Forget the science, when a bit of hand-waving and a tricky graph can do so much more.

“No statistically significant rise since 1995″ eh? But then isn’t that ALREADY statistically significantly higher than the reference period? And isn’t the trend upwards since then? So why the need to be a cheerleader for the intellectually bankrupt?

Good luck with your next website.

Reply: Keep digging, there’s gold in them thar posts ~ charles the moderator.

The essential elements of an effective global panic consist of two parts:

First, one needs to identify a potential source of a world-wide catastrophe. Second, one needs to convince everyone that that actions of man are about to trigger that catastrophe. This is best illustrated by this following theoretical example:

It is well known that a “Super Volcano” lies under Yellowstone park. This volcano went undetected for many years, because its sheer size is so large it escaped notice when looking for something more familiar in size.

The consequences of another eruption of this monster can be fairly well predicted. First, it will simply blow away a fair-sized piece of Montana, and falling ash will bury cities for many miles beyond. The atmospheric ejecta will blanket a large portion of the earth, blocking out the sun and producing a “nuclear winter” for a significant portion of mankind. Crop failures and other effects of rapid cooling will lead to the death of untold billions of both human and animal inhabitants.

In fact, there are some significant geothermal and other indicators in Yellowstone that suggest this monster is again on the move. This has sparked at least one major television presentation discussing the potential for another eruption and the obvious catastrophe that would follow if it does. But this information in itself has not created much in the way of panic. Most citizens are resigned to the fact that mega-disasters, should they occur, can not be prevented by human action because they are part of the natural behavior of the planet and worrying excessively can not change anything. Don’t worry, be happy, we’re all in this together.

To turn the Yellowstone Super Volcano into a world-wide panic, we need a convincing piece of junk science as a trigger. Taking our cue from the “man-made CO2 is causing global warming” hoax, here’s one distinct possibility as far as Yellowstone is concerned:

Professor Wilfred Brimstone at the University of Mongolia has developed a model which clearly shows the buildup of human population on both the east and west coast of the United States is putting excessive pressure on both sides of the North American plate. The accumulation of vast amounts of additional weight in the form of people, buildings, automobiles, and other man-made items is creating such an excess of plate pressure at the edges, that magma is being forced laterally toward the center of the country, and in particular towards a weak crust zone in Montana centered at Yellowstone park. In the same manner as popping a pimple by squeezing from two opposing sides, the “coastal weight effect” is squeezing the magma beneath the crust and causing a rapid pressure buildup of the Yellowstone Super Volcano. Man’s greed to live near the ocean has tipped the balance of nature, and it is now only a matter of time until Yellowstone blows its top.

….. unless we take quick action to arrest and reverse this process.

It is critically important to immediately evacuate everyone from both coasts, and dismantle all heavy structures and begin transporting them to the center of the country, redistributing them evenly over a wide area until the overall plate pressure has been suitably equalized and the danger has passed. Senator Barbara Boxer has introduced a bill which will impose a stiff tax on any item weighing more than six ounces in order to pay for the weight relocation. A new $100 million Center for Building Weight Studies is currently under construction in Santa Barbara.

If you do not want to be dislocated from your present home, former Vice President Al Gore has just formed a new company, Relocation Unlimited, in which you can invest in “weight offsets” and not have to move. For a price, Mr. Gore will arrange have an equivalent weight of ordinary dirt dug up and relocated instead of your own 3 bedroom ranch.

It is also of immediate importance that we educate our children in the nature of this pending disaster that their parents’ over-building has created. Children everywhere should quickly make costumes that resemble blocks of concrete and conduct ritualistic marches in the general direction of the central Midwest. This, combined with the waving of signs and the singing of Kumbaya will quickly spread the word throughout the public school system and draw the attention of the mainstream media which is also critical to this effort. Working together, we can all stem this rapidly looming disaster.

incidentally, you can purchase your STOP YELLOWSTONE NOW t-shirts by visiting our online store, and our book by the same name is available on Amazon.com. A prime time television special is currently in production.

Did I get it right?

James A. Peden
Shoreham, Vermont on a chilly Sunday Morning

Well, since it is “next 100 years” (and who of us is going to be around then?), there may be some scientists that “step up to the table” and place their bets (as long as no cash deposits are required).

But “4+ cm in next 10 years”?

Even with the major multidecadal swings that have been occurring since the records started, there will be no “scientists” ready to take that bet.

But the best “scare mongering” is (Ban Ki Moon’s): “it (a 6 meter increase in sea level) may not happen for 100 years – or it could happen in 10.” (International Herald Tribune, November 17, 2007)

That way you’ve got folks really scared without having to worry about anyone exposing your statement as a lie.

But, then again, he’s a politician and not a scientist, so he is more skilled at this.

Max

Thanks for the response.

In hindsight, I definitely should have included the words “statistically significant” when I asked where the trend was. My only real objective was to get Lee to show us how he derived a .99 correlation. (Incidentally, I hit the wrong button on my calculator. Where I wrote 99.5% above, that should have been 98%) What I was attempting to point out is that every year is within the margin of error of every other year. For statistical significance, particularly over such a limited data set, the trend needs to far exceed the margin of error, as it does in the example you pointed me to. In this case, while unlikely, a flat line can be drawn within all of the confidence intervals.

Also, I have serious doubts that these confidence intervals represent Gaussian distributions. If they were truly Gaussian, each confidence interval would be different, varying with the number and quality of data points used. As the number of stations is dropping precipitously, but the error bars aren’t increasing, that’s clearly not the case. My best guess (and that’s all it is) is that they calculate a pure average, without running an error margin through the algorithms. They then apply a predetermined confidence interval, derived from little more than dead reckoning. Their “95% confidence interval” is probably no more mathematically valid than the “very likely” term the IPCC applies after taking a vote.

As I don’t know the specific methods used in determining the size of these specific error bars, I’d welcome any explanation that anyone could provide.

REPLY: Thanks so much!