The shortsightedness of using short term trends

The good thing for those interested in reality, is that arguments about short tem trends only last for…um short terms. The bad thing for the denialism movement’s argument recycling machine is that they can’t rely on copy/paste, or at least shouldn’t!

Check out Things Break for a rather amusing example of this. Morano recylces a moronic argument about how sea levels are falling, which was true on the uninformative timescale of 2006 to mid 2009. But he amusingly links to current data[PDF] which shows that temporary lull is over and 2006 has been surpassed.

Also in that article is the resurection of Pielke Sr. claiming that arctic sea ice is increasing. Given the fact that Pielke is a trained climatologist, is there any interpretation of his statement that leaves him any integrity?

I prefer to respect the arguments of people with relevant degrees, but can anyone defend this?

53 thoughts on “The shortsightedness of using short term trends

  1. In the 10th century CE, the intellectually elite confidently predicted Armageddon by the end of the millennium.

    So? They also thought they could treat pneumonia with bloodletting.

    You see, there’s a difference between that and modern science.

    Finally, no one is predicting Armageddon, much less with an exact date of the event.


  2. … except for those twits who made that “2012” movie đŸ™‚

    Yes, I’m joking. Joseph’s answer to David’s tale of Christian Millenarianism is 100% correct. If there’s *any* lesson for the modern world to be learned from that, it’s “Don’t listen to people who claim to have messages from God”.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s