A sign of the times

If this isn't considered proof positive of the anthropogenic global warming/scientific alarmist consensus, I don't know what is!


The above picture was taken yesterday, and, skeptic that I am, I have to admit that things are worse than the sign ever anticipated. The ice isn't just thin; it no longer exists.

As you can clearly see, the ice has melted away. To nothing except bare water (and very dangerous water at that).

What this means is that I can't keep up my skating-on-thin-ice act forever. Sooner or later, I'll have to admit it's gotten warmer, and then I'll have to go from pretending to skate on thin ice to pretending to walk on water, or whatever one does in a meltdown.

posted by Eric on 06.15.07 at 05:38 PM



Please clarify the nature of the sign:

- How recent an addition is this?

- The month is June: Is there some reason that this is being posted? Is there normally ice in June?

Neal J. King   ·  June 15, 2007 7:09 PM

Looks like a clear sign of increased solar output to me.

Although the trees look particularly healthy.
The extra co2 agrees with them.

Papertiger   ·  June 16, 2007 12:02 AM

Neal: while I can't speak with complete confidence, a sophisticated computer simulation run on the text of this weblog rates it very likely that Eric is making fun of you, personally.

Michael Brazier   ·  June 16, 2007 6:59 PM

Me I just write blog! I not make fun of anybody!

Eric Scheie   ·  June 16, 2007 7:28 PM

Michael Brazier:

Hence you note the rather tentative phrasing of my response.

It's not characteristic of my normal writing.

Neal J. King   ·  June 16, 2007 10:27 PM

But in any event, it doesn't matter.

I'm not writing to convince Eric.

Neal J. King   ·  June 16, 2007 10:30 PM

Basic incompatibility in philosophy. I don't see anthropogenic global warming theory as a scientific argument, but as a threat to freedom.

Eric Scheie   ·  June 17, 2007 12:58 AM


There are two completely separate issues:

a) Is global warming happening? and why?

b) What should human beings do about it?

Part a) is ultimately a scientific question. Coming to terms with it is something that should be influenced by no political philosophy or preference - socialist, fascist, pro-libertarian, free-market - none of this has anything to do with the scientific questions and issues.

Part b) is a policy and political-economic issue. All philosophies and preferences can come into play here: political philosophy, religious philosophy, economic preferences, etc.

But just as the answer to part a) does not dictate the answer to part b), the issues of part b) absolutely should not be brought into part a): all that does is muddy the waters.

Neal J. King   ·  June 17, 2007 7:30 AM


Bloggers aint supposed to have a sense of humor? Or was that your inner Sidney talking?

Alan Kellogg   ·  June 17, 2007 8:58 AM

"That coyote would be dead by now..."

J. Case   ·  June 17, 2007 6:16 PM

Alan Kellog & J. Case:

My comment immediately above was to Eric's:
"Basic incompatibility in philosophy. I don't see anthropogenic global warming theory as a scientific argument, but as a threat to freedom."

That doesn't sound particularly humorous in intent; nor do I see any sign of a roadrunner.

Neal J. King   ·  June 18, 2007 2:42 AM

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! dbklxjmitfrsec

twclnmzvvj   ·  June 18, 2007 8:40 AM

Post a comment

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Search the Site


Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link


Recent Entries


Site Credits