Climate agreement

By | |
Comments Off on Climate agreement

Scientists agree I just came across this graphic published by NASA doing the rounds on FaceBook which as far as I can make out is meant to prove that scary man made climate change is real and all the scientists agree. At least that’s how it was presented. Now a couple of things struck me about this graph, the first of which is that the upward trend starts back in the 1900’s from this very short sample and the upward trend starts as far below the given 0 line as we’re now currently above it, which makes me wonder for this graphic at least how they chose that 0 line.

I’m not aware of anyone actually arguing that the data published by the four sources they’re quoting disagree. Arguing about what it means, yes. Arguing about what the causes are, yes. Arguing about what if anything we should do, hell yes. Arguing about how much we can trust the data, yes. Arguing that the data published disagrees, no not really. So wonderful straw man to the graphic there. The comments associated with the graphic are quite good in places as well. They may not be accurate but they do give some food for thought, e.g.
“All show rapid warming in the past few decades. ” Isn’t that right about the time the Soviet Union died, and took with it a bunch of measuring stations set in the cold?”

Though obviously there are an awful lot of people saying we’re doomed, the science is settled and it’s too late to act humanity has destroyed the planet. But someone did comment about something that stuck me the moment I saw the graph, the slope below that 0 line is really very similar to the slope above the line, which just makes that line look all the more arbitrary. Here using my rudimentary graphic skills is the bit below the line is the 1910 – 1940 section shifted over the the 1970(ish) to present section, I changed the colour to make it more obvious which is which but look how radically the rate of climate warming hasn’t changed. Scary isn’t it.

The data says it's not changing any faster

Update: Being slow on the uptake it’s only just occurred to me that going on the basis of this graph alone, which is what they’re presenting as the available data that is agreed upon, the current data is about as far above the given 0 line as it was below zero back in 1920. So that being the case couldn’t this be a data set of temperature oscillating around a mean?

0

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear?

By | | ,
Comments Off on Nothing to hide, nothing to fear?

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal neatly skewers the “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” fallacyNothing to hide, nothing to fear.

0

How’s that legislation working out?

By | | , ,
Comments Off on How’s that legislation working out?

This article was first posted on Drinkuary

One interesting thing about the proposed legislation both minimum pricing and the bans on multi-buys is it’s all been tried before so we can look at other countries to get a rough idea of how well it’s gone.

Starting really close to home over in Scotland it seems that banning multi-buys isn’t working terribly well. A year in retailers have largely responded by stopping selling single packs, so no more buying a single can of beer now you have to buy a 4+ pack.
Sid Ali of Nisa Mintlaw, Aberdeenshire, said: “We took single cans out of business so we can sell multipacks at any price. It has helped us rationalise and tidy up the the fixture, it’s had a positive effect.”
It’s not all plain sailing mind as:
But Sid added that spirits had “taken a hammering” as Tesco had reduced its prices to accommodate multi buys.
Which probably explains why there’s so much fake vodka about. Showing yet again that as prohibition ramps up the dangers to public health increase as the criminal fraternity starts getting more involved.

Looking slightly further afield minimum pricing in Russia really hasn’t worked well – so can anyone think of a good reason why it might in the UK? That’s of course even if the EU changes it’s mind and decides it is legal after all.

People are still talking about unforeseen consequences to the proposed legislation, which seems odd as if they’re being discussed then I’d have though they were foreseen consequences. As a final thought, given the recent proposals for controls on unhealthy foods it seems far to assume that both food and drink control will stick to the same greasy slope down which smoking has already slid so far.

0