with Peter Sinclair
The sun is down and it is dark. It mush be the end of the sun too. Simple minded idiots say the stupidest crap.
If he had a 1st grade education they would know better. in first grade you learn to read and quit coloring. some day this guy will grow up and see the real world. Spoiled rich brats never have to deal with reality. look a Paul ryan or ron Johnson. Neither one can dress themsleves
Seen it yesterday. This cannot possibly be a serious argument. St Louis from the 1970s vs global warming. Yeah, right.
As long as this silly stuff is paraded around, one can almost rest assured there is nothing to worry about.
No, O-Log, this doesn’t appear to be a “serious” argument. At least not AGAINST the idea of global warming, because it’s an ironic-sarcastic-humorous argument FOR global warming. But I forgot, you and the rest of the useful idiots don’t do irony very well.
The only thing to worry about is that folks like you are allowed to vote.
stupid unsecure people say the silliest and sickest crap. In Russia they do not have the same beleifs as American`s because we have educations. You must first be able to read and write to understand the global warming. bunker rats only know how to steal guns
And that goes for your first comment as well—whatever the heck are you talking about?
Dumb.o.g -the only possible serious answer to ‘it’s cold, therefore no global warming’ has to be ‘it’s weather not climate’.
The comics show instead an answer that is just as flawed ‘it’s warmer in St Louis’.
In a way, all the doubter would have to show is a place where it’s colder now than in the past. And so so and so forth.
In a way, there is a small dab of truth in “all the doubter would have to show is a place where it’s colder now than in the past”. But since we look at AGW as a “global” issue (Note the middle initial), we tend to look at the big picture while the denialists focus on local anomalies. And if that’s “all” they can do, they’ve done nothing, as this cartoon points out. To say nothing of the fact that it’s becoming very difficult to find “places where it’s colder than in the past”—-would you care to tell us about them?
And “so so and so forth” means……….???????
maurizio, true to form, establishes himself as the sole arbiter of what constitutes “the only possible serious answer” to a misinformed opinion, neglecting to recognize that it is exactly a climatology (albeit, localized) of cold days that is used to dispel the illusory perceptions generated by a few days of cold weather. Moreover. if one reads the mouse-over in the original xkcd comic, one can see that Munroe anticipates maurizio’s fatuous nonsense.
Deniers have an automatic reset that makes them immune to embarrassment over an infinite number of occasions where they put their foot in their mouth previously. That allows them to do it all over again with complete abandon.
It’s humor. Try incorporating some into your omnology.
Perhaps the WUWT cartoons about the Gore Effect are more to your liking.
I’ve been a victim of the Gore effect myself, soaked by days of unseasonable rain in Sydney in Sep 2006 as The Man came to town in the middle of a long drought during the driest season 8-D
Deniers often do not understand jokes. They reject irony, satire, and any of those forms of communication. Seriously. I am not making fun of it. There are lots of miscommunications due to this.
You’ve turned the point of this cartoon upside down, omnologos. It is in fact a serious argument – just not for what you think it is for. The point is that people are persuaded into ideas by what is known as the “recency” effect – that they are disproportionately influenced by their most recent experience – rather than by long-term data that might give a truer view of the facts, especially for long-term trends. It is not at all silly.
The distinction between climate and weather is not generally understood. The common misperception that global warming means that it shouldn’t get cold anymore, or that predictions of climate trends should also allow us to predict specific weather and even specific weather events like damaging storms, are also being addressed by this cartoonist.
Incidentally, I think he’s the consistently funniest cartoonist since Gary Trudeau, though the occasional excursions into abstruse computer programming territory lose me, and, I imagine, a wider audience for him.
If global warming is real,then why are there still monkeys,huh?
Ha ! I knew that would trip you up!
and the answer isn’t ‘there’s a monkey in st louis’ zoo’ :)
No, O-Log, just as the answer isn’t “because there are still bananas” either.
So do we all agree that the ‘you’re from st louis’ argument is silly?
Otherwise we might as well answer to a creationist saying ‘evolution is right because Darwin said so’
No, there was nothing “silly” and no “argument” on this thread until you arrived, and all I can say to your Darwin reference is——SAY WHAT?
Global warming isn’t demonstrated by the number of cold days in St Louis or anywhere else. Am not sure why it’s so difficult to get something so simple and obvious agreed upon around here.
Not at all, maurizio.
Because an example that is supporting evidence for a non-linear, yet robust, global phenomenon is not falsified by any single counter example, and because what Darwin said concerning evolution is demonstrably true.
Factionalism is alive and well, I see.
Global warming is not demonstrated by the number of cold days diminishing here or there or all over the place. Please find me any scientific article that claims that.
As for Darwin, my analogies are seldom understood ’round here. Evolution is correct but it is not correct because Darwin said it was correct. Evolution stands on its own scientific ground.
Hence it will be silly to answer to a creationist by replacing their dogma with another dogma. Likewise I can assure you, even if all the US cities had demonstrably shown an increase in the number of cold nights, still that would NOT disprove global warming.
Global warming is about an increase in the global temperature anomaly across many, many decades. This has happened whatever the individual local temperature trends in whatever season.
Omnologos- What you are arguing is basically a strawman,because the cartoon is not saying that the trend in St Louis since the 90’s proves AGW,it is just a way of putting the “It’s cold outside so NO AGW” argument in a larger context to show what a dumb argument that is (which I assume that you would agree with).
The author obviously accepts AGW as the last frame illustrates,but he isn’t trying to prove it based on St. Louis alone.
Global warming isn’t is demonstrated by the number of cold days in St Louis or anywhere and everywhere else. Am not sure why it’s so difficult to get something so simple and obvious agreed upon around here through maurizio’s thick skull.
demonstrated by the number of cold days in St Louis or anywhere else. Am not sure why it’s so difficult to get something so simple and obvious
“Global warming is not demonstrated by the number of cold days diminishing here or there or all over the place. Please find me any scientific article that claims that.”
They’re still growing them stupid in some places in Louisiana. I wonder where Senator Julie Quinn was born and raised? Is she related to Walsworth?
One of the most striking pieces of evidence for speciation is found by examining the entity known as Rattus bunkerus, for this species alone has acquired the characteristic of knowing how to steal guns.
The woman seated behind the teacher covers her face in disbelief at the senators remark…that says it all!
Did you follow the links or google and view the remarks by Senator Quinn (who is very proud of the fact that she is a lawyer and talks about scientists having “all those little letters after their names”). The “teacher” that responded to her BS did a lot more than cover her face with her hands—-she ripped her a new one..
If you do watch Quinn in action, you will add a JFC! to your OMFG.
can you point to that?
Like David Duke, Ms Quinn is from my district. It’s deeply embarrassing.
[…] From xkcd.com […]
Thanks for the Hansen link jp
So the other guy in the comics still has 90% of land surface to mention. No wonder Steven Goddard has such a prolific output.
You’re welcome, maurizio.
Is that a tacit admission you were wrong? You’re so vague. I’ve come to understand it is a feature, not a bug in your communication style.
Diarrhea sufferers also have a prolific output. Goddard, like yourself, may be said to have diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain. I trust you’ll have no problem understanding the analogy. (irony alert)
It remains a fact that global temperatures, max min & ave, are the result of averaging discreet measurements from many particular locations, St. Louis being one. There exists no platform from which a snapshot of the entire globe’s temperature may be taken. You and ‘the other guy’ would be well advised to consider the other 90%.
I swear he farts in his porridge all day and publishes the results…
Is “porridge” like oatmeal? Oatmeal tastes and smells pretty bad even without anyone farting in it.
Very interesting to see how omnologos is just not getting the joke. Maybe a certain type of person simply can’t understand this kind of joke.
I mean, one can agree or disagree about whether something is funny. For instance, the AGW cartoons drawn by a certain Josh are very popular amongst WUWT aficionados, but I personally don’t find them particularly funny most of the time. I get the jokes, but I don’t find them funny.
But this is not about disagreement funny or not funny. The joke simply isn’t understood. Fascinating.
Thank you, omnologos.
Part of the problem with denialist attempts at what they assume is “a real knee slapper”,is that really good humor is rooted in reality (hyperbole at times,but true at it’s core). It reminds me of when Fox news tried to create a conservative Daily Show copycat,and failed miserably. No truth,no funny.
looks like everybody knows the joke but few bother to demonstrate they can see the joke
xkcd says “you see the same pattern all over” – we know that’s (1) not true and (2) irrelevant. (1) because global warming doesn’t manifest itself everywhere in the same way – Hansen and everybody else all agree on that point. (2) because global warming exists even if some places get warmer and other places get cooler.
Somehow this is supposed to be “funny”? To me it sounds like somebody saying “if I was” and the other correcting “no, you should say ‘if I where'”. They are both wrong.
Worse, one of them in this case did bother to look at statistics in Climate Central, but did not understand the “global” bit.
ps I can see that xkcd’s focus is on his frustration at people using any snowflake to say there is no global warming. I just don’t understand why you’d want to leave him in his mistake though.
Oh dear. All over again. Probability and statistics. “Global warming is not demonstrated by the number of cold days diminishing here or there or all over the place. ”
Actually, temperatures have probability distributions. When the mean changes, the extremes change.
” I can assure you, even if all the US cities had demonstrably shown an increase in the number of cold nights, still that would NOT disprove global warming.”
Yes. Thats true. Because US cities are a tiny sample of the global temperature. US landmass is less than 2.5%. But I don’t think thats what he meant. Now if he would only explain that to DB, JDS, etc.
“Global warming is about an increase in the global temperature anomaly across many, many decades. This has happened whatever the individual local temperature trends in whatever season.”
Hold it. Did he just agree GW exists?
It’s been on my blog since 2007
Why then make arguments against GW? Arguing in our spare time? Its well and good to make a point of order, though well thought and researched, free of logical fallacy.
it’s a fallacious argument. the fact that it may or may not reach the same conclusions as a good argument, doesn’t make it any less fallacious.
Be specific. The it’s in your sentence means what? Also. Please answer. Why argue GW if you accept it?
I do not understand why people are so factional. Even if I have no doubts about evolution, if somebody came along stating evolution is a fact but using bogus reasons, I would still tell him/her that those reasons are bogus.
Anybody “on your side” for the wrong reasons will ultimately undermine your argument.
He’ll probably call this inhuman or some such garbage, but I too have noticed that vagueness is part of omnologos’s character make up. He reminds me of a politician.
no, the vagueness is mandatory to steer away from futile polemics.
No one reads your blog. Try publishing a paper – Now THAT would be a joke
eheheheh…in a way, this blog is good to monitor if there ever be the occurrence of a rabid greenie able to show humanity to his/her fellow humans, instead of gratuitous, content-free abysmal attempts at insulting, in ways that are totally unrelated to any ongoing discussion.
No much evidence as yet. But one never knows.
O-Log is a “fellow human”? Somehow I had gotten the impression that he was some kind of endlessly looping robo-program inserted into our lives by some fiendish denialist hacker—-you know, to lower our collective IQ’s as we read and try to decipher O-Log’s “stuff”? One never knows.
What irony. Testable content is what I’m challenging you to offer in a scientific paper.
“xkcd says “you see the same pattern all over” – we know that’s (1) not true and (2) irrelevant.”
(1) ‘All over’ does not mean everywhere without exception. It means minimally ‘wide-spread’, or, maximally and likely in this case, ‘most everywhere’.
(2) Why that’s relevant.
3) the pattern referred to is cold weather leading to a rise in “so much for global warming” comments, despite said cold weather being a normal event in relatively recent past (in location x) but not so much now.
A corollary, it’s nearly the end of January & here in the south of the UK I have had to scrape the ice off my car before work only once this winter. Which shouldn’t be an argument for anything in the global context but is.
jp – please understand the difference between “at city level” and “on a continental basis”.
Data smoothing ought be outlawed.
“Data smoothing ought be outlawed”?
Apparently stochastic noise is sacred to maurizio, and any effort to remove it is criminal. Why? Because doing so lays bare the scurrilousness of his assertions.
maurizio, I would say, please understand that continental and global statistics are the cumulative result of localized measurements. If the pattern indicated by the globally accumulated statistic were not reflected in the great majority of local data, (they are, as I’ve demonstrated) then there would be a real problem (there is not.) The difference is neither a quantitative nor a qualitative distinction no matter how much you push that fallacy, but merely a difference in scale. I’ve politely made that point three times now, and you have repeatedly failed to understand. You are abusing my patience.
You display a pattern of persistent disingenuousness. Not to put too fine a point on it, that makes you a liar.
Sorry if you find that insulting, but it is a demonstrable fact.
No jp this discussion only shows irony isn’t you guys’ forte and you personally still don’t understand what “global” and “regional” mean (the only two levels of interest to the IPCC).
But you like to find solace in calling a stranger a “liar”…as with Stephen it’s part of the inhumanity that accompanies the tragedy of being a greenie.
For the record it’s not smoothing that should be outlawed (ahr ahr) but people should really be discouraged to see finer details than the smoothing allows. The IPCCers are aware of this and never ever mention the city level trends, whatever they are. For some reasons cartoonists find it necessary to go beyond the IPCC. Go …figure (pun).
There was an article in an ieee magazine years ago ironically showing how people were deceived by visualizations. It’s still valid.
Ps all xkcd had to do was to write “you’re from planet Earth, right?” and show a global trend.
WHAT? I couldn’t find any translation service for Omnologese. Does anyone here speak it well enough to interpret the following?
“For the record it’s not smoothing that should be outlawed (ahr ahr) but people should really be discouraged to see finer details than the smoothing allows”.
Is the inserted pirate laugh (“ahr ahr”) anything like an umlaut?
The key to Omnologize is understanding maurizio will grasp at any rationalization, no matter how incoherent, in order to minimize the risks associated with anthropogenic climate change.
He is trapped in the throes of denial, no matter how much he may deny it.
I have the entire ipcc ar5 wg1 on my side, what have you got?
Hint: whatever the regional trend, it is always possible to cherry-pick many stations that show a trend in the opposite direction, on an individual basis.
Careful maurizio, the ipcc ar5 wg1 is fairly specific. You wouldn’t want to get involved in any of the futile polemics that specifics cause, now would you?
So, though I doubt you will be forthcoming, I’ll put it to you:
Seeing that you have the ipcc ar5 wg1 on your “side” (which implies that there is an opposing side), what specific argument of yours does the ipcc ar5 wg1 support that we here are opposed to?
I was talking to jc, not to a whole community. My dispute with him is around the use of the words “you see the same pattern all over”.
I am saying that such a statement is incorrect. The global warming pattern is visible at regional/global level, not in individual cities. IMHO, and for the IPCC too, it actually makes no sense to try to spot global warming in this or that weather station’s measurements. IOW the pattern is there whatever the individual underlying trends.
Still waiting to read otherwise.
This may explain why we never get to a discussion of science. And here I thought only alarmists displayed dogmatic tendencies.
“No jp this discussion only shows irony isn’t you guys’ forte and you personally still don’t understand what “global” and “regional” mean (the only two levels of interest to the IPCC).”
The irony here is that you willfully fail to understand your (faux) argument is not scientific, but a blithering display of rhetorical semantics. As in, ‘a distinction without a difference’. Global=the sum of regional=the sum of local. Without due consideration of local statistics, regional or global statistics would not exist; for the IPCC or anybody else. This is like a game of whack-a-mole, wherein the mole adamantly refuses to acknowledge being whacked, despite the evidence of his bruised and bleeding skull. In the field of ironic studies, this is known as the Black Knight syndrome.
Not so ironic is your effort to flip others’ observation of your inability to ‘get irony’ on them. It is just more of your M.O. of resorting to juvenile psychological projection, which we have seen so many times before.
Whether it is a stranger lying or one’s own mother lying, one is still being lied to. You are still a liar. Seeing you are unlikely to be too stupid to understand your prevarications, you are likely lying to yourself as well. That is what folks in denial do so well.
Jp – any luck in finding such high reasoning in the ipcc’s output or anybody else’s? Last time around we discovered a whopping 90% could be (incorrectly) used to demonstrate no major heatwaves have been hitting the planet.
I repeat – you do not understand statistics. Individual stations’ trends are combined by the ipcc at regional and global scale. There is no chapter telling us the relevance of each trend.
C’mon, pull the other one.
I’m so glad that jp has reminded us of the Black Night Syndrome. It IS very well known in the field of Ironic Studies, and I am somewhat embarrassed that I hadn’t thought of it myself, since I am a certified telepsychiatrist.
(And “a blithering display of rhetorical semantics” has a nice ring to it).
The trouble with you telepsychiatrists is that no provider offers the self-call facilities you’d sorely need.
Peter provides all the facilities necessary. You sorely provide all the ‘self-calls’ needed for a prognosis.
As it is said, thanks for playing.
I always have a sympathetic ear.
Wait…telepsychiatry is dumboldguy’s specialty. Please help him. Really ;)
Just go right ahead and laugh it off, maurizio … that’s the ticket.
Hey wait. I thought I already bestowed him the “Black Knight of Denialism” award. Can we make it official?
Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
"The sharpest climate denier debunker on YouTube."
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 1,614 other followers
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.