Absolute Zeros

 

First, the weather:

I would note that neither Rick Kirkman nor Jerry Scott live in a part of the country that actually sees much of what I would call "cold weather." We've been grazing 20 below (Note to overseas readers: that's F) this past week, so today's Baby Blues is a nice bit of timing.

On one hand, then, I'm taking "It's Freezing!" with a grain of salt. And I say that as someone who has been wearing not only long pants and long sleeves but sometimes a couple of layers of them. And wool socks. And a stocking cap. In the house.

On the other, it happens that I remarked the other day, in a conversation on Facebook about school closings, that you can tell when it hits 30 below because the kids put on jackets.

When I was newspapering in Maine, I covered a school board budget meeting at a very rural district, in the course of which the cost of utilities came up. 

People who criticize school budget increases seem to think districts can simply decide against them, but reality intrudes when it comes to things like the price of heating oil.

However, one board member asked the high school principal about turning down the heat a bit, given that it tended towards a balmy 70 degrees in the building.

She said it was more like 68, but that they had to keep it somewhat high because the kids didn't wear sweaters. Or bring jackets.

This provoked a bit of consternation, starting with someone asking if it was because they didn't have locker space and someone else noting that, since one of their other issues was declining enrollment, there were plenty of lockers to go around.

Then someone else observed that the kids indeed could be seen in the morning waiting for the bus on some more-than-frosty-days in their shirtsleeves, and the principal said most parents had finally given up nagging them to dress more appropriately for the weather and so had she.

To which the board suggested that she turn down the thermostat and see what effect that had on fashions.

It's important to note that the consternation was more in the way of chuckles and head-shaking than of anything approaching high dudgeon. This was a small town and the board was budget-conscious but not hostile to the vagaries of youth, especially youth to whom they were related.

The thermostat, however, did get turned down.

 

And now, a different topic: Climate

Adolescent fashion choices traditionally tend to be a bit silly from an adult perspective. We have a right to expect more sensible thinking from our fellow grown-ups.

Well, expect all you like, folks. Just don't expect to see your expectations fulfilled.

I observed yesterday that the yahoos were posting their "it's snowing, so global warming is a hoax" cartoons again.

These things really do bring up the eternal question "Is he a knave or a fool?"

It's not hard to see how someone who hadn't thought it through might have posted one, perhaps seven or eight years ago, but their persistence argues strongly of either blatant, barefaced dishonesty or a frightening ability to avoid rational thought.

Nick Anderson makes a rather blunt comment on the phenomenon. I noted the other day that there is a line to be drawn somewhere between mockery and actual argumentation and I'm not sure about this one.

That is, I'm willing to concede that there is a point where the stupidity becomes so overwhelming that you can hardly be expected to mount any sort of rational riposte.

I'm also okay with the idea that spreading the notion among the public that people who say this are stupid might help make holding the opinion less acceptable.

I simply question its efficacy.

A certain type of person considers this sort of contrarianism to be a sign of standing up against the eggheads. All the eggheads, or, more precisely, 97 percent of the eggheads. Persuading them that it is not simply an egghead theory could take some of the shine off their prideful rebelliousness.

But it's not as simple as stupid people thinking stupid things. Stupid people are being purposefully directed to think stupid things.

One example is the ice jam in the news, which is to say, the climate-change expedition that got caught in ice down in the Antarctic.

The propagandists of the right are joyfully crowing over the fact that the mission was to study "global warming," and there is at first glance some irony, but it would take an intelligent person all of about 90 seconds to realize that nobody has said there is no longer any ice in Antarctica, and that you should learn the distinction between "climate" and "weather" well before you enter the seventh grade. 

The mission statement of the expedition should, in fact, be of some comfort to the skeptics, since it is, itself, highly skeptical as good science should be. They are going down there to compare data with data collected a century ago, as well as to collect more long-term data made possible by newer technologies.

Which doesn't matter to True Believers, of course.

Which invincible ignorance may reduce Drew Sheneman's more rational commentary to simply a matter of preaching to the choir.

Advancing this type of argument, though, could conceivably arm readers with a tool to use in discussing the topic with people who have absolutely no intention of changing their position regardless of how intelligently you make your point.

Which is to say, experience argues against bothering to try rational debate.

There is a point, Dear Reader, at which you have to decide who is the bigger fool, the invincible ignoramus behind the wall of impervious myth, or the person standing outside shouting at the thick, locked, airtight door.

But as long as the tragically gullible are not barred from voting, it's important to continue to try to persuade them to think.

Those graphs are from NASA. You know, the group that lied and said it put a man on the moon, and refuses to explain why the computer stopped.

 

 

Sigh. Never mind. Here's the best cover I know of the best song I know about futility. It's not about giving up. It's about knowing the odds, picking your fights and taking care of your own head in the meantime.

Cela est bien dit, rèpondit Candide, mais il faut cultiver notre jardin.

Comments

[Hildigunnur Rúnarsdóttir]

wow - that's almost -30°C

We never see those minus degrees in Iceland at all, I was once in -40°C in Norway. Eyelids freezing together and such.

Don't envy you people!

[Sherwood Harrington]

Fun fact unless you experience it: at -40 degrees, there's no need to follow the number with a letter.

[Mark Jackson]

Not unless one intended -40 degrees Newton, Réaumur, or Rømer. (Kelvin and Rankine are excluded by the negative sign, unless something unnatural has been done to the energy distribution.)

Why yes, cabin fever is setting in. Why do you ask?

[Mike Peterson]

By the way, there's a fellow at the dog park whose mother was from Iceland (Dad was USAF) and he's probably in his 40s. He visits every year and reports that, when he would fly back years ago and pass over Greenland, it was white. Now he looks down at rocks.

[Hildigunnur Rúnarsdóttir]

Well it's still pretty white (flew over 3 years ago on my way to Boston) but yes, I suppose you can see the difference :/