This is not from The Onion, but from the Associated Press (HT: Drudge):
A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was
called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann
Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to
be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered
frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained
the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.
"Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part
of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.On Monday, the pair was at Canada’s Ward Hunt Island, awaiting a
plane to take them to Resolute, Canada, where they were to return to
Minneapolis later this week.
Bancroft, 51, became the first woman to cross the North Pole on a
1986 expedition. She and Arnesen, 53, of Oslo, Norway, were the first
women to ski across Antarctica in 2001.But the latest trek got off to a bad start. The day they set off
from Ward Hunt Island, a plane landing near the women hit their gear,
punching a hole in Bancroft’s sled and damaging one of Arnesen’s
snowshoes.They repaired the snowshoe with binding from a ski, but Atwood said
the patch job created pressure on Arnesen’s left foot, which led to
blisters that then turned into frostbite.Then there was the cold — quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then
Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the
temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside
temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said.
That seems pretty cold. The school children are going to be so disappointed.
The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school groups
by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with photographic
evidence of global warming. In contrast to Bancroft’s 1986 trek across
the Arctic with fellow Minnesota explorer Will Steger, this time she
and Arnesen were prepared to don body suits and swim through areas
where polar ice has melted.
But just in case you were thinking of adding this data point to the skeptical column:
"They were experiencing temperatures that weren’t expected with global
warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global
warming is unpredictability."
That’s the true Onionesque part of the story. See, it’s all about the science. The model is perfect. There are no outliers to be explained, no data that doesn’t fit the model. Really hot? Global warming? Really cold? Global warming! It’s a very powerful theory that explains everything.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 31 comments }
As with all pure conspiracy theories, every evidence against the theory actually strengthens the theory. That's one of the qualifying definitions of a real conspiracy theory.
The Onion could print this verbatim and it would fit right in with the rest of their material.
That's been one of my peeves too. Global warming is blamed for hot weather, cold weather, even restless leg syndrome!
If you want the REAL "Inconvenient Truth," here it is, in very compelling fashion:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638
Well of course, not only when it's hotter than usual it's the global warming at work, but also when it's colder than usual, and when it's the same bloody thing as it's always been, welp, that's the global warming too.
And anyone who dares question my claims is a skeptic infidel who's wrong before he even speaks.
We need William Shatner to chat with gaia again so the "companions" can take there little hike and preach to the commie-lings.
#1 new pickup line at my kids highschool:
"Do you read books"?
Something else that bugs me is the monopoly of the "trained climate scientist" title; before we even knew there was a "climatology" branch of science there was those ghostly 'approved climate scientists' writing thousands of reports and being unequivocal.
I mean, anyone is entitled to discuss what is the correct public policy to stop this global warming bogeyman, but only a few chosen ones seem to be allowed to discuss it's existence, or even it's significance for other fields of science.
This may be a more persuasive source of global warming hype: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?pagewanted=1&8dpc&_r=1
The pole dancers ,I mean treckers, should have prought some of algore special vodka:
http://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1126
I saw an article the other day that predicted both water shortages and an increase in malaria due to global warming. I laughed out loud.
It will, of course, rain more where it's already wet, and less where it's already dry; it will become colder where it's already too damn cold, and hotter where it's too damn hot.
That's because global warming isn't a natural expression of the forces of physics, it's Gaia's way of expressing her anger at mankind's polluting ways. And Gaia don't cut no slack, Jack.
Morgan,
The universe is oblivious to us; Gaia too. It existed eons before us, and will outlast us as well.
There is no reason why you should classify the actions of humans as less natural than the alterations made by those of other species or herbage in light of the universe POV, which by the way, doesn't have one.
Get off your anthropocentric horse.
"That's because global warming isn't a natural expression of the forces of physics, it's Gaia's way of expressing her anger at mankind's polluting ways."
I've got a plan to hit Gaia with a meteor and then hang out by the impact crater to give myself super powers, since we're promoting nutjob theories.
Bonus nerd-cred points for catching the reference.
Irony, folks. Irony.
LiveScience.com had an article about how both Pluto and Mars were warming and yet many scientists still scoffed at those who questioned the anthropocentric view of the source of it on Earth.
I wish it wasn't so politicized and that policy wasn't instantaneously attached to outcome (even if wrongly so), but I suspect a Julian Simonesque approach will prove to be right in the end.
Sorry Morgan, it must be something in this polluted air thats not letting me think clearly.
Russ,
It is true that the newspapers print asinine articles, the AP article being an example. But does that necessarily rule out the possibility that global warming (whatever its cause) can lead to more extreme climate?
However, not every instance of anomalous behavior should be attributed to global warming in a knee-jerk way which is what the AP article did.
"I mean, anyone is entitled to discuss what is the correct public policy to stop this global warming bogeyman, but only a few chosen ones seem to be allowed to discuss it's existence, or even it's significance for other fields of science."
I don't agree. Anybody can discuss global warming but not all their opinions can (and should) be assigned equal weightage. Do you agree that the debate -which has its origins in science- will ultimately be settled only by "climatologists" (which incidentally is a very loose term and includes scientists with varied backgrounds who are working on this problem) and not by rock stars, sportsmen or politicians? By debate, I mean the debate over the causes of global warming and not the debate over how to do something about it ,if it turns out to be a very serious problem. As this blog has pointed out in an earlier post, scientists may not be the best people to decide how to do something about it.
The fact that Cafe Hayek is more insightful than a lot of articles in the media might have something to do with the fact that Don and Russ are economists by profession.
Russ,
It is true that the boy constantly cried wolf when there was no wolf. But does that necessarily rule out the possibility that wolf might come one time?
I don't think today's society would countenance sacrificing a virgin to appease Gaia. Maybe we can appease her by purchasing carbon credits or something.
Sanjiv;
No of course I agree that the Fisherman is not as apt as the rocket scientist to comment on the validity of a climatic change theory, I was referring to Al Gore and the likes use of "Climate change scientist" to give credibility to a science that no one had ever heard of 10 years ago.
And while we're at it, I'm not sure economists are the best the decide what policies we should apply either; if we were to blindly listen to the Pigou Club's nut jobs I don't think our situation would improve at all, and these guys represent the majority in the field of economics..
Python,
I agree with you.
Boy => AP article
Wolf => global warming
The story tells us the following:
Boy => low credibility
The news item tells us the following:
AP articles on global warming => low credibility
In response to David White: Shallow retort *take notice of the first comment*
I also enjoyed that "documentary". However, that link above does poke some holes in the fun. What really bothers me is that the holes they are attempting to point out are more aesthetic and the "environmental zealots" are using this is a form of opprobrium. Sad, sad.
Mikie,
Based on the long list of replies to the retort, the hole that is poked into is the presumed scientific consensus about global warming.
So let the games begin in earnest.
David,
I just can't believe people's first impulse is to try and find a larger aggregation of scientists than someone else as proof for their "cause" as opposed to actually sitting down and thinking about it for themselves. Scientific debate has turned into this ignorant "pissing" contest. I am sure Don and Russ feel this on the economic end as well… *sigh*
A bit from a NY Times piece on the Al Gore movie:
Still, Dr. Hansen said, the former vice president’s work may hold “imperfections” and “technical flaws.” He pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States.
The last sentence reminded me of the joke that economists have predicted 9 out of the last 5 recessions. The Global Warming theory, then, has the predicting power of Macroeconomics.
from the article:
"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."
Let's see: extreme cold at the North Pole during winter. That's not unpredictable, it's normal.
Russ, that's what global warming said you were going to say.
"But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."
There we see it, the worst effect of global warming: No more of that predictable weather weather we have all come to know and love!
while i can see where you are going with this, and how global warming will become a bone of contection for politicians trying to win polls….. the fact is, we live in an ecology of balance, and when we tip the scales a bit too much, it will balance itself by tipping us off… its immaterial who uses global warming to form a conspiracy theory and who claims its just a hoax…. somewhere between this tug of war, truth is dying a death…. and with science being the newest poster boy
This was certainly not the first polar expedition ever cancelled due to equipment problems. Your commentors suggests global warming eliminates weather, it won't. Overall trends continue however, –
Scientists: Dramatic sea ice loss by 2050
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/07/low.ice.ap/index.html