No, not how much I will write now, but the approximate value of the two pictures I will post, using standard conversion rates.
(see Eli's place for source and commentary)
(this one from Global Warming Art)
But don't let your lying eyes and faculties of reason fool you, we are on the cusp of a new ice age!
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Eli Rabbett coined the usage "to Rasool", to refer to the practice of attributing papers to just one of the authors in order to target the only author mentioned:
A very famous paper by S. Ichtiaque Rasool and Steven Schneider in the early 70s modeled the effects of aerosols on global temperature.…
Well, Goggle reader is a great tool, but it sure has a way of shaming you when you let your daily reading slip...especially for a couple of weeks. Of course I subscribe to many other blogs and feeds. but Michael Tobis' In It for the Gold is not one I like to just "mark all as read" when I get…
Commenting on my last post, Karl thinks PZ and I have missed the boat:
Janet said
"Science isn't just putting forward a point of view, it's inviting the audience to check it out and see how it holds up. Nothing for sale -- the audience already has the critical faculties that are needed."
no! No!…
A reader wrote:
I am a recent reader of your blog Stoat. I am very interested in the Climate Change issue but I am not a scientist. I read Joe Romm, Island of Doubt and General news about the subject. You are the first expert I have come across that seems to have a balanced opinion on climate…
There you go again, trying to fool us with your elitisty librul "facts" :)
Besides, everyone knows the world is only 6000 years old, so the graphs must be bogus. But I enjoyed the colorful pictures.
http://www.amazon.com/Assault-Reason-Al-Gore/dp/1594201226/ref=wl_it_dp…
Birger Johannson, it's hilarious that that fat polluter Gore calls his book 'The Assault on Reason'. Truth in advertising!
coby, your first graph is based on an extrapolation from the second. The second graph is based on the notorious 'hockey stick' (the inset). And the 'hockey stick' has long since been disproved. So every single one of your 2000 words is balderdash.
Nice try, though.
mad the swine evidently cannot read even the simplest of words.
Which of the hockey sticks represented in figure 1 (You see the citations embedded in the upper left & central part of the picture) are you referring to in your newspaper article?
Not even a decent try. 2/10.
mad the swine,
You're obviously much smarter than me, so please explain why a hockey-stick is always the shape of the wrong answer?
[H/T to Scott Mandia]
I wouldn't worry about 'mad the swine'. He's a well known blogger who hawks his opinions at multiple sites - I think he is woo, because he always says completely rediculous and controversial things no matter where he posts.
And of course, you can see how rediculous he is right here. He takes the standard denialist line of thinking that a newspaper article somehow disproves legitimate science. And no-one with an IQ above 50 agrees with that line.