Have you ever multiplied (99/100) by itself 100 times? According to the Google calculator, it equals a little more than 36.6 percent.

The Bottom line: our best imaginable model has a total probability of one out of three. How many billions of dollars in Kyoto money are we going to spend on that chance?

Or should we just blow it at the dog races?

So all ye of global warming faith, rejoice in the ambiguity that real life presents to all of us. Neither planetary catastrophe nor paradise on earth are sure bets. Sorry about that. (Consider growing up, instead.)

That's why human-caused global warming is an hypothesis, not a fact. Anybody who says otherwise isn't doing science, but trying to sell you a bill of goods.

Probably.

Here we go yet again

Report has 'smoking gun' on climate

WASHINGTON — Human-caused global warming is here, visible in the air, water and melting ice, and is destined to get much worse in the future, an authoritative global scientific report will warn next week.
"The smoking gun is definitely lying on the table as we speak," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who reviewed all 1,600 pages of the first segment of a giant four-part report. "The evidence ... is compelling."

You’ve got to wonder what was left out in those ellipses. Maybe, “if could find it” or “if we ignore most of it”?

Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist and study co-author, went even further: "This isn't a smoking gun; climate is a batallion of intergalactic smoking missiles."

First, the word is spelled battalion. And why anything having to do with earth’s climate would be “intergalactic” is mystifying. So what is giving all these guys the vapors?

The first phase of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is being released in Paris next week. This segment, written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries, includes "a significantly expanded discussion of observation on the climate," said co-chair Susan Solomon, a senior scientist for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. She and other scientists held a telephone briefing on the report Monday.
That report will feature an "explosion of new data" on observations of current global warming, Solomon said.
Solomon and others wouldn't go into specifics about what the report says. They said that the12-page summary for policymakers will be edited in secret word-by-word by governments officials for several days next week and released to the public on Feb. 2. The rest of that first report from scientists will come out months later.
The full report will be issued in four phases over the year, as was the case with the last IPCC report, issued in 2001.

There’s so much wrong in here I don’t know where to start. Since when does science need to be edited by bureaucrats? If these people can’t go into specifics about the data, why are they talking about the report in the first place? Again, if this is real science which is being paid for by our tax dollars, why is it being edited in secret by government officials before being released to the public? And why is the full report not going to be issued all at once? I have my suspicions…….

Global warming is "happening now, it's very obvious," said Mahlman, a former director of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab who lives in Boulder, Colo. "When you look at the temperature of the Earth, it's pretty much a no-brainer."
Look for an "iconic statement" — a simple but strong and unequivocal summary — on how global warming is now occurring, said one of the authors, Kevin Trenberth, director of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, also in Boulder.
The February report will have "much stronger evidence now of human actions on the change in climate that's taken place," Rajendra K. Pachauri told the AP in November. Pachauri, an Indian climatologist, is the head of the international climate change panel.
An early version of the ever-changing draft report said "observations of coherent warming in the global atmosphere, in the ocean, and in snow and ice now provide stronger joint evidence of warming."
And the early draft adds: "An increasing body of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on other aspects of climate including sea ice, heat waves and other extremes, circulation, storm tracks and precipitation."

Yes, I agree that trying to come up with one temperature for the entire globe is a no-brainer in the sense that if you have a brain you wouldn’t be talking such nonsense. And this wonderful new report is going to have an “iconic statement” about global warming. This has the stench of a marketing department all over it. The “ever-changing” draft report? Why is it changing if the evidence is so incontrovertible? And lastly, we come to the weasel word “suggests”. That’s where they attempt to cover their scientific butts – they make ludicrous and unsubstantiated headline-grabbing claims about human influences on climate, but then say in the fine print that the available evidence merely “suggests” such things.

The world's global average temperature has risen about 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit from 1901 to 2005. The two warmest years on record for the world were 2005 and 1998. Last year was the hottest year on record for the United States.

OK, we’ve finally got some data here, let’s analyze this a little further. The US has been keeping surface temperature records for a little less than 200 years. Since it takes people with thermometers to measure temperature and keep said records, that means that temps for the country AS A WHOLE have been measured for less than 100 years. That is NO TIME AT ALL compared to climatic time scales. But let’s look at the “global average temperature” , whatever that means. The error in such a temperature measurement is about 0.7°C, or about 1.4° F. That makes the supposed increase over the past 105 years within the margin of error. I’m NOT IMPRESSED.

The report will draw on already published peer-review science. Some recent scientific studies show that temperatures are the hottest in thousands of years, especially during the last 30 years; ice sheets in Greenland in the past couple years have shown a dramatic melting; and sea levels are rising and doing so at a faster rate in the past decade.

Another weasel word. Others of course show opposite effects.

Also, the second part of the international climate panel's report — to be released in April — will for the first time feature a blockbuster chapter on how global warming is already changing health, species, engineering and food production, said NASA scientist Cynthia Rosenzweig, author of that chapter.

You mean like these things? Geez, EVERYTHING can be blamed on global warming!

As confident as scientists are about the global warming effects that they've already documented, they are as gloomy about the future and even hotter weather and higher sea level rises. Predictions for the future of global warming in the report are based on 19 computer models, about twice as many as in the past, Solomon said.

Will somebody PLEASE take away these people’s computers so they can start using their brains again? NONE of these models can even reproduce the known climate of the recent past, let alone make accurate predictions about the future. Doubling the fantasy does not give you reality any more than doubling the dog doo will give you chocolate cake.

In 2001, the panel said the world's average temperature would increase somewhere between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit and the sea level would rise between 4 and 35 inches by the year 2100. The 2007 report will likely have a smaller range of numbers for both predictions, Pachauri and other scientists said.

You mean he's the head of this panel and he doesn't KNOW? I’m betting that not only will the ranges be smaller but so will the magnitudes.

The future is bleak, scientists said.
"We have barely started down this path," said chapter co-author Richard Alley of Penn State University.

Of course the future is bleak. They can’t keep their research grants coming if they say anything else. This is just climate researcher code for “Got to stay on the gravy train as long as I can.”

I’m looking forward to the release of the report so I can see how much of a boondoggle it really is and spend some quality time making fun of it. Stay tuned!

Surprisingly enough, they're not blaming it on global warming

MILD WINTER RATTLES RUSSIANS

MOSCOW–Russians normally revel in frosty winters, which are credited with helping them fend off invasions from both Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler. So winter's reluctance to appear this year has left them deeply perturbed.

Like much of Europe, Russia is experiencing an exceptionally warm winter, with temperatures reaching 10C, grass in city parks and not a fur cap in sight.

Grey skies have hung over Moscow for weeks, occasionally disgorging bursts of rain that leave the city wet and dreary.

Experts are warning of outbreaks of depression and even the country's animals are frazzled. At the Leningradsky Zoo in St. Petersburg, officials said this week that two of the zoo's five bears and some of its hedgehogs have come out of hibernation weeks ahead of time.

In rural areas, officials have issued warnings to look out for wild bears that might be aggressive after waking up early.

Psychiatrists in Moscow say the lack of sun and snow – which reflects sunlight to brighten short, dark days – is leaving many depressed.

"The clouds, the short days and the lack of light can have a deep psychological effect even on people who are mentally healthy," says Denis Osipov, a psychotherapist at Moscow's Institute for Positive Psychotherapy.

"And without snow, the city looks filthy. It's hard to feel happy when everyone around you looks dirty and miserable," he said.

Osipov says he has been recommending to patients that they spend as much time as they can outside during the day, even if the sky is overcast, and that they eat more fruits and vegetables to make up for a lack of vitamin D, which is manufactured by the body after exposure to sunshine. In extreme cases, he recommends that patients spend short periods of time under sun lamps.

Tatyana Dmitriyeva, director of Moscow's Serbsky Institute for Social and Forensic Psychiatry, suggests that parents not read stories to their children about snowy winters.

"Small children develop depressive conditions when they hear about snow and ice and see mud and rain instead," she told Itar-Tass news agency.

"This December and January have been the warmest since we started keeping weather records in 1879," says Tatyana Pozdnyakova, a spokesperson for the Moscow Meteorological Bureau.

"These kinds of temperatures are more what we would expect in the autumn or spring."

Temperatures in Moscow have climbed above 8C at least four times this month. At an outdoor rink set up on one side of Red Square, city employees are using powerful generators to keep the ice frozen, forcing it to close frequently.

Nearby, the grass along the outer walls of the Kremlin walls is bright green.

In St. Petersburg, the warm weather has led to floods normally not seen until spring. And in the northeastern city of Arkhangelsk, officials are warning of melting permafrost.

Russia is hardly alone, with much of Europe seeing record-high temperatures this winter. World Cup skiing organizers have had to cancel events in the Alps due to the lack of snow.

On Russian television, meteorologists have become the new stars of debate programs, with some saying global warming is killing Russia's famed winters, others that this winter is only a rare exception.

Well, I guess it would have been TOO perfect if someone hadn't dragged global warming in. At least the article admits that there are other possible explanations and really doesn't take sides.

Critics of global warming point out that last year Russia experienced one of its coldest winters on record. Temperatures plummeted to minus 34C in Moscow on Jan. 20 last year, the lowest recorded since 1927.

Weather forecasters in Russia are predicting that temperatures will fall by the end of January and that snow might finally arrive as early as next week.

Accustomed to spending winter weekends skiing, skating and ice fishing outside the city, many Muscovites can hardly wait.

"We bought our little boy a new pair of skis and he keeps asking us when he'll be able to use them," says Evgeny Tikhonov, a 33-year-old furniture maker.

"I keep saying, `Soon, soon,' but he's losing patience."

Still, not everyone is pining for freezing temperatures and knee-deep snow.

"Are you kidding?" says 22-year-old student Anya Dolginova when asked if she's bothered by the warm weather.

Strolling Moscow's trendy Tverskaya Street in a short skirt with her jacket open, Dolginova says she doesn't understand how anyone could miss the cold. "This is great. It feels like London. I wish every winter was like this."

I don't know why anybody would be "pining" for a typical Russian winter. The winter here in the eastern US has been very mild so far and the only people depressed about it are utility company executives and those unfortunates who signed up for fixed natural gas rates last summer that are now way too high. If you think about it, the Russians only get one real benefit out of their typical winters. Has the Russian/Ukrainian/EU natural gas dispute started up again? Maybe the Swedes or the French or the Germans are planning another invasion that we in the US don't know about yet to resolve the situation.

I would comment on Dr. Heidi Cullen’s statement that meteorologists who are skeptical of catastrophic AGW should be deprived of their AMS certification, but I gave up on The Weather Channel years ago. Given their steady progress towards disaster infotainment (It Could Happen Tomorrow! [even though whatever it is is highly unlikely {but we won’t say anything about that}]) instead of actual science, this sort of thinking is inevitable. I am very disappointed with Georgia Tech, though. Dr. Cullen is listed under research staff in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. In light of recent publications and statements by the EAS chair, Judith Curry, and other researchers there, maybe it’s not so surprising, though they should really be more honest and take the “sciences” part out of the school’s name and replace it with something more accurate like “alarmists” or “statistics” or just plain “studies”. Or even more accurately, rename it the “E & A Grant Money Furnace”. But onwards to

The poison is in the dose, part 2

Mercury
Carbon dioxide
Iodine
Vitamins (any of them) now called "antioxidants"

Selenium
Fat
Salt
Cholesterol
Oxygen
Water

What do these things have in common? They have all been in the news recently and are all beneficial or harmless AT THE PROPER DOSE and toxic at higher doses. They have also all been needlessly either demonized or hyped in the media so that people have unrealistic fears and/or expectations about them. We looked at what happens to people who don't understand this about water in the previous post, i.e. , it's good for me so drinking a ridiculous amount won't hurt me. The same thing is happening with antioxidants, selenium (a mineral also classified as an antioxidant), and oxygen. Since small amounts of these things are beneficial and one can actually suffer from a vitamin deficiency, than large amounts must be even more beneficial and may even keep you from getting cancer, right? Well, probably not. But that doesn't stop desperate people from believing the hype and overdosing and killing themselves. "Oxygen bars" trade in on this same reasoning, though they haven't managed to kill anyone yet. But a large amount of oxygen is toxic and can cause lung damage and death, as all divers know.

The other things on the list are recognized by most people as toxic, but again most don't realize that this is only when thay are only in certain amounts and in certain forms. Several recent thermometer spills have revealed the silliness surrounding mercury. Yes, mercury vapor is toxic when one is exposed to a substantial amount over a long period of time, but the Occupational Exposure Standard for mercury is .025 mg per cubic meter of air over an 8 hour period. Elemental mercury such as what we find in thermometers has a very low vapor pressure (it evaporates VERY slowly at terrestrial temperatures and pressures), so even if you left the spilled mercury from a thermometer sitting on the floor in a sealed 1 cubic meter room with no air exchange, it would be over a year before enough vapor got into the air to be even marginally hazardous. But we still have silly overreactions and costly cleanups, some even getting the EPA involved.

Anyone who has been conscious for the past ten years knows how dangerous fat and cholesterol are. We see ad after ad for drugs to lower our cholesterol levels and for low fat foods, which we should all consume lest we have heart attacks and die. That there is not much actual evidence at all that high fat diets or high/low cholesterol levels (HDL or LDL) cause heart disease is hardly ever mentioned. That some dietary fat is necessary to good health, and that the body manufactures its own cholesterol independently of what we consume (which is vital for brain cells, BTW) also gets short shrift. Yes, TOO MUCH of anything is bad for you, but that doesn't mean that none at all is better.

Salt seems to be off the radar right now as a health hazard, though we went through a period in the 70s and 80s where it also was deemed dangerous even in small amounts by the health nannies. What's going on with salt right now is salt snobbery - sea salt is better than regular old Morton's, exotic pricey salts supposedly taste better and have more healthy minerals, etc. and don't have that artificially-added-by-evil-corporations iodine (which apparently ruins it for some reason). Again, this is a case where hype defeats reality. No matter where salt comes from it is sodium chloride - NaCl. Evaporating sea water to get the salt leaves you with NaCl, not anything else. It would be amusing to watch people paying ten and twenty times more than they need to for sodium chloride because they think it tastes better (!) than what us ignorant peons buy, but they also seem intent on taking us back to the days of iodine deficiencies, which the added iodine in table salt successfully eliminated. I really don't want to see people suffering with goiter or more mentally retarded young children for such a silly reason.

Lastly, British climate scientists have determined that there is "no safe level" of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They've been playing with their computers again, and even though all climate models, including theirs, have been shown to be wildly inaccurate and incapable of even reproducing the known climate of the recent past, they somehow feel they can make statements like this. Unfortunately for their credibility, atmospheric CO2 is absolutely vital to all living things on this planet except for a few worms around deep sea vents. Plants can't photosynthesize without it and if they can't live, the rest of us are doomed. (Ever hear of "primary producers", guys?) I guess if we were all dead we would be "safe" in that nothing else could ever happen to us, but is this really what these guys are thinking? That since the addition of SOME CO2 in their model drives global temperatures higher IN THE MODEL , then ANY level of CO2 IN THE REAL WORLD is bad? [Hey, you, stop that breathing RIGHT NOW! You're adding CO2 to the atmosphere!] Do they really believe that levels of atmospheric CO2 are all that drive the climate, that it has nothing to do with that round yellow thing in the sky? Can anybody outside of Hollywood or Washington be that dense????

THE POISON IS IN THE DOSE!!!!!!!!!!

The poison is in the dose, part 1

A woman in Sacramento manages to kill herself by drinking water:

Autopsy Finds Signs of Water Intoxication in Radio Contestant's Death

Preliminary autopsy findings concluded a Rancho Cordova woman who competed in a radio station water-drinking contest before she was found dead Friday showed signs consistant with water intoxication, Sacramento County Coroner's Office authorities said Saturday.

The results of a preliminary investigation released Saturday showed evidence "consistent with a water intoxication death" in the death of 28-year-old Jennifer Strange, Sacramento County assistant coroner Ed Smith said.

Smith said the autopsy found no traces of "life threatening medical conditions" that would have otherwise explained Strange's sudden death.

Strange, 28, was found dead inside her Astral Drive home in Rancho Cordova Friday afternoon. Her death came just hours after Strange participated in a radio station KDND 107.9 The End contest, testing contestants to drank as much water as they could without going to the bathroom.
The winner of the "Hold Your Wee for a Wii" contest would take home a new Nintendo Wii video game system.

Strange's co-worker at Radiological Associates of Sacramento Laura Rios said Strange participated in the contest Friday morning, then was heading home when she reportedly called her supervisor in terrible pain.

"She said to one of our supervisors that she was on her way home and her head was hurting her real bad," Rios said. "She was crying and that was the last that anyone had heard from her."

The supervisor called Strange's mother, who went to her daughter's home and discovered the body.

Sacramento County Sheriff's Sgt. Tim Curran confirmed Strange's death Friday, but said there were no immediate grounds to begin an investigation.

According to contest participants, 17 to 20 contestants took part in the competition in a room at KDND's Madison Avenue studios. The contest broadcast during The End's Morning Rave program began around 6:15 a.m. as contestants were each handed eight-ounce bottles of water to drink every 15 minutes.

Fellow contestant James Ybarra of Woodland said he met Strange at the event and had no idea of the potential danger of water poisoning. "They were small little half-pint bottle so we thought it was going to be easy," Ybarra said. "They told us if you don't feel like you can do this, don't put your health in risk."

But after 90 minutes of drinking, Ybarra decided he had had enough. "I tapped (out) after five (bottles)," Ybarra said. "My bladder couldn't handle it anymore."

Ybarra said after he quit, the remaining contestents were given even larger bottles to drink to stay in the competition. Strange was still in the contest when he opted out.
"I was talking to her and she was a nice lady," Ybarra said. "She was telling me about her family and her three kids and how she was doing it for kids."

Ybarra said before the contest, he did not read a liability waiver form handed to him by station personnel before signing it. Ybarra said he was surprised by the physical toll he felt after the contest.

"I was kind of out of it yesterday. I was just drained. I was just going to the bathroom," Ybarra said. "I wasn't feeling well and I actually fell asleep. I woke up with a headache (Saturday) morning and then took a couple of aspirins."

Ybarra said he was unaware of any medical personnel on hand to monitor the contest.

In a brief written statement issued Saturday, Entercom Sacramento VP and market manager John Geary expressed sympathy for Strange's family.

"We were stunned when we heard the news," Geary said. "We are awaiting information that will help explain how this tragic event occurred."

Well, it occurred because she DRANK TOO MUCH WATER. ANYTHING can be toxic when you eat, drink, inhale, or otherwise ingest too much at once. Different substances have different levels of toxicity, so for instance, it takes only about 20 mg of strychnine to kill someone but 125 mg of arsenic and 360 g of ethanol. Water, obviously, can be consumed with more impunity, but drinking 3/4 of a gallon (48 oz) at one sitting can be fatal depending on the drinker's activity level, size, health, etc. Mr. Ybarra was about at that limit when he quit. He was very very lucky to only feel unwell for a day.

This article drew my attention for a couple of reasons, aside from its oddity. One, it points out the severe shortcomings of contemporary health and science journalism. For several years articles on health, diet, and exercise have been relentlessly preaching the dangers of dehydration. Never mind that this is really only a concern for people in who work outside in desert conditions or are in other extreme physical situations. People who read this stuff (and believe it 'cause they SAW IT IN PRINT) will no longer even walk around the block without a bottle of water. Students in my classes (and others', it's not just me!) can't seem to get through an hour without a bottle or cup (I assume it's water). On a vacation trip a few years ago I took a short walking tour of some sea turtle nesting sites on Sunset Beach. When I say short, I mean well under a mile total - SHORT. The weather was hot but not oppressive, there was a nice sea breeze, the pace was leisurely, plus all we had to do was walk 100 feet to the west and we would be back at the island's well populated main street. In spite of all that, the guides insisted that everybody carry a bottle of water to prevent dehydration and spent a lot of time standing around in the sun explaining the dangers before we started. Most people also now believe that they can't lose weight or will actually gain weight unless they drink lots of water, something that has been shown repeatedly to be false. Drinking only when you're thirsty? Waiting until after class to stop at a water fountain even if you are a little dry? Too much like common sense. Drinking from a PUBLIC FOUNTAIN OR KITCHEN FAUCET!!!???? Bad for the bottled water companies.

The other reason is one that I will look at a little more closely next time. It has to do with the notion that something that is good for you in small doses must be great in large ones, and the converse - something that is toxic at large doses must be so at all doses. This leads to a great deal of silliness, as we shall see.

Big Oil money has corrupted mathematics itself!

The Union of Concerned Scientists claims that ExxonMobil money is the only reason that there is any skepticism at all about catastrophic AGW. Here are some highlights from their "report" :

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has

• raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence (there's NO SUCH THING - ed.)
  
• funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings (where's MY money?)
  
• attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest (what sort of action are we talking about here? I would think an oil company would APPROVE of Al Gore flying all over the place to talk about global warming!)
  
• used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming (we have a policy on this?)
  

Etc., etc. Let's look at this organization of the seriously concerned a little more closely, shall we? They list some people with impressive credentials on their board, but the people who actually run the organization, the "experts" according to the website, are ALL policy types with not one degree in a hard science among them. Their organization's financial support comes from unspecified foundations and contributions. More on their activities in other areas can be found here. Though they attempt to cloak themselves in an aura of scientific integrity and impartiality, a cursory reading through their website reveals a depressingly slavish devotion to leftist causes, not science. It's also interesting that absolutely anybody can become a member. You don't have to be a scientist or even concerned, for that matter. Send them $25 and you or your canary or your intestinal bacteria can become members. If you want to be a member of the Stewardship Circle or the Henry Kendall Society, you'll have to cough up a lot more cash, but just think of the influence you'll have on public policy!

So what does this have to do with mathematics? Paul Linsay over at Climate Audit has done the hard statistical work and shown that Atlantic basin hurricane counts from 1945 to 2006 fit a Poisson distribution amazingly well. So, you ask, what? It means that there are no apparent trends in the data, such as increasing numbers due to global warming (as this blog pointed out in April last year) which is what Judith Curry et al. claimed was the case in a widely publicized paper (well, widely publicized in the atmospheric science community). This alleged increase was recently published again with a slightly different analysis by Holland and Webster. And, it should be to no one's surprise, the Union of Concerned Scientists says the same thing. But the Poisson distribution indicates that the number of hurricanes from year to year is random. There is NO TREND indicating that rising global temperatures are increasing the number of Atlantic hurricanes. So we can see that mathematics and statistics themselves have been corrupted by ExxonMobil money. How else can one explain this deviation from what all right-thinking people KNOW to be the truth, this refusal to conform to the doctrines of the Church of the Holy AGW?

Note to ExxonMobil - I'll email you my PayPal account information.