House of Eratosthenes

I’m drawn to sorting out contradictions; I find it to be educational. It seems to get me in a lot of trouble with people though, and I think the reason why has something to do with the vitals. You have to 1) find the meaning behind whatever is put in front of you, 2) recall something earlier that creates the contradiction and 3) notice it. I guess I should learn to do these things silently, and not point it out.

The social pressure in this day and age, though, is against step #2, the recollection. Stop being difficult, stop remembering things, just think about what’s happening now. Your favorite color today is purple and your favorite number is six…

Anyway, I was intrigued when Steven Goddard found this…

Global warming is happening is “10 times faster than at any time in the Earth’s history”, climate experts claim

American scientists claim the planet is undergoing one of the largest changes in climate in the past 65 million years.

Climatologists at Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment have warned the likely rate of change over the next century will be at least 10 times quicker than any climate shift since the dinosaurs became extinct.

If the trend continues at its current rapid pace, it will place significant stress on terrestrial ecosystems around the world, and many species will need to make behavioral, evolutionary or geographic adaptations to survive, they said.

Climatologists at Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment have warned the likely rate of change over the next century will be at least 10 times quicker than any climate shift since the dinosaurs became extinct and this could have a negative impact on some animals, such as polar bears

The findings come from a review of climate research by Earth system science expert Noah Diffenbaugh and Chris Field, a professor of environmental Earth system science and the director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Institution. The work is part of a special report on climate change in the current issue of Science.

The next paragraph, we start to get to the heart of the matter as the current “pause” in the rise of the mean temperature is finally mentioned. From that point to the end of the article, you see what’s happening: All of the alarmist rhetoric concerns projections. So the headline-writer strayed a little bit away from what the experts were really saying. Actually, more than a little.

Alrighty then. Give me a jingle when you have some alarming measurements…meantime…go back to expecting things. Fun times.

[…] ERATOSTHENES– “Are These People Idiots, or Just Criminals?”; Guilt has an amazing power to make […]
- Steynian 484st | Free Canuckistan! | 08/03/2013 @ 17:26
[…] last, but not least, House of Eratosthenes wonders if Warmists are idiots or […]
- Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove | 08/04/2013 @ 06:40
House of Eratosthenes: All of the alarmist rhetoric concerns projections.

Of course it’s a projection. The current mean global temperature plateau is sustainable. The concern is projected future warming.
- Zachriel | 08/04/2013 @ 07:43
Right. So the headline was wrong. If it bleeds, it leads.
- mkfreeberg | 08/04/2013 @ 08:04
mkfreeberg: So the headline was wrong.

The headline “climate experts claim” is accurate:

Professor Diffenbaugh, Earth system science expert: We know from past changes that ecosystems have responded to a few degrees of global temperature change over thousands of years. But the unprecedented trajectory that we’re on now is forcing that change to occur over decades. That’s orders of magnitude faster, and we’re already seeing that some species are challenged by that rate of change.
- Zachriel | 08/04/2013 @ 08:29
Heh. I love these guys. Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Marxist, I claim. It’s a totally accurate statement, because do I claim that. So: Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Marxist. QED.

That’s pretty weak, even for y’all.
- Severian | 08/04/2013 @ 11:03
Severian: Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Marxist, I claim. It’s a totally accurate statement, because do I claim that. So: Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Marxist.

No, what’s accurate is that you made a claim. If the headline were “Some guy on the Internet said something”, then the headline would be accurate, albeit uninformative.

In the case of the cited article, “experts say” is an appropriate and informative headline. That doesn’t make the experts necessarily right, and the article should provide some context, which they did by pointing out the work is part of a special report in the journal Science. We might check that journal for additional information.
http://www.sciencemag.org/site/special/climate2013/
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 04:35
So is the headline accurate or not?

I’m completely ignoring the question of whether it’s even grammatically correct.

But a measurement is one thing, a projection is another. “Global warming is happening” fails to find support within anything I saw in the article.

I’m right about that, right?
- mkfreeberg | 08/05/2013 @ 04:56
Global warming is happening is “10 times faster than at any time in the Earth’s history”, climate experts claim

mkfreeberg: So is the headline accurate or not?

An order of magnitude is 10x. It’s not “at any time in Earth’s history”, but any time since the Cretaceous. Is that your quibble?
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 05:16
mkfreeberg: “Global warming is happening” fails to find support within anything I saw in the article.

Professor Diffenbaugh, Earth system science expert: We know from past changes that ecosystems have responded to a few degrees of global temperature change over thousands of years. But the unprecedented trajectory that we’re on now is forcing that change to occur over decades. That’s orders of magnitude faster, and we’re already seeing that some species are challenged by that rate of change. {emphasis added}
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 05:18
I see.

So the headline sort of becomes accurate, if we pretend projections and measurements are the same thing. What difference does it make?
- mkfreeberg | 08/05/2013 @ 05:22
mkfreeberg: So the headline sort of becomes accurate, if we pretend projections and measurements are the same thing.

The scientists claim that we are on the trajectory *now*. Changes that used to take centuries now take decades. Not sure we agree in whole, but that’s the claim being made.
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 05:31
The sleight-of-hand is taking place within the meaning of the word “trajectory.” FTA:

If the trend continues at its current rapid pace, it will place significant stress on terrestrial ecosystems around the world, and many species will need to make behavioral, evolutionary or geographic adaptations to survive, they said.

Climatologists at Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment have warned the likely rate of change over the next century will be at least 10 times quicker than any climate shift since the dinosaurs
:
The professors in this latest study reviewed scientific literature on aspects of climate change that can affect ecosystems, and investigated how recent observations and projections for the next century compare to past events in Earth’s history.

Emphasis added.

Here’s the headline, again:

Global warming is happening is “10 times faster than at any time in the Earth’s history”, climate experts claim

Again, emphasis added.

Maybe the headline should be “Global warming is a serious threat if we pretend two things are the same thing even though we know they are meaningfully different.” That is a far better representation of what’s actually going on, although I concede it wouldn’t sell as many newspapers…or research grant applications…

8. [blank] and [blank] are meaningfully different; what works for one does not necessarily work for the other.
- mkfreeberg | 08/05/2013 @ 05:40
mkfreeberg: Global warming is happenin

That’s right. The scientists said “the unprecedented trajectory that we’re on now”.
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 05:55
Wow. Just….wow. Now we’re to the point where we have to parse the nested assumptions within the clauses in the headline to arrive at the correct conclusion. Isn’t “science” fascinating? Boy, I sure wish I was all scientifical, with a PhD in science-ology. Then I might understand this stuff.

It’s fascinating, too, watching extremes meet. Alwarmists remind me of nothing so much as Paulbots. Both come at you in full-on Captain Asperger’s mode — everything we say is completely 100% accurate, provided you use the weird, complex, light-years-from-plain-English definitions found only in our super-secret decoder manual. And if you don’t want to do that, you hate science. And liberty.

Somebody check the local aquariums; a cephalopod exhibit is missing its star attraction.
- Severian | 08/05/2013 @ 06:01
Severian: Wow. Just….wow. Now we’re to the point where we have to parse the nested assumptions within the clauses in the headline to arrive at the correct conclusion.

Um, how else to determine the accuracy of a text other than by examining the text?

Severian: Isn’t “science” fascinating?

It’s not science, but simply determining the accuracy of a text. The underlying scientific claim isn’t at issue here.

Severian: everything we say is completely 100% accurate

The headline is not completely accurate. It says “history of the world”, when it should say “in the last 65 million years”.
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 06:27
Right, and apart from that it’s accurate…if, and only if, we pretend two things are identical with one another, when they are actually quite different things.
- mkfreeberg | 08/05/2013 @ 06:41
mkfreeberg: Right, and apart from that it’s accurate…

You’re confusing what the scientist said with what you think or wish he said. He is pointing to a purported trend, one he says the Earth is on now, which is expected to continue into the future. It’s not unreasonable to say “the trend is happening”, the present progressive tense.

Now, you could say the scientist is overstating what his paper shows, or that the paper is in error. But that doesn’t make the headline inaccurate. “is happening now” is a reasonable translation of “the unprecedented trajectory that we’re on now”.
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 07:08
You’re confusing what the scientist said with what you think or wish he said.

You’re confusing what I’m doing, with what you wish I’m doing. I’m just reading, comparing, looking for logical support, not finding it, because it’s not there.

Headline doesn’t say “trend.”

The subject, before “is happening,” is “Global warming.”

There’s no foundational basis of support for this statement.
- mkfreeberg | 08/05/2013 @ 07:30
But Morgan, please recall that a trend IS a fact. “If all our assumptions play out exactly in the way we hope they will”means the same thing as “is.” Every dictionary says so.

This is why, for instance, Matt Nokes is the greatest offensive catcher in baseball history. Look at all those home runs he was going to hit! The .289 lifetime batting average he was guaranteed to post! The only reason he’s not in the Hall of Fame is that the Baseball Writers of America hate science.
- Severian | 08/05/2013 @ 07:45
Try to respond to the point we raised.

“is happening now” ≡ “the unprecedented trajectory that we’re on now”
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 07:48
Try to respond to the point we raised.

You first, buddy.
- Severian | 08/05/2013 @ 07:51
Severian: You first, buddy.

We have. For instance, you said the topic was a scientific question, which was false. The scientists could be wrong. They could be muddled in their thinking. That’s not the question, but whether the headline fairly encapsulates their stated claims. The scientists point to the current surface warming in the present progressive. They said: The Earth is warming. How fast is it warming? Orders of magnitude faster than in the past.

Here’s the simplified version with quotes:
“is happening now” ≡ “the unprecedented trajectory that we’re on now”
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 08:02
I did say the sleight-of-hand is in the use of that word “trajectory,” and this seems to satisfy whatever it is you’re demanding here.

They said: The Earth is warming. How fast is it warming? Orders of magnitude faster than in the past.

No, I’m not seeing that. That summary takes advantage of this sleight-of-hand. There is a “trajectory”…”orders of magnitude faster than in the past,” yes that is part of what they’re saying…but, on the way there, they factor in this projection of what will happen over the next hundred years.

So if you can find a scientist who says the Earth is warming orders of magnitude faster than in the past, that statement would be highly, highly deceptive at the very best and fraudulent at worst. If any measurements have been taken that say, the metric is zipping upward orders of magnitude faster than what it’s ever done over the last 65 million years — such a measurement failed to make it into the article. What made it into the article was an idea, a prediction, that the increase is going to happen.

So that’s my response, and I made it before any comments were made here: Give me a jingle when you see it.

Just like a newborn calf has to teeter and totter and lurch around to keep from falling down, an infantile discipline of science has to backpedal on its predictions on the way to achieving that knowledge base necessary to, and ability to, predict things. The science that says “This meteor is going to come within a million miles of the Earth on December 6th” has ventured into the stage of maturity in which (and it bases its prediction on few enough variables that) this is not often an issue. All scientific disciplines are not necessarily that mature. This one is not that mature.

So the distinction between what has been measured, and what is “projected,” becomes significant. The point could be made that journalists are not expected to make that distinction. I would argue, though, that it becomes their obligation, when they start to rely on the ignorance of the distinction to get more people to read what they write.
- mkfreeberg | 08/05/2013 @ 08:32
Aaaannnd…. see above. Your argument appears to be with Mirriam and Webster. Take it up with them.
- Severian | 08/05/2013 @ 08:40
mkfreeberg: There is a “trajectory”…”orders of magnitude faster than in the past,” yes that is part of what they’re saying…

That is sufficient to justify the headline.
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 08:43
mkfreeberg: >So the distinction between what has been measured, and what is “projected,” becomes significant.

There is certainly a difference between what is measured and what is projected. The article deals with both.
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 08:45
Only if the headline makes it clear that it’s a “trajectory,” and not an actual measurement.

Are you honestly trying to say that if people wrongly think measurements have actually been taken that show we’re on a record-increase, it’s just their problem for not assuming the article was talking about a projection over the next century? You really think it’s the reader’s role to just pull that out of the ether before getting all excited about the headline? Is that your position?
- mkfreeberg | 08/05/2013 @ 08:45
mkfreeberg: Only if the headline makes it clear that it’s a “trajectory,” and not an actual measurement.

If we say a car is heading north at 100 kps, that is a trajectory, not a projection. If we say a car is heading north at 100 kps and is expected to reach Nørresundby in an hour, then that is a trajectory *and* a projection.
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 08:52
So if we distinguish between trajectories and projections, and then take the results of that finely-parsing exercise and wad it up into a big ball and pretend we’re talking about a measurement that’s already been made, so we can pretend this is something that is already happening…then, and only then, the headline becomes true.

I have to tease out these fine distinctions when & where you tell me to, and the lose all respect for distinctions that are actually gross and significantly alter the meaning of something, also when you tell me to. That’s how we make these look like realistic statements and good ideas.
- mkfreeberg | 08/05/2013 @ 08:59
mkfreeberg: So if we distinguish between trajectories and projections,

Um, we distinguish them because they are not the same thing. We gave a simple example. Another is that we often combine these two words into a common phrase, “current trajectory”.

mkfreeberg: I have to tease out these fine distinctions …

Not at all. We use the terms in the usual fashion. The statement was made by a scientist. In addition, “trajectory” was combined with “now”.

Well at least we know the reason why you held your position. By the way, we do not agree with the claim. We don’t have the fine resolution over time required to support the claim with much certainty.
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 09:10
If that’s the case, then I’m not sure why you and I have different positions. You’re saying the scientist is speaking outside of what is known; I’m saying, granting for sake of argument that the scientist is speaking knowledgeably about a projected trajectory, the words “is happening” in the headline venture outside of what the scientist is saying. In either case, it is highly deceptive at best and fraudulent at worst to run this headline. The facts don’t support it and the information in the article doesn’t support it.
- mkfreeberg | 08/05/2013 @ 09:14
Getting a kick out of watching you all try to justify it, though…

- mkfreeberg | 08/05/2013 @ 09:15
mkfreeberg: If that’s the case, then I’m not sure why you and I have different positions.

You were quibbling over the headline. It wasn’t the best headline ever written, but it was serviceable.

mkfreeberg: You’re saying the scientist is speaking outside of what is known; I’m saying, granting for sake of argument that the scientist is speaking knowledgeably about a projected trajectory, the words “is happening” in the headline venture outside of what the scientist is saying.

As we said, the scientist was speaking of an ongoing event. Many scientists believe current warming is occurring much faster than at any time in the recent geological past. However, this is a very difficult question. There’s evidence to support it over the last hundred thousand years, but determining it further than that is fraught with difficulties.

mkfreeberg: It’s always fun listening to someone’s lie when you already know the truth.

It’s always easier to believe a comfortable ‘truth’. You should examine your own positions skeptically rather than making unwarranted assumptions about others.
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 09:25
You were quibbling over the headline. It wasn’t the best headline ever written, but it was serviceable.

That’s debatable. Have you tried diagramming it out as a sentence?

But my quibble wasn’t with the text-messaging-quality grammar. The headline over-promised and the article under-delivered; once you read the article, the information you learn is that some scientists have somehow arrived at a projection that would be orders of magnitude departed from what the planet has experienced from millions of years…

That is over-promising and under-delivering. There “is” nothing “happen”-ing statistically different from what’s happened for those millions of years. What’s “happen”-ing is actually pretty boring. FTA:

However, the research is part of a much bigger picture and other scientists have recently claimed that global warming has ‘paused’ for the time being.

Eek! Panic! Yet another prediction has been made that may or may not turn out to be more accurate than the predictions that were made before…even though for now, the measurements made show we’re at a standstill. Panic anyway!

It’s always easier to believe a comfortable ‘truth’. You should examine your own positions skeptically rather than making unwarranted assumptions about others.

Some among us find the — unsupported — apocalyptic rhetoric more “comfortable.” We call them alwarmists. It always sells more newspapers when they’re allowed to write the headlines, but that doesn’t mean this is what should be done.
- mkfreeberg | 08/05/2013 @ 09:33
mkfreeberg: The headline over-promised and the article under-delivered;

Thought we were done with this. You misunderstood the word “trajectory”. The headline restated the content of the article; “the unprecedented trajectory that we’re on now” ≡ “is happening now”.

mkfreeberg: Some among us find the — unsupported — apocalyptic rhetoric more “comfortable.”

We prefer to stick with what can be shown.
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 09:42
Morgan, I admire your “pissing into the wind” attempt to have an honest dialog with someone intent on not having such a dialog. Facts, reason, data, the actual meaning of words: these are not the things that a dishonest craves.
- Physics Geek | 08/05/2013 @ 09:57
Make that “a dishonest hack“. Sigh.
- Physics Geek | 08/05/2013 @ 09:58
I refer you to the graphic above.

The headline was written for people who failed to pick up on the difference between measuring something that “is happening,” and projecting that thing to happen over the next hundred years. When you’re arguing by way of deception the way The Zachriel are, and your deception fails, the expedient thing to do is admit it…or at least, try to change the subject, and hope as few people as possible notice the disguise got yanked off.

Our guests, here, have been confronted with this in the past though. And their explanation is that they’re not actually discussing things with me, they’re discussing it for the “benefit” of whoever might come by to see the exchange. So yeah, you’re right. In this case, they must be trying to bring this benefit to an audience that can see only what they have to say, with my responses somehow redacted…it’s just weird, they’ve been caught dead-to-rights, and they still keep coming back. Like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, yelling at me to come back so he can bite me to death or something.
- mkfreeberg | 08/05/2013 @ 10:28
mkfreeberg: The headline was written for people who failed to pick up on the difference between measuring something that “is happening,” and projecting that thing to happen over the next hundred years.

And we pointed to a direct quote by Diffenbaugh referring to the current trajectory.

Once again, we ask that you respond to this: The headline restated the content of this quote; “the unprecedented trajectory that we’re on now” ≡ “is happening now”.
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 10:34
Once again, we ask you to take it up with Mssrs. Mirriam and Webster. A trajectory is not an event. The trajectory of a batted ball towards an outfielder is not the same thing as the outfielder catching the ball.
- Severian | 08/05/2013 @ 11:32
Severian: A trajectory is not an event.

A trajectory is a path through time.

Severian: The trajectory of a batted ball towards an outfielder is not the same thing as the outfielder catching the ball.

That’s right.
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 11:36
That’s right.

Ergo, “the unprecedented trajectory that we’re on now” =/ “is happening now,” just as “a batted ball on a path towards a fielder” =/ “is landing in the fielder’s glove right now.”

Ergo, the headline is sloppy at best, deliberately mendacious at worst. Which was the point.

Which you will ignore with some baloney about “no no, we only said that the headline said “the experts say,” which is correct, because an expert did say it, and why do you not look at the plain evidence in front of your nose?”

Which is great for mid-80s dance moves, but not so hot for winning arguments.
- Severian | 08/05/2013 @ 11:49
Severian: Ergo, “the unprecedented trajectory that we’re on now” =/ “is happening now,” just as “a batted ball on a path towards a fielder” =/ “is landing in the fielder’s glove right now.”

Your comparison doesn’t work because the particular claim is about rate and direction of change which is a facet of the trajectory itself, not a final goal. A baseball statement about trajectory would be “a line drive to right field”.
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 12:17
the particular claim is about rate and direction of change which is a facet of the trajectory itself, not a final goal.

Where are you getting that? I know it’s fun to start arbitrarily re-defining stuff — it’s sort of an alwarmist specialty — but it doesn’t really work with this crowd.

If we measure the position of the ball at time t, we see it’s currently ten feet above second base. If we measure it at time t+1, however, we might see that it’s in the center fielder’s glove. These are not the same, because it’s not currently in the center fielder’s glove, it’s ten feet above second base.

We can extrapolate from its velocity, angle, etc. that at time t+1 it will be in the center fielder’s glove, but at this time– this current instant, time t, right now — it’s not in the center fielder’s glove, it’s over second base.

In the same way, we can extrapolate that all kinds of things might happen, but actual measurement taken right now, at this instant, time t, indicates something rather different, i.e. that “pause” in “global warming” that’s buried a few paragraphs down.

Which makes the headline sloppy at best, deliberately mendacious at worst.
- Severian | 08/05/2013 @ 12:42
Zachriel: the particular claim is about rate and direction of change which is a facet of the trajectory itself, not a final goal.

Severian: Where are you getting that?

Um, it’s the headline; Global warming is happening is “10 times faster than at any time in the Earth’s history”, climate experts claim.
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 12:45
Um, ok. So “the ball is in the air over second base, heading towards center field” is functionally the same as “the ball is impacting the center fielder’s glove,” because they both deal with trajectories, regardless of the ball’s actual position in the field of play.

Fascinating, Captain Kirk.
- Severian | 08/05/2013 @ 12:52
Severian: Um, ok.

You asked where we were getting the idea about rate and direction of change. You don’t seem to be focused on the question raised in the original post.

Severian: So “the ball is in the air over second base, heading towards center field” is functionally the same as “the ball is impacting the center fielder’s glove,” because they both deal with trajectories, regardless of the ball’s actual position in the field of play.

Have no idea why you think the scientists are claiming that the rate of change will drop to zero.
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 13:03
Think we’re getting a bit ahead of ourselves with the trajectory-talk…quoting FTA, again…

However, the research is part of a much bigger picture and other scientists have recently claimed that global warming has ‘paused’ for the time being.

Now, I know it says “other scientists,” but from what I read this is the only part of the article that specifically comments on where global warming is or is not “moving”: it’s “paused.”

So we do not need to repeat the primer-caps-and-heavy-pendulums debate here — thank goodness! If we just concede the point and all come to an agreeable perception that the Earth mean temperature moves in a straight line, as a matter of momentum, like a ball bearing rolling across a smooth level marble floor…and that would be conceding far more than what’s reasonable…said ball bearing, according to the article, and there is nothing in the article to directly contradict this…is at rest currently.

Seems this guy’s “trajectory we’re on now” statement relies on 1) somehow that global temperature will get moving again, because we were on Al Gore’s favorite upswing fifteen years ago, and it’s the pause that is the aberration; and 2) once that kick start is accomplished — Hooray! We’re still doomed and stuff! — this prediction of many degrees upward over the next century will be fulfilled without a hitch and without further backpedaling or course-correction so that the ecological Armageddon can either happen, or appear on the horizon so we can point at it and freak out. Something that has never happened in this relatively recent past during which time various lefty politicians, Hollywood bigmouths and scientists of questionable repute were practically begging it to.

On the other hand: Doctor Trajectory says the smart money is on exactly that thing, and who the heck am I to doubt him, not being a scientist myself. So yes, let’s go ahead and grant all this.

The headline “Global warming is happening is ’10 times faster than at any time in the Earth’s history’, climate experts claim” becomes correct? Not if the global warming that “is happening is” negligible at the present time. “Some scientists breathlessly anticipate the resumption of a global warming trend that could possibly eventually cause ten times as much warming than at any time in the last several million years” would be the more correct statement…now if you want to shorten it to make it fit on the page, my smaller “quibble” would be make it grammatically correct, and my bigger quibble would be don’t change the meaning.

I would expect we could achieve agreement on my bigger quibble: When abbreviating headlines, don’t change the meaning. Guess that’s hoping for too much.
- mkfreeberg | 08/05/2013 @ 13:41
Just realized: The titular question, posed by Goddard, assuming The Zachriel have ably represented the position being described in the article, has been answered.

Criminals.

- mkfreeberg | 08/05/2013 @ 13:46
mkfreeberg: Now, I know it says “other scientists,”

Which makes it immaterial to your original contention.

mkfreeberg: If we just concede the point and all come to an agreeable perception that the Earth mean temperature moves in a straight line, as a matter of momentum, like a ball bearing rolling across a smooth level marble floor…

That is incorrect. It’s a chaotic system with a trend.
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 15:20
As we mentioned above, you might want to check out the special climate issue of the journal Science.
http://www.sciencemag.org/site/special/climate2013/
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 15:22
The only reason I bring up “trajectory” is to highlight, yet again, how dishonest the cuttlefish are, both here and in the media. At some point, “some experts” went from “extrapolating from a trend line” to “global warming IS happening at an alarming rate.” When, of course, the actual, ya know, measurements say nothing of the kind.

Just as we can predict that the center fielder will catch the fly ball if all things remain equal.

But that’s not what the article headline says, and that’s not what the Zachriel are saying (insofar as I can parse their squid ink). Because of “trajectories,” we can somehow say that, despite no measurable warming in the last fifteen years, global warming IS happening at an alarming rate…. and so, even though the ball is currently over second base, the center fielder IS catching it as we speak.

Or maybe not, because “A baseball statement about trajectory would be “a line drive to right field”. Even in so common a currency as baseball, we have to use their exact terminology.

And then there’s this: “Have no idea why you think the scientists are claiming that the rate of change will drop to zero.”

Which is a straight out ass pull. We can’t seem to understand the plain meaning of simple English sentences when it suits us, but from an analogy about baseball we can infer that I somehow believe that scientists are making a claim about something dropping to zero. Because the glove stops the ball, you see, and therefore….

Sheesh. Crimestop, anyone?

(It’s cute, too, how they always signal a discharge of squid ink by lapsing into that pronoun-less telegraphese. The opposite of the royal we they use when they’re feeling extra-pompous).

But still: At least the main question has been answered. They’re criminals. Pretty much what I figured.
- Severian | 08/05/2013 @ 17:07
Severian: The only reason I bring up “trajectory”

The reason to bring up trajectory is that it is part of the original article, a quote from the scientist under discussion. You still may want to check out the latest in the journal Science, including the original paper by Diffenbaugh & Field.
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 17:51
The reason to bring up trajectory is that it is part of the original article

Hmmm… I’m pretty sure I know the reason I brought it up in my comments, thankyaverymuch. I’m also pretty sure I know what I mean when I say “the ball is in center field” and so on.

Perhaps if you spent less time instructing others how to think, your arguments — such as they are — might be a bit more convincing.
- Severian | 08/05/2013 @ 22:31
Trajectories.
- mkfreeberg | 08/06/2013 @ 02:41
No arctic ice by 2013, eh? How’s that working out?

Meanwhile, ’round where I live, we’re experiencing a bout of summer temperatures 10-20 degrees cooler than average. Which means — eeek!!! — that next summer will be 20-30 degrees colder, and summer 2015 will be 30-40 degrees colder, and… what’s that? New Ice Age?

Well, obviously. Because, trajectories.

It does fit in nicely with the Manichaean, obsessive-compulsive leftist worldview, though. All present trends must continue. A law once passed cannot be repealed; a program once enacted cannot be dismantled; a sort-of-god must be worshiped as such forever. The important thing is never to pause, never to reflect, and certainly never to change course… because that implies being wrong, which is the one thing liberalism exists to prevent.
- Severian | 08/06/2013 @ 07:01
Severian: thankyaverymuch

You’re welcome.
- Zachriel | 08/06/2013 @ 07:02
mkfreeberg: Trajectories.

That’s funny. You link to a blog which links to an article in a newspaper sports section whose author refers to unnamed “credible scientists”. Most recent scientific estimates for a nearly ice-free Arctic are for 2030-2040, but there’s still significant uncertainty.

Overland & Wang, When will the summer Arctic be nearly sea ice free?, Geophysical Research Letters 2013.
- Zachriel | 08/06/2013 @ 07:14
Severian: thankyaverymuch

You’re welcome.

Woo hoo! We’re finally down to endgame. Let me save you the trouble:

Last!!!
- Severian | 08/06/2013 @ 07:16
[…] they blow it for their party and for their agenda, more than for the country; “Are These People Idiots, or Just Criminals?” … […]
- Steynian 486rd | Free Canuckistan! | 08/15/2013 @ 07:12

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

“Are These People Idiots, or Just Criminals?”Saturday, August 3rd, 2013

“Are These People Idiots, or Just Criminals?”
Saturday, August 3rd, 2013