FiveThirtyEight Throws Out An AGW Challenge
Posted on July 19, 2009
Over at FiveThirtyEight, True Believer Nate Silver is a wee bit upset about something John Hinderaker wrote about the cool period in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which John compared to the Year Without A Summer (1816,) which, yes, is a stretch. Nate goes to lengths to point out, the average temperature has been pretty much right on the historic average of 82.4, and, too add my two cents, I would like to point out, the very warm period during the 1930’s and the warm period starting in the 1980’s have certainly skewed the average temperature up a few degrees, particularly since so many monitoring stations are in sub-optimal sites.
We can certainly get into the whole “it’s always cold or hot somewhere” debate. There were quite a few days up in Jersey, where my parents live, that have been below normal. We have had quite a few days where it has been below normal here in Raleigh (and will be for the rest of the month, if the weather forecast can be trusted.) But, old debate, and the True Believers seem not to understand that weather creates climate. Let’s not confuse them with reality, OK?
Anyway, Nate throws out a challenge, and here are the rules:
1. For each day that the high temperature in your hometown is at least 1 degree Fahrenheit above average, as listed by Weather Underground, you owe me $25. For each day that it is at least 1 degree Fahrenheit below average, I owe you $25.
2. The challenge proceeds in monthly intervals, with the first month being August. At the end of each month, we’ll tally up the winning and losing days and the loser writes the winner a check for the balance. 3. The challenge automatically rolls over to the next month until/unless: (i) one party informs the other by the 20th of the previous month that he would like to discontinue the challenge (that is, if you want to discontinue the challenge for September, you’d have to tell me this by August 20th), or (ii) the losing party has failed to pay the winning party in a timely fashion, in which case the challenge may be canceled at the sole discretion of the winning party.
Well, that is an interesting bet, is it not? But, I have another challenge for Nate and any of the folks who believe Mankind is the sole cause of global warming…wait, I’m supposed to call it climate change, because it now encompasses when it gets cool and when it snows. The challenge is this:
- Live the lives as extolled in the official book of Al Gore’s Live Earth travesty “The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook: 77 Essential Skills To Stop Climate Change,” available for $11.21 at Amazon. The book is simply mostly old tried and true real environmental ideas, turned into AGW ones. (I make no money on any click of that link, Climahysterics. Amazon cut off North Carolina residents.)
- Trade in any vehicle you drive that gets less than 30 mpg highway and get one that fits into Al Gore’s notion of what a “green” car should be (not that he does the same.)
- Live the life
That’s it. Not so hard, right? If you truly believe Mankind is causing global warming, er, climate change, then you should do everything you can to reduce your carbon footprint. No, no, the fact that it will cause you hardship and lots of money is immaterial to the challenge. You have no problem with all the legislation harming others and costing them money (and jobs,) so, come on, walk the talk. Who will take the challenge? How about you, Firedoglake?
Oh, and if you want a really hard challenge, create a weather forecast model that can predict the next 10 days with 90% accuracy. Because, if you look at today’s 10 day outlook, it will barely resemble what actually happens. And weather creates climate. Climate is simply the averages of things like temperature, precipitation, highs, lows, etc, stretched out on the long term.
Finally, Jazz Shaw, who I usually disagree with, has an interesting take on Nate’s challenge, and what is going on with the climate. Well worth the read.
Oh, and Nate should remember; those who believe Man is the cause blame everything on AGW.
(Just for clarity, I do believe that the climate has warmed up, starting at the end of the Little Ice Age, and we had big spikes in the 30’s, and a longer spike starting around 1980. While the temps have flat-lined, and even gone down, over the past 10 years, there is still a chance they could start going back up. Or, start going way down. Why? Because nature does what nature wants to do, as does the Sun. It’s not Mankind.)
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove
» Filed Under AGW hyposterics, Agenda based science, Debate, Global Warming, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, Liberal World, News, Science/pseudo-science, Social Engineering, Socialism, environmentalism
Trackback URL
Comments
2 Responses to “FiveThirtyEight Throws Out An AGW Challenge”
Leave a Reply
You are one sick puppy!
How dare you inject true/actual logic, common sense, and most appallingly facts into any discussion of AGW.
Mankind IS the cause of climate change. If we had not invented instruments and devices to measure selected elements of weather we would not know that long term weather patterns (climate) vary over long periods of time.
There’s a distinct difference between the terms climate and weather. The fact is that every 125,000 years like clockwork, the Earth’s temperatures and CO2 levels rise – only to fall back to previous levels. The graph of this based on scientific observations is startling in it’s simplicity.
If we keep falling into the trap (as I’ve just done) of having a discussion about climate, instead of the real motivation behind this, then we will fail.
Everyone knows that this legislation is only for the collection of even more taxpayer money for the enlargement of liberal government. We’ve already lost this argument just as we’ve lost the argument about health care just by accepting the assumption that health care is a “right”. And every single time we open the door just a crack to the liberal salesman, we end up with another ever enlarging, ever growing government run disaster which will be blamed on Republicans(and paid for by future taxpayers) at some point in the future.