A Few Things Ill Considered

A layman's take on the science of Global Warming featuring a guide on How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.

Monday, April 10, 2006

send this to... Digg it! | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Furl | Spurl

Fun on Usenet

Okay, it's generally a waste of time, but sometimes reading contrarian arguments on alt.global-warming pays off with a good belly laugh!

The latest proof that Global Warming is a hoax? This headline: "US Remains in Ice Age's Grip" posted by Ray "Loopey" Lopez.

The subtle flaw in the argument? It is a movie review of Ice Age: The Meltdown! Better luck next time, Ray.

Labels:

posted by coby @ 4/10/2006 04:46:00 PM  

5 Comments:

  • At April 11, 2006 6:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Can you talk about this article please?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

     

  • At April 11, 2006 12:17 PM, Blogger Wag the Dog said…

    Can you talk about this article please?

    This story already came up in the comments of the previous blog entry and was also discussed by Tim Lambert

    Picking a period where later years are cooler than the initial year to refute global warming, is analogous to counting cars at rush hour, then at 11pm, and again at 3am, to prove that fewer and fewer cars are using the highways every year.

     

  • At April 11, 2006 3:00 PM, Blogger coby said…

    Hi Angie,

    I used that article's tactic for a new posting here.

     

  • At April 11, 2006 3:01 PM, Blogger coby said…

    Wow, that's quite the brawl over at Deltoid. Glad I missed it, I am short enough on time!

     

  • At April 12, 2006 1:44 AM, Blogger Wag the Dog said…

    that's quite the brawl over at Deltoid

    Most of it was off topic. A few McIntyre fans hijacked the thread and most of the comments were about hockey sticks. Even their leader put in a word which pretty much reveals his bad logic: (1) if his modified Mann98 method fails verification then Mann98 itself must be flawed (2) if a paper is rejected for publication by one publisher, everything in it must be flawed and therefore removed from all other publications.

    But to bring this comment back on topic, your story of the movie review being eagerly picked up as an anti-AGW study does parallel those in the McIntyre crowd who eagerly snap up the small counter-intuitive quirks of one paleoclimate study as evidence that all climate research is not to be trusted. It is pretty much an exercise in self-justifying truthiness. -- behaviour we should all be well advised to avoid.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home