From Instapundit:
"SNOW FALLS ON BAGHDAD, for first time in memory."UPDATE: Reader Kevin Greene emails: "I had no idea Al Gore was in Iraq."
« Mac vs. PC: the last agnostic | Main | » I had the exact same thought11 Jan 2008 09:48 am Comments (37)
Dude, relax. It is a funny but irrelevant fact that freak cold snaps have occurred several times that Al Gore was giving a big speech on global warming. 
How many days isn't there a freak cold snap *somewhere*? (It's a funny but relevant fact that people who claim to understand economics don't understand probability theory.)
No, the funny bit is that they happen wherever he is speaking.
Well the other day it was really hot in Philadelphia. In January. So there. I'm sure Al Gore was giving a speech that day too.
Also funny, the unpredictability of weather. Al Gore should take a lesson in humility from the Millerites of the Great Disappointment in 1844 (When Christ failed to come a second time), leading to the Seventh Day Adventists. I wonder if some day a new movement will spring forth to claim the fold just as Global Warming took the reigns after the Global Cooling hype of the 70's failed to hold water, as it were.
Mike Schilling wrote: It's a funny but relevant fact that people who claim to understand economics don't understand probability theory. Is it anywhere near as funny as the now-demonstrated fact that people who claim to understand probability theory are dull as a post when confronted with inconsequential ironic humor?
But Megan, the bit is only "funny" if you carry or tolerate the misconception that climate change will mean that it's going to be hotter at every second of every day everywhere on Earth in the future, or that cold weather will never occur. Neither Al Gore nor any of the thousands of scientists who study climate change say this. In fact, the abnormal and volatile weather that IS predicted by climate change models jibes rather nicely with the strange weather that allegedly follows Al Gore in some improbable way. It's kind of like the "Al Gore invented the internet" meme. It would be "funny" to say something at next week's MacWorld like "Hey everyone, why isn't Al Gore here to announce that he invented the latest Macbook?" But it would only be funny to those people who still don't understand that Gore never said such a thing. To everyone else, it's a sign of ignorance.
Peter- Except that the global cooling hype had nowhere near the same scientific consensus that global warming does today. But nevermind the facts.
Megan, Instarube, and all the yokels in Bugtussle are guffawing at this latest "irony." "Sure done showed up that colleege-edeecated Al Gore again, didn't we Maw?" Damn, this is fine humor they are publishing now at the Atlantic. It's like Hee Haw, only without the cute women.
It's only funny if you have a sense of humor. If you don't, you could always try non-sequitors mocking those with accents different than yours.
"Except that the global cooling hype had nowhere near the same scientific consensus that global warming does today. But nevermind the facts." Since when did consensus equal fact? I believe there has already been ample argument regarding the refutation of groupthink validating policy prescriptions on scientific assertions. Contrary of various conspiracy theories (They are paid hacks, etc.) there are scientists who disagree with the consensus. They have been largely ousted from the debate, which the political community has largely announced is over (ridiculous to pronounce a debate over in which there are people who still disagree). Most importantly the consensus arose after this scientific assertion became hijacked by politics. So to address the question on Global Cooling, It only failed to gain political momentum due to the approach of the energy crisis. If the president (Carter) tells everyone to turn down the heat and start wearing sweaters, the scientists who subscribe to the theory aren't going to get much support to start to go in the other direction via large-scale public intervention. And let's not forget, scientists aren't altruistic saints. They want to get published and make names for themselves. I know many working scientists in many fields and they are like any other human being in an upwardly mobile occupation.
Zealots always lack a sense of humor. However, to be serious, the global warming alarmist always point to singular weather events as evidence of global warming (see Katrina, the drought in the Southeast, and even this week's warm northeast weather). What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Yancey, Peter, Regarding your point about scientists being ambitious and pressured to make news, this also applies to those whom you cite as anti-climate change scientists. (You think economist Bjorn Lonborg is writing his books only out of altruism?) And in terms of financing, many of those guys are being supported by the industries who are least eager to see policy changes that will make their business profitable.
Tinisoli, Who, exactly, counts as a "qualified" person? Perhaps I will then be able to answer your question with an actual cite to such a person. I certainly have a big field to choose from. However, I will point out that I see very, very few people that I would consider to be qualified taking a stand against every alarm raised by each day's freak weather occurance. Perhaps you will point me towards some that do?
As a journalist, you should know that "exact same" is redundant. Consider these two valid sentences: "I had the same thought." To emphasize the similarity, we might allow: "I had exactly the same thought." But never should we accept "exact same".
Yancey, There are many scientists and non-scientists alike who are wise enough to tell your unnamed alarmists that a freak or disastrous weather event isn't, or is not necessarily, the product of climate change. Chris Mooney, a journalist, has written a book that delves into climate change's likely relationship to weather events such as hurricanes but also warns that we must not leap to conclusions or encourage laymen to think that all disastrous weather events are the product of climate change. Here is a Salon interview in which he discusses this a bit: http://www.salon.com/books/int/2007/07/16/storm_world/ I see very, very few people that I would consider to be qualified taking a stand against every alarm raised by each day's freak weather occurance. I'm not sure why it's on climate change scientists or other qualified people to keep an eye on the internet chat rooms or cable news channels and leap up every time someone raises a false or questionable alarm about weather and its relationship to climate change. You seem to be accusing your foes of both being the alarmists and failing to stand up to alarmists.
Tinisoli, Well, if it isn't their place to take a stand in the public debate, then it is left to others to point out the absurdities through use of arguments like the one that gave birth to this thread. I would hope that the next time a chat room commenter writes that the latest Florida hurricane strike or the next July heatwave is further evidence of global warming, you will readily counter that argument. Or are you not qualified to do so?
Tinisoli, you are incredibly patient with this "Yancey," whose mind is strange enough to imagine that scientists are supposed to monitor the media, chat rooms and the rube-o-sphere, er, blogosphere, for "alarmist" reactions to weather events. You are right, too, that Yancey's larger point about alarmist reaction to global change is nothing but a strawman. Yancey also decided that my remark highlighting Instarube's and Megan's lack of sophistication somehow suggested zealotry about global warming. What a bizarre conclusion, from absolutely no evidence. I said nothing about global warming, the science, the policy, etc. My point was that this attempt at humor simply reveals the people who find it funny to be yokels. If there is a zealot here, it appears to be Yancey; a little Googling shows me he often gets worked up when climate change is blogged about.
It is a funny but relevant fact that stupidity occurs frequently in the words written by Megan McArdle.
Tinisoli I definitely agree that there exists examples of what I suggested on both sides of the debate. My point was that the scientific method is the mode de jure of determining what is and isn't in this world. We rely, as a rational species, on proof. Due to the largely unpredictable and difficult to observe trends in climate science (as most climatologists will agree), it is almost impossible to determine within any concrete certainty what is happening, let alone why it is happening. One theory that has gained little to no publicity at all is the fact that Methane causes twice the damage that CO2 does, and natural Methane jets have been releasing the gas into the atmosphere periodically for millions of years. As we have sporadically experienced periods of warming, this, due to tectonic plate movement might be worth more attention. I suppose my problem is that as long as a field cannot produce proof, it is dangerous to deduce political policy decisions from it, in either direction. I once found the analogy useful regarding the liberties that were hindered after 9/11. Terrorism can most likely occur in similar proportions once again. Is it worth abandoning our liberty for safety. I feel that the same "better safe than sorry" reasoning is being used to stifle dissent in the climate change debate. I agree that some of the climate change skeptics are subsidized by various biased interests. Some aren't. Once again, my point is that debate is supposed to be a good thing. Science is based on comparing different studies and debating results. Not gang mentality to facilitate economic goals. I spoke to a fellow I know who is in R&D in Newtonian Fluid Propulsion and went to MIT and MIT grad. I asked him if he knew any of these guys in the climate change debate, and what he thought. He told me a professor he knew was colleagues with a number of the gentlemen that spearheaded the anthropogenic climate change awareness movement. He told him that these men were always political ideologues first, scientists second, and that he always saw the Global Warming movement as a kind of Reichstag Fire for Gore.
Well, if it isn't their place to take a stand in the public debate... I didn't say it wasn't their place to take stand against the alarmists (whom you still haven't named, interestingly enough); I said that it's not on them to play that role, it's not their job. I think it is strange that you are citing unnamed alarmists and then demanding that I name people who are countering the unnamed alarmists. In any event, I pointed you in the right direction, so read up. and maybe it'll ease your mind a bit about all these alarmists. ...then it is left to others to point out the absurdities through use of arguments like the one that gave birth to this thread. Pointing out that it is sometimes unseasonably cold where Al Gore is doesn't count as an argument for anything. It's just a dumb observation that even Megan has acknowledged as irrelevant...albeit mildly ironic if you already have a misconception of climate change. I would hope that the next time a chat room commenter writes that the latest Florida hurricane strike or the next July heatwave is further evidence of global warming, you will readily counter that argument. Or are you not qualified to do so? Sure. If I see such a comment I will do so.
Charles, Scientists are citizens, are they not? They are certainly aware of the publicity every freak weather event is getting these days, unless they are rubes and yokels who are completely unaware of what is occurring around them. To support the integrity of their field, they must take a stand to counter the growing public perception that every abnormal weather event is proof of worsening global warming. Now, for your comments (I was addressing Tinisoli's first comment in which it appeared he didn't get the joke, even though the context was blindingly obvious). I find your comments empty of content, and am only responding now because you wrote a misleading description of my position on global warming. I think the planet is warming and that humans are likely the cause, I just take issue with the idea that fossil fuels can be replaced any time in the next 100 years, and that the warming will be a universal, or even a net negative for the planet; and I don't get "worked up" over this, even- just amused at some people's ignorance of the scope of the issue.
Peter, I'm with you on the need in science for robust debate and an intolerance of dogma. On the other hand, it seems clear that while there may be some people who are not being totally objective or selfless when it comes to their Gore-approved climate science, the notion of debate or argument being stifled seems totally disingenuous to me. For one thing, skeptics are and have been free to report their findings or give voice to their skepticism. Some of them have done quite well for themselves selling books, getting jobs, getting published in journals, and so on. And some of them are clearly objecting to the idea of anthropogenic climate change because their findings force them to——not because they don't like Al Gore or they want to be contrarian. I know that. That's all well and good. But, it just so happens that they are relatively few in number and the climate change "believers" are numerous and their work is more heavily supported by comparison. A consensus is not when everyone agrees on something; it is an agreement made by a group as a whole. Obviously not all scientists or climate scientists agree that climate change is a) occurring, b) anthropogenic, or c) something to fight via policy changes. But there IS a consensus. I think this is pretty similar to what we see with the so-called debate over evolution. There are some who seriously take issue with certain aspects of evolutionary theory, and/or they rightly challenge science to not accept anything as a given or a Law until it is a Law. However, many of the people who are most vocal in their complaints about the stifling of debate are disingenuous and/or totally full of crap. The ID movement, for example, does not offer up a theory (or Theory) that competes with natural selection. Not even close. Yet they continue to whine about being stifled or censored by some kind of phantom academic atheistic elite. That's just absurd. But for the many laypeople who do not have much scientific literacy, all they need to hear is "Hey, someone is stifling debate and refusing to listen to someone else's ideas! That's UNAMERICAN! That's UNDEMOCRATIC! Who the hell do they think they are!?" And so a huge swath of a nation sets out with its pitchforks and torches to destroy the evil strawmen.
Tinisoli, You obviously don't think pundits and opinion makers count as significant alarmists (Al Gore, either?), so I will simply grant to you your claim that climate scientists usually don't engage in this sort of behavior, though I will point out that I have twice tried to make this point about singular weather events being evidence of nothing on RealClimate only to have my commments disappear in one case, and never appear in another; so, the moderators of that site probably are part of the unqualified mass, too.
Well, as long as you don't find me humorless, because I consider myself damn funny. But your idea about scientists monitoring the rubewaves is still crazy. First of all, it assumes most of these media count, and they don't. Blogs, especially political blogs, are a wasteland, and would be a complete waste of a scientist's time. And the popular news media, especially television, are just as much of a wasteland. Take any serious topic--science, the arts, medicine--and the media generally fails them all. I applaud some of the people in science, for example, who make sure Wikipedia articles in their field of study are accurate. But should anyone be compelled to do this? I don't think so. And are they failures as scientists if they don't do this? Certainly not. Perhaps most importantly, does their failure to do this make their research or conclusions less valid. Not a chance.
tinisoli, Agreed, perhaps I was unclear, or mis-stated what I really meant. I was reacting to the fact that certain people have called for the silencing of dissenting views in the public sphere due to the notion that it would hinder the cause of fighting global warming. I certainly don't suggest that these dissenters have no voice, I only say that the suggestion that their dissent MUST be silenced for the common good is wrong and shows a creepy mindset. And yes, I see that mindset in other places too (Intelligent Design, Iraq, etc.), just so you know I'm not choosing my battles. I just feel it's not pointed out as much in polite society regarding climate change as much as I'd like to see.
Charles, Like it or not, public policy is heavily influenced by popular media and opinion makers, and it appears that those "qualified people" who want action, today, on cutting emissions are perfectly willing to countenance this particular misunderstanding between short-term and long-term weather trends since it reinforces their preferences.
Environmentalists have NO sense of humor. Go ahead, give me one joke about environmentalism/the environment.
Dear Yancey, Scientists are citizens... To support the integrity of their field, they must take a stand to counter the growing public perception that every abnormal weather event is proof of worsening global warming. They do take this stand, Yancey. But they do not and cannot do so ALL THE TIME. But again, I've no idea if you are thinking of a real, quantifiable "growing public perception" that climate change is causing all nasty weather or if you are simply listening to some dim bulb on CNN asking the same stupid question every time there's a nasty weather event. And I agree with Charles that someone simply vocalizing a thought does not an expert make. Now more than ever, we need to look at the qualifications and credentials of whoever is talking and decide for ourselves if they deserve an audience. (Earth to New York Times: Your new columnist has been dead wrong about Iraq forever. Why are you paying him for his baseless assertions?) I do think that pundits and opinion-makers can be alarmists. Obviously. Many of them are, and they are paid to do so, whether it's warning of an imminent invasion of illegal immigrants or warning that our planet is in peril due to global warming. What I don't see, and you still haven't named anyone, are qualified people saying things like 'Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming, ergo it's our fault.' I do think Al Gore occasionally comes very close to making that connection, but I can't cite an instance where definitely did so. (If you can, let's have it.) Again, there's a very common perception of Gore as an exaggerator, even among his fans, but oftentimes the perception is based on things that he didn't actually say or do: http://archive.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/10/05/gore_internet/
Environmentalists have NO sense of humor. Go ahead, give me one joke about environmentalism/the environment. Does a group or person have to tell jokes about his own group in order to "have a sense of humor"? In any event, ever heard of a show called "Seinfeld"? Well, one of the co-creators and main writers, a guy by the name of Larry David, is a huge environmentalist. He now has a show called "Curb Your Enthusiasm," which is also very funny. Does he count, or does he have to make fun of Al Gore before he gets annointed?
How many environmentalists does it take to screw up a light bulb? (Oh...right, that's not a joke either. A partial incandescent ban found its way into the most recent energy bill.)
Enough with the humorlessness accusations. You know, what would be crazy is if a freak weather pattern actually contributed to world peace.
You know, what would be crazy is if a freak weather pattern actually contributed to world peace. Like a kamikaze?
And for the record, Larry David has made fun of environmentalists on his own show. Most of the episodes that make references to the NRDC and his wife are very bitingly satirical about the whole thing. And since he's divorced his real wife (The real environmental nut of the two - she once forced the entire cast and crew to cease using bottled water on set) this humor has gotten significantly more pointed. 'Just thought I should mention one greeney who at least sees some of the humorous and might we say, ridiculous elements of his passion. I'd recommend the episode "Anonymous" for a great example of this. Barbara Boxer makes an appearance at a Hollywood Eco-fundraiser. As a Los Angeles citizen, it's good to know she's doing ONE productive thing with my money.
Charles, we find you funny, too. Just not the way you intend. And check out the Urban Dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gore+Effect
I really thought the most interesting thing about the reporting of this is that apparently there isn't an Arabic word for snow. All of the interviews I read described it as "snow rain" which is an interesting construction, to say the least. Of all of the things to come out of Iraq, that's the one that has impressed upon me how truly different their culture is. I can't imagine life without snow -- I live in Northern Virginia, and when there's snow it's a pretty big deal. We have many different words for different types of freezing precipitation. The reason is obvious -- we deal with it each year and have to be able to describe what's happening. The reporting made it clear this is a rare weather event in Iraq, but the fact they don't have words to describe it makes it even more clear.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
Categories
 Should I call myself a feminist? Series III Tivo
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Riiiiight. Because if it is cold or snowy somewhere on Earth, it means that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax.
Posted by tinisoli | January 11, 2008 11:28 AM