Comics I Don’t Understand

If Global Warming Is Real Then Why Is It Cold?

Cidu Bill on Feb 13th 2010

Katherine Conley: Are you behind this somehow?

Filed in Al Gore, Bill Bickel, comic strips, comics, global warming, humor, political cartoons | 55 responses so far

55 Responses to “If Global Warming Is Real Then Why Is It Cold?”

Fett101 Feb 13th 2010 at 12:10 pm 1

One of them is funny at least.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rpiegz3et3E/Sdv-PVHUuZI/AAAAAAAAAGs/zCLT2AedpjE/s1600-h/garfieldglobalwarming2.gif
Rebecca Feb 13th 2010 at 12:51 pm 2

I liked the one of Al Gore staring at the snow, thinking “Someone is mocking me…”
furrykef Feb 13th 2010 at 01:28 pm 3

Wow. If there was ever a blog that’s downright depressing, this is it.

This one is by far the worst, though. It’s not just a humorous jab, it’s outright mocking.

I can only hope that Diversity Lane is actually mocking the extreme right-wing worldview (by deliberately making hilariously bad straw man arguments), but somehow I doubt it. I think this guy is just about the political equivalent of Jack Chick.
Cidu Bill Feb 13th 2010 at 01:40 pm 4

furrykef, I’ve never seen this comic before, I’d guess the point here is to mock liberals.
Kate C Feb 13th 2010 at 03:30 pm 5

Bill–

I was a little sad (although not surprised) to see you weren’t the only person collecting these comics. However, I am sure you’re the only repository of “hanging chad” jokes (and I think that’s how I came across this blog in the first place).
Adam? Feb 13th 2010 at 03:48 pm 6

I agree with Rebecca–the “Somewhere…” comic is by far my favourite.
Rumpelstiltskin Feb 13th 2010 at 03:57 pm 7

Gee, snow in DC and not in New Hampshire. This proves what? Idiots.
dasein668 Feb 13th 2010 at 05:21 pm 8

About half of these are variations on burning An Inconvenient Truth for warmth and the other half are people seeing snow and exclaiming something about global warming. Ho-hum. How about some actual jokes?
Detcord Feb 13th 2010 at 05:28 pm 9

Cidu Bill

I have Al Gore’s video, An Inconvenient Truth – and he makes it clear in that video that he believes the world is getting rapidly hotter. For most of us, hotter means weather like Southern California, Mexico, Florida and the like. That’s the AGW model. In my view, and apparently many others, that implies no snow. Now, I gather the “Climate Change” model claims, unlike AGW, that the weather will not only get warmer, but also more erratic – with periods of cold and periods of warm weather, only more extreme.

Having been raised in Michigan [now residing in Southern Britain], I can understand how similar climates can have different extremes. Michigan’s summers and winters are more extreme than Britain’s, but the Spring and Fall (Autumn here) seasons are very similar. At least, they seem that way to me. Autumn in Michigan was my favourite time of the year, due to its mild weather. South-eastern Britain seems to have that weather, with mild variations, all year round.

Now, as I understand it, most people aren’t all that concerned about variations in the weather. As noted, we called them “seasons” in Michigan and just got on with it – or out of it in my case. More importantly, it is difficult to attribute cold weather to CO2 – the only link that those who want to claim all this weather is due to human activity.

Any model that wants to make that claim must first explain normal weather, and then show how the human CO2 element is affecting it. Given the number of variations involved, that is an incredibly difficult assertion to prove – and no Climate Modeler has done so to date.

So, boring though they may be, these “Hey, it’s snowing” cartoons are making a valid point. If we understood the weather even half as well as has been asserted by the AGW crowd, this strange weather ought to have been predictable. To paraphrase the English biologist, Thomas Henry Huxley, the failure to predict all this snow is the equivalent of the “ugly fact” that kills a beautiful theory. We just don’t know the weather well enough to make accurate predictions – other than that it will be warmer in Summer and Colder in Winter. No joke
Cornbread Feb 13th 2010 at 06:21 pm 10

What really bugs me is that there are so many other reasons to reduce our emissions and fossil fuel use other than “if we don’t, Global Warming will melt the icecaps and kill us all.” It’s better for the overall health of the biosphere if the air is clean and we’re not constantly ripping fuel out of the ground and killing each other to get to it. So even if Global Warming isn’t happening, we should still do something to change our habits.
Detcord Feb 13th 2010 at 07:02 pm 11

Cornbread (10)

I have no argument with you there. Clean water, clean air, waste recycling. All worthy goals – in my opinion – and ones the US leads on. And the benefits are obvious too. Rivers smell clean (some didn’t when I was a boy). Air doesn’t choke a person – as the famous London smogs used to do. It was politely called “fog” but the bad part came from coal-fired chimneys – now banned in London.

However, scare-mongering through unproven climate scenarios only brings the field of science into disrepute. This makes it even harder to convince people that they “should change their [very personal] habits, when it’s important that they do so.

People respect scientists because they produce accurate and repeatable results. If that respect is lost through fraudulent “theories” it will be very difficult to get it back.
Winter Wallaby Feb 13th 2010 at 07:19 pm 12

For most of us, hotter means weather like Southern California, Mexico, Florida and the like. . . In my view, and apparently many others, that implies no snow.

With all due respect, I have great trouble seeing how you, or any rational person can go from “the average weather will get hotter” to “it will never snow again.” Hotter means higher average temperature, not “every single place in the world will be like Mexico, and it the temperature will never drop below 0 degrees Celsius ever again.”

So, boring though they may be, these “Hey, it’s snowing” cartoons are making a valid point. If we understood the weather even half as well as has been asserted by the AGW crowd, this strange weather ought to have been predictable.

No, the cartoons aren’t making a valid point. Climate change research predicts changes in averages. To claim that you’re only going to respect scientifc research if it explains and predicts specific weather occurences is silly; lots of research deals with averages without being able to predict individual cases in advance. The cartoon objection is the equivalent of saying “I hear egghead scientists say that smoking causes cancer, but my Uncle Bob smoked a two packs a day and never got cancer, while Aunt Jessie never smoked and did get cancer. I’m not going to believe a bunch of fancy medical statistics, based on averages, until scientists can also predict, in advance, which specific people are going to get cancer, and when they’re going to get it.”

Global warming may or may not be true, but to claim that snow is somehow an “ugly fact” that demolishes climate change research just doesn’t make a lot of sense.
MrKenneth Feb 13th 2010 at 07:47 pm 13

You are right again, Detcord! A reasoned discussion. The sky is not really falling, there are just too many holes in the science. Apparently some of the temperature measuring devices are close to populations. I repeat, nuclear is a good option we should have been continuing to develop these past decades.
Steven Hunter Feb 13th 2010 at 07:52 pm 14

@Detcord #9 “So, boring though they may be, these “Hey, it’s snowing” cartoons are making a valid point.”

How do you not see the flaw in that reasoning? They’re using anecdotal evidence to dismiss legitimate climate issues simply because “it’s cold now”.

I have no problem arguing a theory based on the evidence. But this is one side saying “Global temperatures are steadily rising, and our evidence strongly suggests that humans are the cause” and the other side says “But, it’s cold *right now*!”

If those same people want to sit down and discuss the flaws in our current climate models, civilly dispute the veracity of the current predictions, or even offer legitimately researched and peer reviewed counter arguments that would be just fine with me.

PS: The Daily Show has the final word on this issue IMO: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-10-2010/unusually-large-snowstorm (The relevant bit starts about 3:30 into the clip.)
mottsnave Feb 13th 2010 at 08:01 pm 15

@Steven Hunter #13 - You beat me to it! I was about to go hunt down that link.
Cidu Bill Feb 13th 2010 at 09:16 pm 16

Detcord, my point was that whether you accept the science or not, whether you accept the statistics or not, the bottom line is that if the North Pole is melting, then something is unquestionably f*cking wrong. You can argue numbers and methods and e-mails and theories all you want, you can talk about cycles and whether the past ten years were or were not warmer than the previous ten years, but you can’t get around the fact that the North Pole is melting.
dasein668 Feb 13th 2010 at 11:38 pm 17

It may be snowing in NYC, DC, and points south, but it’s not looking very wintery in British Columbia right now…
Catelli Feb 13th 2010 at 11:54 pm 18

Here in Southern Ontario we’re having one of the driest winters on record. The accumulation so far is negligible (I can still see my lawn for cryin’ out loud).

If we’re going to use weather as evidence for change, I for one have found it to be getting weirder.

And to your last point there CIDU Bill. We have so many people decrying climate change as a hoax, but there’s a lot of jockying going on up there at the prospects of no ice in the arctic allowing new shipping routes and oil and gas exploration. I guess they must all be suckers chasing fools gold eh?
Cidu Bill Feb 13th 2010 at 11:57 pm 19

My cousin attending college in Buffalo NY hasn’t been seeing much snow lately, while his family in Baltimore has had a total of over 5 feet already — so I’m sure he’d say the current weather patterns defy generalization.
Keera Feb 14th 2010 at 05:36 am 20

The science of why there is snow in D.C. and not New Hampshire, or for that matter, why there is snow in Bergen, Norway, and not on Svalbard this season, is this: The North Atlantic oscillation. Nothing to do with global warming or climate change or what have you, but a well-known phenomenon like El Niño.

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/NAO/ (simple explanation)
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/AO_NAO.htm (with nice graphs)
Detcord Feb 14th 2010 at 09:21 am 21

Stephen Hunter (10)

I see flaws in a lot of reasoning. For example, I see a major flaw in the reasoning that we should all make life-altering changes in the way we live our lives and bankrupt ourselves by spending, what, trillions of dollars to mitigate a hypothetical threat. I’d like at least a little, you know, “proof”, that the threat is something akin to a clear and present danger to us all before I give that kind of commitment. Honestly. That’s just plain common sense.

Like you, “I have no problem arguing a theory based on the evidence.” So, where is the theory? Where is the evidence?

Let’s be clear here. The claim that the world is getting warmer due to human-caused CO2 is nothing more than an assertion. It is not a theory. Theories are testable. Furthermore, those CRU emails that Cidu Bill want s to dismiss have shown that those making that assertion have been cooking the books. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese

That’s from the most left-wing mainstream newspaper in Britain – and they really don’t want to print this story, but they still have a competitive market here in Britain.

So, I think there is a need to get back to basics and establish the facts. All sides of the debate need to agree these facts, or the debate is “dead in the water” from the git-go. And it’s not as easy as it looks: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud

Here’s a site, by Dr. Roy Spencer, who also says that he wants to discuss the facts. Have a read and let me know what you think. http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/ If after reviewing the site, you think it’s all drivel – that’s fine – but please make an effort to justify such a position. I get many a “boo hiss” with nothing to back it up.
Detcord Feb 14th 2010 at 09:32 am 22

Stephen Hunter (10)

Oh! I almost forgot. I did try to access your link, but due to my location (Europe) I was denied access. C’est la vie!
Detcord Feb 14th 2010 at 09:52 am 23

Cidu Bill (16)

You write, with some emotion, that the “The North Pole [sea ice] is melting”. Yes, and…? I ask – again – how is this a threat? Sea ice floats and does not alter the level of the sea. More importantly, do we know “why” the Arctic sea ice is melting? Isn’t that kind of “important” from a scientific perspective? Please correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t you “assuming” that human-generate CO2 is the cause of this meltdown?

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, the author of this claim, thinks it may be caused by, “…the way warm water is moving into the Arctic basin from the Pacific and Atlantic oceans…”. Here’s a link to the BBC article – another keen supporter of the AGW model. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm

Maybe that warm water shift is due to human caused CO2, or maybe it is due to volcanism in the ocean floors - or something completely unknown to us. Worth investigating – to be sure. But in and of itself, it is not prima facie evidence that we should beggar ourselves and run for the hills. Just as odd fluctuations in the weather are not evidence that Global (warming, cooling, change) is wrong – or right for that matter.
Cidu Bill Feb 14th 2010 at 10:13 am 24

Detcord, what I’m saying is that whether or not the melting ice is a threat, it’s unarguably a sign that something’s really, really wrong. A blizzard in Baltimore might be a fluke — but when Santa’ Workshop is in Atlantis, that’s clearly something that’s never happened before and shouldn’t be happening now.

Let’s say you wake up one morning to discover that your left leg is green and scaly, and your right leg is starting to look a bit verdant itself. But you can still walk okay. Do you say Well, I have no idea what’s causing this but eh, so far so good? Or do you make it a priority to see a doctor and find out what the problem is and get it fixed if possible?
Detcord Feb 14th 2010 at 10:18 am 25

Winter Wallaby (12)

In my opinion, the “point” those cartoons are making is, if we are so confident in our climate-related temperature predictions ranging out 25-50 years, then ought we not be able to predict climate variations in a much closer time-line? Extrapolations always get fuzzier and more uncertain the further away from the “now” they are projected. Usually, there are 2 boundary lines that accompany such predictions indicating the degree or range of uncertainty in the prediction. The closer to “now” the closer theses lines tend to run to the primary prediction. This implies that we know a lot (or at least much more) about “now” and after applying our facts and rules about now, can accurately [reasonably accurately] predict the future.

So, it is my assertion that if we accept the 25-50 year projections from the IPCC, shouldn’t we be getting something much more precise about the weather now? That is certainly the impression I get from viewing Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth video. I take your point about averages and local variations, and don’t disagree. But those cartoons are representing the voice of non-scientific people. It is they who will have to make the sacrifices.

Applying your own point about, “ugly facts”, do we have a prediction for the average global temperature for 2010? It would be nice to know, in advance, what that figure is so that we can at least have a shot of scientifically assessing whether the model making such heated assertions is accurate or not. Publishing a number – after the fact – does not help. Especially after those, “cooking the book”, assertions I posted by reputable sources earlier.
Detcord Feb 14th 2010 at 10:33 am 26

Cidu Bill (23)

That’s a great example! And yes, of course, I would go to see a doctor. The questions is, what would you do if said doctor claimed theses were symptom of something really bad and recommended immediate amputation of both legs?

I know what I would do. Seek a second opinion. I would also begin researching the condition myself to find out what my options really are. I have actually been in similar situations (generally ) before, so I know that “doctors” can get it wrong too.
arvy Feb 14th 2010 at 12:04 pm 27

Detcord,

First of all, you are incorrect about melting sea ice not raising ocean levels: http://www.physorg.com/news5619.html

Second, your response to Bill makes sense in that one would certainly seek a second opinion before having one’s legs amputated. However, the response from those who feel that climate change is a lie has not been to seek a second opinion or to investigate further, it has simply been to alternate between arguing that (to keep the analogy going) a) there is nothing wrong with their legs or b) the condition is perfectly natural and so there’s nothing to be done about it.
CTew Feb 14th 2010 at 12:49 pm 28

Apparently there are some people who don’t know what an average is or the implications of any data set that makes up an average, don’t know what causes weather, don’t know the difference between weather and climate, and don’t care to distinguish between a rational discussion and mental flatulence.
The snow in the Eastern US was predicted in the sense that weather scientists noted the strength of El Niño conditions in the Pacific Ocean earlier this year and informed everyone who pays attention to such things that the winter would be cooler and wetter than would otherwise be expected. Weather scientists know why this winter is exceptionally snowy and have said so fully. Cool + wet = snow when cool ≤ 32°F/0°C. Weather people have given warnings about each of this winter’s storms that have been as much as 48 hours in advance of the storm’s arrival. WTF more do people expect?
With few exceptions, this winter has not been exceptionally cold; over the past ten years there have been roughly twice as many new high temperature records as low records. This winter the SW has set new high records while the midWest has set new lows. Here in Greensboro, NC, we have set no new daily lows, and the average cumulative temps didn’t become negative until this weekend. Before the first cold snap in January, we were well above average. Again, you have to know what an average is and what that implies about the data set used to compute the average, the first implication being that there will necessarily be data points above and below the average. Any temperature chart prepared bay any organization, even the global warming deniers, will show these variations in temps. Climate is an average of averages, and long-term charts clearly show variations that swing significantly above and below the average temp, snowfall, wind speed, &c for any extended period over any area. This is a “duh” moment.
It should be easy enough to notice that the moisture making the snow is coming from unusually strong flows of relatively warm, humid air from the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific. Relatively cold, dry air from the north chills this warmer, moister air to make these large snowfalls, but the temperatures are in fact not exceptionally cold - DC was only a few degrees below freezing when the two recent blizzards covered the place. This week’s snows in the deep South took place right at the freezing mark, short term temperatures that are not so unusual for February, and melting started almost immediately as temps rose above freezing. What is unusual this year is where the warm, moist air is colliding with the cold, dry air rather than preceding it as a cool rain system. The collision is occurring across the middle of the US rather than further north. Most really cold snaps have no snow because the air is too dry. Antarctica is one of the driest deserts on Earth measured by the amount of yearly precipitation.
That Arctic ice is floating and thus can’t contribute to rising sea levels (I think that is the point that got muffed over) is irrelevant. Ocean warming in and of itself contributes to higher sea levels through thermal expansion, just as the melting of glacial ice from higher latitudes and mountain sources contributes increased quantities of water.
What is significant about the Arctic situation is that there is an excess of warm water and/or air from whatever source that is allowing summer melting to exceed winter freezing. It is irrelevant where the excess heating is taking place; it is taking place and is altering Arctic ice conditions. We can be pretty sure, in this age of satellites, weather reconnaissance flights, and submarines, that ocean vulcanism is not a cause.
Winter Wallaby Feb 14th 2010 at 02:41 pm 29

So, it is my assertion that if we accept the 25-50 year projections from the IPCC, shouldn’t we be getting something much more precise about the weather now?

Yes, and my point is that this makes no sense. No, we shouldn’t. It’s often possible to predict long-term average differences better than short-term ones. It is simply factually false for you to argue that the ability to make long-term average predictions implies the ability to predict the weather tomorrow, and I don’t see how you’re any different from someone who doesn’t accept research that smoking causes disease (based on long-term averages) because doctor s can’t predict who will get sick tomorrow. I think the Daily Show has captured your logic pretty well.
Detcord Feb 14th 2010 at 03:17 pm 30

Arvy (26)

Thank you for your reasoned response. Your link was very interesting (and news to me) – and presents a position we can all test (if we so choose). I like that!

I note that Dr. Peter Noerdlinger states that his test water is “concentrated”. I assume that means saturated? If yes, then he has put 35.7 grams of salt per 100ml of water (at 0 degrees C). I read that the salinity of seawater varies depending on conditions, but is generally measured to be 35 grams of salt per litre of water. That’s about 1/10th the concentration Dr. Noerdlinger tested.

If this is in fact the case, then I would assume that, with regular seawater, the volume rise would be 1/10th of what Dr. Noerdlinger indicated. His concentrated saltwater got, “approximately 4 centimetres (1.57 inches) of sea-level rise”. One tenth of that would be 40 millimetres yes?

I think your thermal expansion reference is more valid, but even there I read (from today’s National Geographic News) that, “…Thermal expansion has already raised the oceans 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimetres)…” with what effect? Unless a detrimental effect from thermal expansion can be demonstrated, I have to wonder if 40 millimetres – or even 4 centimetres is that much of a threat.

Regarding Cidu Bill’s green leg scenario – his illustration makes it obvious that there is something wrong. Green legs, for me anyway, are not the norm and so “something” must be happening. For the average citizen, they recognise weather, which is – in the broad sense - something to be endured. Weather is, in effect, the null hypothesis, and it is up to those who claim otherwise to explain weather and then show how the current situation is different.

To my knowledge this has not been done – and there are several dissenting voices (on the science side) who say the same. The way to silence us skeptics is with facts and an explanation that can be tested. In this thread, I think you’re on the right track – and it is appreciated.

I’ve posted this link before, but I think it bears repeating (as it reflects my own views on the subject )
http://plato-says.blogspot.com/2009/12/sensible-scientist.html
Detcord Feb 14th 2010 at 03:28 pm 31

Winter Wallaby (29)

Sequential errors are cumulative. That means that for every time period away from one’s known base position, the probability of certainty diminishes (get’s less). Thus the Met Office (or weather bureau) can predict tomorrow’s weather reasonably accurately, but they have real trouble getting an accurate 10-day forecast. There are just too many variables.

If you have an example where the predictability of a near event is low, but the predictability of an equate-able far event is high (or even just higher) I would like to hear it, especially if I learn something new.
Detcord Feb 14th 2010 at 04:09 pm 32

CTew (28)

I’ll let arvy argue the facts about melting sea ice and I’ve already noted the effects of thermal expansion in a previous post. So, I will only take issues with your last statement, “We can be pretty sure, in this age of satellites, weather reconnaissance flights, and submarines, that ocean [volcanism] is not a cause.”

In one of my posts, (21) which Cidu Bill has now kindly released from moderation, I included links to sites reporting on assertions of temperature measurement fraud. This regards the 6000 land-based thermometers used to extrapolate temperatures across the globe. If the assertions prove true, then we cannot trust what we have been told about current global temperature averages.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6941168.ece

My link to Dr. Spencer’s site (below) is in reference to Satellite data, which I assume will be of more interest to you.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/a-demonstration-that-global-warming-predictions-are-based-more-on-faith-than-on-science/

Not so sure we can dismiss volcanism as easily as you suggest. If you have something more than assertions on this subject, I would like to see them. I pitched the concept out as an intriguing alternative, and thus I am genuinely interested in any further details you may have.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7126682/Volcanoes-destroyed-ancient-ocean-life.html
Cidu Bill Feb 14th 2010 at 08:59 pm 33

As you know from reading the FAQ, Detcord, any comment containing two or more links automatically gets held for moderation.
starfall42 Feb 14th 2010 at 10:11 pm 34

If you flip a fair coin, I can’t tell you whether it’s going to be heads or tails in advance. However, if you flip it 10,000 times, I can tell you in advance that approximately 5,000 will be heads.

The point is errors only accumulate if they’re only in one direction. If some are high and some are low, they’ll cancel each other out over the long term.

Really, the “but it’s cold here today!” argument is the weakest one possible. It’s saying the arithmetic mean of 10 and 20 has to be greater than that of 5 and 40, because 10 is greater than 5, and how can you have a higher average if one of the numbers is lower?
Winter Wallaby Feb 15th 2010 at 02:14 am 35

Detcord, yes, sequential errors are cumulative, so its more difficult to predict the details of the weather on a specific day ten years from now than the weather one day from now. Thats obvious, but also completely and utterly irrelevant, since we’re talking about predicting changes in averages, not predicting weather on specific days. You asked for an example, but I’ve already given you an example of how scientists can predict averages without predicting specific cases, and you’re ignored it (medical research deals with averages effects, but can’t tell with confidence who is going to get sick when). If you want a weather-specific example, seasonal climate changes like El Nino can be obvious up to a year in advance, letting weather forecasters know with confidence that seasons many months later will be, on average, unusually hot or cold, but that doesn’t let them predict weather on specific days. I can probably come up with a billion other examples where scientists can predict averages without being able to predict specific cases.

The arguments that you’re making - that “higher average temperatures” is equivalent to “no snow, anywhere, ever,” or that scientists who can really predict average changes should thus be able to predict individual changes - are not just wrong, but they’re fundamentally, obviously, wrong. I’m not trying to be rude, but I don’t want to pretend that outrageously wrong arguments are serious debatable points. Honestly, you seem like an intelligent and well-educated person, but these sort of arguments are just nonsensical, and the fact that an intelligent person would use them just makes think that you’ve got some bias where you’ve already decided that global warming isn’t true, and that you’re willing to grab any argument that comes your way to support what you want to believe.
MrKenneth Feb 15th 2010 at 11:36 am 36

In case this thread is still running:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

We all need to keep breathing deeply.
Aaron Feb 15th 2010 at 02:57 pm 37

It can never be repeated enough that Detcord, by his own admission, denies GW exists because he thinks fixing it is to dang expensive. Shouldn’t that be an argument killer? Doesn’t that pretty much take any legitimacy out of the argument? Shouldn’t someone who worries about his taxes more than the lives of 6 billion humans go to the end of the line?
Detcord Feb 15th 2010 at 05:04 pm 38

Cidu Bill (33)

First, I apologise, Cidu Bill, if my moderation comment appeared to be a complaint. It wasn’t intended as such. I worked out your moderation requirement independently and was trying to explain why my response had not yet appeared. Learning from this, I am now trying to limit my links, but it’s hard, as so many demand evidence and I dislike relying on others taking my word for it.

I hope you’re reassured about the Northern Ice Caps melting – at least from an ocean-rising perspective. I did get one conversion wrong. Ten percent of 4 centimetres is not 40 millimetres, but 4 millimetres – less than a quarter of an inch.
Detcord Feb 15th 2010 at 06:34 pm 39

Winter Wallaby (35)

Nice straw man. Now, how did you get to “no snow, anywhere ever” from “implies no snow”? As I made clear, my original comment was a reflection of the perceptions I (and others) got from Al Gore’s video – from the perspective of “an average man on the street”. Neither did I say the ability to predict averages equates to the ability to predict a specific result, another straw man. So, what exactly does tearing these straw men down prove?

You accept, or at least seem to accept, that predictions made further out on the time-line are harder than predictions closer to the base. I say “seem to” because you backtrack a bit with your claim that averages of averages are somehow immune to this rule.

Possibly the confusion comes from your switching from predicting ranges of future events to equating the prediction of specific events to a compendium of similar events. We could go all over probability density functions, and bore half the planet, so let’s just stick with a coin toss and the variable Time. If you flip a particular coin now, the probability of it being heads is 0.5 or 50%, yes? Now, what is the probability of your getting heads from that coin a year from now? Not 50%. Why, because you may have lost that particular coin, or you may forget to do it 1 year from now, or it’s become bent skewing the result, or a whole host of other unknowns. Now, imagine 10 years from now, or twenty. What is the likelihood of having lost that coin now?

That is the point I was making. The cumulative effect of unknown variables makes ever further projections (single or average) more difficult. Regarding your doctor example, predicting averages – may I ask what is the probability of those doctors getting their averages right a year from now as compared to 10 years from now? Notice how I am comparing like-for like? In 10 years there could be a cure, obviating the 10 year old average prediction, or not. But a cure is more likely 10 years from now than 1, yes?

Oh, and I do recall asking for an average temperature prediction for 2010 like, now, so that we can get a feel for how accurate the 2030 or 2100 prediction might be (by comparing the prediction to the actual result). Note the like-for-like comparison, again

Of course, given MrKenneth (36)’s interesting link, proving that prediction is going to be difficult if the source data is corrupt.
Detcord Feb 15th 2010 at 06:43 pm 40

Aaron (37)

Please provide the line number to a post of mine where I write something even close to, “denies GW exists because he thinks fixing it is to dang expensive”.

Don’t take all day either.

Oh! Let me save you some effort. I most certainly DO “deny” that the science is settled with regards to the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis. Yep! In that circumstance, I am most definitely a “denier”.
Aaron Feb 15th 2010 at 06:52 pm 41

Comment 21. Fast enough for you?

I love how you ignore the whole “too expensive to save lives” thing, for the most part, and then outright deny saying it when it’s in black in white. You’ve made it plain and clear both here and elsewhere that cost is your problem with global warming. Please explain your ethical process when determining how much money lives are worth.

The reason you have no hope of changing minds is because you so clearly made up your mind before looking for evidence. As soon as someone said “new taxes” you realized that there must be someone out there that will fill up the hole your head is in with more sand. And so you cherry pick “evidence” that, from what I’ve read, are either patently false or misquoted/interpreted. Zero reasonable people believe that your Climategate holds any water (it’s evaporated - HA!). Your smoking gun is the word “trick,” a word that has at least 8 entries in the dictionary. Somehow you choose the nefarious one, even though it would mean, at best, that there are a dozen people out there trying to trick you, not thousands of scientists.

And don’t go with the “I’m not trying to change anyone’s minds.” That’s baloney. You’re spreading deceit and misinformation in hopes that the less support for reform goes out there, the less you have to pay in taxes. Call a spade a spade.

Sir.
Aaron Feb 15th 2010 at 06:56 pm 42

By the way, let’s lay our cards out on the table, Mr. DetCord . . . what’s your stance on biblical infallibility? I’m treading on thin ice here (it’s melting after all - HA!) since I honestly don’t know the answer, but consider it an opportunity to strengthen your standing a tad.
Aaron Feb 15th 2010 at 07:03 pm 43

Sorry for the flurry of posts, but I was so gobsmacked (as the Brits would say) by your brazen denial of my claim, that I reread post 40. It occurs to me that you may be claiming to NOT be a denier of global warming, and are in fact NOT denying that your rationale of pseudo-denial GW is expense.

You ought to clarify that.
Detcord Feb 15th 2010 at 07:38 pm 44

Aaron (39)

Well, I’ll give you high marks for speed. Not so much for brains though. Here’s my quote:
“I see a major flaw in the reasoning that we should all make life-altering changes in the way we live our lives and bankrupt ourselves by spending, what, trillions of dollars to mitigate a hypothetical threat.”

And you came back with this quote claiming I wrote, “too expensive to save lives”. Ah, we have the beginnings of a straw man here. Okay, let’s play fair. This is my straw man back at you.

“You demand we spend trillions of dollars and make life-shortening life-style changes in order to maybe halt an event we can’t even prove exists.” There, I’ve even put it in “quotes” to prove you said it. Fair is fair, yes?

More seriously, what happens to all that expensive research into curing diseases, and better energy sources, cleaner water, better and more plentiful food etc.etc. if we divert huge resources into halting a hypothetical threat? Your argument that diverting all our resources to one unproven threat will have no impact on other life-saving efforts is just … [deep breath, be nice] incredibly naive. This isn’t a zero-sum game. All cash-choices have life-saving, or life-limiting implications, not just your own pet project.

Let’s go one better. Let’s say GW is real, but AGW is not. So, when the waters rise, and threaten to inundate us all, and all our resources have been uselessly spent eliminating CO2 from the air, and there are no resources left for flood defences, or relocations or arks (thanks Noah), then who’s the ethical fool? Too late to change one’s mind then, eh!

And I have every hope of changing minds – though not yours I grant you.

Oh! Evidence. MrKenneth and I have been busting guts to post evidential links to support our assertions. A few links from you (sorry Cidu Bill), supporting your points, wouldn’t go amiss. I also have included links to what you would call left-wing sites, just because I like to be fair. Can you rise to this standard? Personally, I doubt it.
Aaron Feb 16th 2010 at 03:10 am 45

I know Fox News would have you think otherwise, but being condescending doesn’t make you right. Nor do personal insults. It just wastes time. I’m so tired of you not answering the question.

You should at least try. Could you change my mind? ABSOLUTELY. I have an ACTUAL concept of science, not a mere knowledge of big words to smokescreen the issue (by the way, it believe it was in a different thread that you said you didn’t expect to change minds; but I ‘ll accept that I may be mistaken). Your misdirection (e.g., GW, not AGW; which is, at best, unintentionally misleading; although my intuition is that you know full well that you’re muddying the waters with the distinction) doesn’t change the fact that *using* the term “straw man” is not the same as *understanding* what the dang term means.

My claim is basic, straightforward, true, and relevant. You do NOT WANT your taxes raised. You think that gummint (as they call it here in Texas) shouldn’t tell us where to spend your money. You hold this above all other beliefs with the possible exception that anything written in what is commonly referred to as “The Bible” is more true than anything else ever stated (you haven’t answered that, by the way).

And since the loss of the entire human race (I’ll even admit that that may . . *may* . . . be a bit hyperbolic, but it’s not out of line) is too big to conceive of, you go back to the whole taxes thing. It’s excruciating to watch, because for every disingenuous (read: lying) Glen Beck and Sarah Palin there are hundreds of misled Bubba Smiths.

I’m honestly not sure which of those two you are, but your comments are truly the opposite of any goal to better humanity, and that’s what chaps my hide. Putting capital above human life is inconceivable to me. If you TRULY believe it, then take the time to discuss . . . that . . . simple . . . point. Or at least deny it.

Perhaps you’d be willing to go on record saying that “if it took all the money in the world to make a machine that would preempt the Vogon attack, it would be worth it.” Just end this (tiresome) thread by stating that my premise is wrong. I invite you to prove me wrong and feed me crow by saying that you would “happily go to the poor house with your neighbors to guarantee the safety of the descendants of this planet.” But you keep skirting the issue, either because you don’t want to answer it or because you didn’t realize that that was the question. If it’s the latter, now you know. Couldn’t be more clear if I were a window in a Windex factory.
Detcord Feb 16th 2010 at 09:21 am 46

Aaron (45)
I am sorry for the brains comment, and I dislike the insult culture some posters employ here, but frankly Arron, your seemingly wilful misreading of my posts is driving me to despair. For example, cite one post, please, where I employ the word “tax”.

Also, you won’t know this, so I’ll tell you now. I have never seen Fox News. I miss a lot of other TV shows too because I refuse to own a television. Biggest time-waster money can buy.

So, my views and opinions are not influenced by that medium, or any other single source. I do use the internet to facilitate a broader, more eclectic, approach to my fact-gathering because I recognise that truth has many facets – and no one publication has a monopoly on the facts.

I think your point about my, “not answering the question”, is disingenuous at best. I attempt to focus on the most salient points and try not to go over the same ground twice. I cannot answer all questions, and I can’t see why you are complaining. You don’t answer my questions either. You just dismiss them as misdirection.

I don’t know you Aaron. I only know what you’ve posted. From what you’ve written I can state, with absolute certainty, that you do not know me. So stop putting words into my mouth. I can do that very well all by myself.

I also pay all my taxes. Every last one – in 2 countries. Try it sometime.

Strawman. Your post suggests you do not understand the term. That’s how I read it. So here’s a very short primer.

a. You build up (or define) a position;
b. you assign it to someone else, and then, because you built it with flaws,
c. you easily tear it down.

That’s the modern essence of a strawman. It is a fallacious argument. Please stop doing it.

Also, I am stunned to read that you do not understand the difference between Global Warming (GW) and Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). The two are not the same and the key is that clever word, anthropogenic – i.e. human-caused.

Now Global Warming (and Cooling) has occurred on this planet a vast number of times over eons (according to theory) and virtually all of them have occurred before humans even existed. The last Global Warming event occurred about 10,000 years ago. I am sure you are aware of this and agree that humans cannot be blamed for that event. So, now you see the difference, yes?

If we, as human beings, intend to interfere with the climate, then we had darn well better know what we are doing. THAT is the point I have repeatedly been making. I have heard such ideas as putting up shields in space to block the Sun; or carbon sequestration in the oceans, dragging CO2 to the bottom of the sea, in order to avoid the AGW catastrophe. In the latter case, 50% of our oxygen comes from phytoplankton converting dissolved CO2 and sunlight into sugars and Oxygen that we and the rest of animal life breathe. They are one of the bedrocks of life on Earth.

All we need is some idiot to do this sequestration, and have it go wrong (when has THAT ever happened in human history) and virtually starve these creatures by taking away their food source (and our oxygen) and you really will see 6 billion people die.

This post is already too long, and I don’t want to annoy Cidu Bill any more than I may have. So I apologise for not answering all your points, but I believe what I have written has covered the main points of discussion. One request. Please no more strawmen. I can take you much more seriously if you exclude them.
Winter Wallaby Feb 16th 2010 at 03:26 pm 47

Nice straw man. Now, how did you get to “no snow, anywhere ever” from “implies no snow”? . . .Neither did I say the ability to predict averages equates to the ability to predict a specific result, another straw man. So, what exactly does tearing these straw men down prove?

I’m not trying to create straw men. I’m just reading your comments. I don’t see how your statement that

For most of us, hotter means weather like Southern California, Mexico, Florida and the like. . . In my view, and apparently many others, that implies no snow.

can be interpreted as anything other than a statement that you, Detcord, are going to view every instance of snow (”Wow, snow on the East Coast in winter!”) as a disconfirmation of global warming. As for the averages, you keep stating that a prediction that the average temperature will rise (which, in the context of climate change, means averaged over the world, and over yearly fluctuations) implies an ability to predict the weather in a specific season in a specific part of the world, or the average temperature in a specific year. I’m not sure how many ways people can explain to you that this is based on a poor understanding of average.

Oh, and I do recall asking for an average temperature prediction for 2010 like, now, so that we can get a feel for how accurate the 2030 or 2100 prediction might be (by comparing the prediction to the actual result). Note the like-for-like comparison, again

Yes, except no scientist predicts the averages temperature for 2030 meaning “This is exactly what the space-averaged temperature will be in the year 2030.” It’s understood that they mean averaged over yearly fluctuations.

I think this conversation is pretty pointless. The arguments you’re making aren’t subtle, debatable, scientific issues, they’re simply flat-out wrong, in pretty straightforward ways. I’m going to go look at the comics now. Or maybe argue about Sarah Palin. . .
Detcord Feb 16th 2010 at 05:34 pm 48

Winter Wallaby (47)

Good gracious. Aren’t you ever curious? I mean, curious enough to look up words you don’t understand. You clearly don’t understand the word, “Imply”.

From The online Merriam-Webster dictionary: Imply: 2. to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement; 3. to contain potentially; 4. to express indirectly. A dictionary. Try it sometime.

In any case, I was discussing “perceptions” (look it up) obtained from viewing Al Gore’s video and what I thought that video “implied”. You kinda dropped that part in your repeated straw man, didn’t you. I think Al Gore’s video is a farce. So your assertion that I think, “there will be no snow, anywhere, ever”, is a logical fallacy derived from your own twisting of words. They’re your words, you defend them.

You also engage in “contextomy”, defined as “The practice of quoting out of context”

“Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms. As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. As an appeal to authority it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position”

If the shoe fits.

Yes, do go and enjoy the comics. I do. But may I gently suggest you work to develop your reading comprehension, so that you can better understand the ideas and meaning behind the words rather than cherry-pick the ones you think you can attack. Where is the learning in that?
Winter Wallaby Feb 17th 2010 at 02:07 pm 49

Detcord, I’m sorry that you think I’m intentionally quoting out of context to construct straw man arguments, or have bad reading comprehension skills. For my part, I think I’ve honestly tried to understand your comments, and that they just don’t make sense, even with your advice of reading the dictionary. I’m sorry this has become so acrimonious, I suspect that was largely my fault.
FeelinOld Feb 17th 2010 at 08:40 pm 50

I normally stay right out of the ‘Global Warming’, ‘Global Climate Change’ etc. etc. discussions, but I do want to say just one thing:

Yes there is ‘evidence’ that the climate is changing, but I find it rather questionable that everyone ignores the fact that there have been much warmer and much colder trends in recent geologic history, even in the much shorter human history…
We are a relatively new addition to the mix, and despite all the screaming to ’save the planet’ what we do won’t ‘Save’ or ‘Doom\ the planet, the planet will be here, we may not, and maybe we aren’t supposed to be….
Dave in Boston Feb 18th 2010 at 12:07 am 51

Detcord: I see nothing in Winter Wallaby’s post to suggest that Winter Wallaby fails to understand what “imply” means. I do see that you appear to be attempting to distract attention from the things you’ve posted that are incorrect.

Anyway. I hear emacs is a good text editor…
Winter Wallaby Feb 18th 2010 at 03:39 am 52

OK, I was going to stop reading this thread, but . . . vi, not emacs.

All right, now I’m done.
Detcord Feb 18th 2010 at 04:02 pm 53

Dave in Boston (51)

I was prepared to let this thread end with Winter Wallaby’s rather gracious final post. (I mean that seriously, WW)

However, Dave in Boston, I have learned something new from you, and that makes me glad. I love learning new things.

For example, I have never heard the term “emacs” before and, because I am curious, I looked it up. You know, I used to do programming (FORTRAN 4.0) a long time ago and I’ve probably used an emacs text editor without realising it. All I knew was the joy of leaving punch cards behind. Ever play 52 (hundred) card pick-up with a stack of unbounded punch cards? (I tease a bit here, as I’ve never really had more than a few hundred or so cards in a stack.) I’ve done programming on screen Winter Wallaby, so I’ve probably inadvertently used vi as well. Who knew!

Now to the positive side. I do not claim to be infallible, Dave in Boston. So, if you can show me where I’ve posted something that is incorrect please point it out. Arvy did so earlier, (about sea ice) and I was pleased to acknowledge the fact. He also provided a very interesting link to Dr. Peter Noerdlinger’s site, which I found fascinating and enlightening.

I do ask that you don’t go back to my “implied, no snow” comment. As I subsequently stated, that was the impression I got from Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” video. He never said, “it will never snow again, ever”, and neither did I, but his extensive references to much greater temperatures seemed to give me (and apparently others given the comic coverage Cidu Bill has presented) the impression that that was what he was implying. I don’t accept what Al Gore said or implied in his video so I do not believe there will be no snow, ever in the current circumstances.

That could lead to something else, but first the corrections. Lead on McDuff or rather Lay on McDuff, just to be exact.
Dave in Boston Mar 17th 2010 at 01:14 am 54

Well, elsewhere I’d already pointed out that you were wrong about standards of testability, and you never responded to that.

Other than that, this would require combing through a lot of stuff you’ve posted just to find the list of things you’ve claimed (let alone check them) — this takes time, and that kind of time doesn’t appear to be forthcoming for me or anyone else.

Especially since it seems unlikely that you’d change your opinion.

On editors… you might have used emacs; emacs originated as a set of TECO macros. You probably didn’t use vi; if you did you’d probably have been driven crazy by all the screen update bugs it had in those days and you’d remember.

I’m not old enough to have used punched cards in anger, only paper tape.
Detcord Apr 1st 2010 at 06:40 pm 55

Well hello there, Dave in Boston (54)

I wondered if CIDU Bill’s recent call for another discussion on Global Warming would start a new thread. Imagine my surprise to discover you’d gone back to this old thing. Thanks for giving me the chance to fill in some gaps I’d left behind.

Let’s start with, “…elsewhere I’d already pointed out that you were wrong about standards of testability, and you never responded to that”. When you wrote “elsewhere”, you really meant it (i.e. not in this thread). Fortunately, I still have the link to that “elsewhere” I believe you refer to (for those dropping in) CIDU Bill’s “Hey I’ve got a stunningly original idea for a cartoon…” thread).

I’ve gone over that thread Dave in Boston and all I could find were assertions, and contextomy from you. When one points out something is “wrong”, usually one offers evidence to support that position. Well? Without evidence, an assertion is just so much smoke. How does one respond to smoke?

Here’s my evidence. In line 24 of this thread I called for a Climate Change model that could be tested; a standard request in science. Your reply was, “No, because if such a model is produced, there’ll just be a different song. Same as when the deniers could no longer claim with a straight face that there was no warming.” So, no published testable AGW model then.

In that other thread, you asserted the following, “….according to what you seem to believe, all of astrophysics (for example) is pure conjecture. The Big Bang theory? The island-universe hypothesis? Pure speculation.” A nice example of contextomy, for those who are still with us.

In this thread (line 34) you asserted that I was “claiming that climate change isn’t a theory” [true – if you mean AGW as there is no published model - ipso facto], but I was “now willing to call the Big Bang a theory”. Hmmm. When did I not refer to the Big Bang as a theory?

So, what make the Big Bang a theory and AGW an assertion? Well, facts, for a start. Okay, both have that – though some of the AGW “facts” are now subject to dispute [see MrKenneth’s link at line 34]. But facts are just that, facts. We need a model that explains what they mean. That get’s the Big Bang to the hypothesis stage. One up for BB vs. AGW, but not yet a theory. Ah, but the Big Bang hypothesis does make verifiable predictions using Albert Einstein’s General Relativity theory (a tiny beginning, expanding matter, red shift [for the far away stuff] ect.). This makes the Big Bang a theory and as each prediction comes true – and is verified independently – (there have been many) the theory gains credence and becomes accepted, until something better comes along. None of this is “speculation” Dave in Boston.

Now, where’s that testable AGW model again?