Thursday, February 11, 2010

Snow Daze -- here and there

Well, hell must be freezing over, or something like that. Washington DC is currently sitting under several feet of snow, and much of the business of government has been shut down, to the delight of various political persuasions.

George Mason University (Fairfax VA), where Youngest Son is a freshman, has been closed since Monday and will likely be closed tomorrow. Below is a photo from his window in the dorm (he hasn't ventured out too far).

Meanwhile, we are having a bit of inclement weather here in Texas as well. Here's a view from my front porch.

This of course has all the Global Warming / Climate Change doubters in a fine fettle. Expect more on this from my friend and sparing partner, the Whited Sepulchre.

Me? I'll let others have the snowball fight over that issue.


The Whited Sepulchre said...

Thanks for the shout-out.
But as you well know, I am no longer writing on the total farce that is known as....
....Never mind.

Can't go there.

Be careful. Had an employee break an ankle in the snow today.

Dr Ralph said...

I shouldn't tempt you like that after you've resolved to not talk about...well, you know.

My bad.

As messy as it is today, I expect an even bigger mess when it all freezes tomorrow morning.

Nick Rowe said...

The Whited Sepulcher who used to say 'Ni".

I'll say it though: individual weather incidents of heat waves, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, etc., have all been used repeatedly as anecdotal evidence of global warming.

Even if AGW exists, we could scarcely recognize it from isolated weather events. These changes take place over decades. Most people can't even properly estimate the real price of bread and gasoline over a decade much less tell you whether this year was warmer/colder than ten years ago.

Adverse weather conditions have contributed to a hail of pro-AGW confirmation bias.

First, we must dispel any notion that AGW can be observed by anecdote. Second, we must ensure the integrity of data collection and analysis of climate data. Third, we must use best statistical practices of causation to determine whether GW is actually AGW. Fourth, we must use rigorous cost-benefit analysis to determine whether measures to ameliorate AGW are feasible, admissible, and maximize net present value relative to alternative mitigation efforts and doing nothing.

That is science. That is how it should be done.

If AGW sceptics are enjoying this opportune blizzard - sauce for the goose.