Interpreting Data

I have the opportunity to work with medium to large data sets on the job.  And the data sets are very significant to the customer.  So we need to be careful with the data.  However I am a pretty impatient person and sometimes I want to skip ahead in processing based upon assumptions about the data.  Every once in awhile I make a correct assumption, however, by far, most of the time I end up being wrong.  Fortunately the great people I work with don’t mind a little trial and error.  They are, however, quick to point out the errors in processing and the flaws in the assumptions.  We need to be careful, methodical, and detailed oriented when dealing with significant data sets.  And we need to constantly challenge our results and our analysis of the data.

Imagine my surprise then when a topic such as Global Climate Change comes up.

Before I even get to the discussion, I just cannot let this ridiculous terminology stand without giving it some challenge.  When former Vice President of the United States Al Gore wrote his book Earth In The Balance (published in June of 1992) the only thing we knew of man made weather change was Global Warming.  Now, some 22 years later, with little more data than before, and actually with data supporting changes other than Global Warming, the terminology has changed.  Now we use Global Climate Change.  This is just plain disingenuous and false science to boot.  If I ever observed data contrary to my theory (which is what has happened with our Weather Scientists) and I simply changed the name of my theory in order to make the data support my foregone conclusions, I would be laughed out of the room and banned from the community.  This is not what Scientist do.  But we have become so goofy with our terminology and our rush to validate our own fanatical fairy tales, we have actually squashed the two terms together (as if that makes any sense at all): NASA brings the two terms together to conveniently cover all possible cases.  Now, thanks to creative Scientific Theory naming, we can make all data fit either term and thus our fantasy Theory holds no matter what the data says.

But back to the data.  So when this discussion comes up at work, I am faced with the usual plethora of Global Climate Change supporters and this confuses me.  I ask about this and I am told that there is this study or that study and that the data is pretty conclusive.  And I am even more confused.  Lets put this into perspective, the same Scientist that are crying about Global Climate Change will tell us that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.  We have actually collected and recorded about 100 years of climate data during human history.  The vast majority of that is simply temperature data.  And the first 25 to maybe even 50 years of that was taken on equipment nowhere near the precision of todays instruments and compared to todays readings might be considered to be in the ball park, but not exactly exact.  That is about 100 years of data for a 4.5 billion year old system (using their supplied Earth age mind you) of which 1/4 to 1/2 is probably suspect.  Let me put this into perspective for you: See the thin red line on the end?  The one with the arrow pointing to it?  That is the 100 years of weather data we have collected over the supposed life span of the Earth.  That timeline is to scale (well to scale as best as your computer screen will render at this resolution anyway).  It is almost ludicrous that so little data could support so big a theory and actually tie it into the effects of mankind over less than the given time period.

So I can just hear the but, but, but’s rolling in now.  We have all of this other data!  What about the ice core samples?  Doesn’t the data from the ice cores give us a greater history of the Earths climate changes?  Huh, No.  They do not.  Everything we believe we know from ice core samples is theory and conjecture.  Furthermore we’ve apparently run off and studied ice cores with Global Climate Change in mind.  We specifically LOOK to bend the evidence in favor of the theory.  Once again, in my world this would be called junk science.

And lastly, good scientific theory is meant to be challenged, debated and defended.  It is meant to be peer reviewed.  But by far (do a few WEB searches yourself if you need supporting evidence) the folks that support Global Climate Change shout down any dissenters time, and time, and time, and time again.  I don’t know about you, but the last time I checked, ridicule and shouting over your challenger as a tactic to defending your theories and data was NOT considered good scientific practice.  And yet that is exactly what is happening today.  Once again, junk science.

So why do the really, really smart people that I work with and others around the world just automatically buy into the whole Global Climate Change agenda?  I believe it stems from laziness.  Not that they are lazy in their ways, it is just that most individuals are far too busy with their every day lives to be worried about checking data reported to them.  And so they become lazy, and as a result somewhat trusting of what they are told (Why Al Gore has it in his book so it must be true).  Thus they don’t take the time to analyze the data on their own.

I believe if they did, there would be a BIG difference in what we see and know and believe about the story of Global Climate Change.

Data is important in our lives.  But don’t let the INTERPRETATION of the data in your life lead you down a path that one day you might regret.