I have a pretty strong economics and statistics education, and I can't fathom how he would have calculated that.
I guess he would have figured the rate and extent of ecological change in some prior "normal" period. Assumed that rates of ecological changes over time are normally distributed, and then measured the more recent rates of ecological change. One could then, using the assumption of normal distribution, say that 'well, the more recent rate is high enought that there is only a 5% chance that it is random, and not the cause of some new factor.'
To do so, you would need to define what a rate of ecological change is, and what the data points are, for some prior period, and then for some current period. Impossible. You would then have to assume that the prior data is "normal". Which is dubious. You would then have to assume that rates of change over time are normally distributed. Also dubious. You would then have to assume that the 5% (the standard) chance did not occur, and that in fact it is the result of an outside factor (probable, but he could be wrong). You then have to assume that the only factor that has changed is climate warming, and not something else.
In short, he is full of crap.
The Left thinks it has found the perfect gambit. Let's make the weather the instrument of statist ideology, they say to themselves. But the plan will boomerang. The vagaries of weather patterns (sensitive dependence on initial conditions) will prove, and indeed already are proving, to be too chaotic for an indeological straightjacket, and human consciousness, steeped as it is in a long evolution of coping with weather, is not as easily deceived by chicken little descriptions of a falling sky as the statists would hope.
These studies build on earlier work that has shown seasonal shifts and changes in species distributions, along with ecological alteration, in response to the moderate warming of the 20th Century.
And what precisely does man have to do with this? Or better, what can or should man do about it seeing as temperatures seem to be returning to where they were 2000 years ago and therefore "ecological alteration" and "species distributions" are simply returning to their nominal state in response to conditions prevalent before "20th Century warming".
Figure 1-2 Climate of the last 2400 years
Figure 1-3 Climate of the last 12,000 years
The computer models are exagerated enough how it is, to include the 10 degree number is a lie. One of the models was sabataged to provide the largest possible number, but yet that is the most widely quoted number even by people who should know better. Global Warmers make me sick. They are liars.
|
STATUS
U.S.A. Endangered Species
There's an upside to this.
Think of all the lives saved among the homeless, who will not need to suffer through as many freezing days.