Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Lightning Tornado Photo





Here's a great natural photo making the email rounds, with some not so natural stories. The top photo is the original, the bottom is a version I received. Something about the angle of the photographer relative to the storm and the oil derrick didn't seem right, so I went checking. Sure enough Snopes explains this photo has been around for almost two decades, popping up to give appropriate warning for whatever storms have been happening lately. It's another instance of humanity making up the stories it needs.

7 comments:

alex said...

"It's another instance of humanity making up the stories it needs. "
Like the claim, here, http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080206170159.aspx where Sen. Kerry Blames Tornadoes on Global Warming

ScienceAvenger said...

No, not at all like that. Kerry's conclusion is one based on the science of AGW, which may or may not be true. Still, it is intellectually grounded. The myths that grow up around the lightning picture are not. They are fictions woven and rewoven out of whole cloth from imagination, and based on a problem at the time.

Now it is true that AGW deniers are intent on claiming AGW is just like that, but the thousands of papers in the scientific literature on the subject speak volumes otherwise.

Alex said...

Why did you blame AGW deniers instead of some sloppy thinking by SOME AGW proponents? Look at all these things that get blamed on Global Warming:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Even if 15% of this list are made-up stories or not applicable to AGW itself, the fact is that a good number of AGW proponents are "making up stories it needs."

My first post above was not a statement about the truth or falsehood of AGW; it was a statement about making up stories about what AGW supposedly causes -- to suit an agenda. It would be nice to hear you admit that it happens sometimes.

ScienceAvenger said...

Alex said: "Why did you blame AGW deniers instead of some sloppy thinking by SOME AGW proponents?"

Because thinking people know there are exceptions to every group, and to interpret every generalization as a "some" statement rather than an "all" statement, and I refuse to waste time typing out obvious, immaterial qualifiers.


Alex said: "Look at all these things that get blamed on Global Warming:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Even if 15% of this list are made-up stories or not applicable to AGW itself, the fact is that a good number of AGW proponents are 'making up stories it needs.'"

Wrong. AGW proponents don't need to make up stories because they have the science already. Second, it's an apples and oranges comparison. The lightning/tornado is an urban myth with a moral tale to tell. It desn't matter if its literally true or not, its the moral message that counts. AGW is science, which means it entirely matters whether it is true or not.

It doesn't matter if 99% of the stories about AGW were made-up. AGW would remain because the science remains.

Alex said: "My first post above was not a statement about the truth or falsehood of AGW;"

Bullshit. Every statement you make about AGW is intended to give the impression that it isn't true. If that weren't your agenda, your posting history would make no sense at all.

Alex said: "...it was a statement about making up stories about what AGW supposedly causes -- to suit an agenda. It would be nice to hear you admit that it happens sometimes."

Of course it happens sometimes. I once again am astonished that you think a statement as mundane as "less than 100% of the stories attributed to AGW are true" is worth getting your panties in a twist over.

Now stop wasting my time with this pedantic and downright childish nonsense. It's the intellectual equivalent of correcting typos.

alex said...

"Bullshit. Every statement you make about AGW is intended to give the impression that it isn't true."

Nah, I just want to shove your statement: "an unapologetic impatience for sloppy thinking" back into your face.

I'll take a break for a while.

ScienceAvenger said...

You shoved my statement about being unapologetically impatient with sloppy thinking back in my face by giving us yet another example of sloppy thinking? Yeah, I think a break is in order, we can only take so much gibberish.

Next time you post, try actually having, you know, premises followed by logic and conclusions, rather than drive-by Coulterish snarky non sequitors.

Doppelganger said...

But the picture IS pretty cool looking, 100% real or not...

To be honest, when I saw the oil rig version (the first one I saw) I made no connection at all to 'this is what we get from using all that oil', I just saw it as an interesting example of perspective (in the visual sense).

But that is just me.