Monday, February 04, 2008

Global warming skeptics claim Patriots win Superbowl

I don’t want to call attention to skeptical web sites by actually linking them from this site, but the usual suspects in global warming denialism have homed in on a new target- the Superbowl champions.

The gang of 397.5 is now claiming that the Giants didn’t actually win. And to support this stance, they have trotted out all of their tired old canards:

  • By truncating the data at 2 minute warning, a Patriots win is obvious.
  • Satellite measurements suggest that the 4th down rush failed to exceed the space-based error margins for a first down.
  • Increased, undetectable solar irradiance dazzled Tom Brady, and the Giants’ D had nothing to do with his performance.
  • The Giants victory is a conspiracy perpetrated by rent-seeking sports journalists who are selfishly trying to increase interest in the dullest Superbowl of all time in order to justify their hegemony of the sports infotainment industry.
  • The Manning brothers score regularly on Mars, Titan, Pluto, and many other planetary bodies, so game winning passes here on Earth must be caused by some mysterious exotic power which should constitute interference with the football game.
  • Millions of years ago, football scores were both much higher and much lower than in tonight’s game.
  • Common sense demands that a team which makes up less than 0.05% of the population of Hudson County can’t possibly be responsible for upsetting the greatest sports franchise on Earth.
  • In-con-ceEEEEEI-vable.*
  • The consensus view that the team with the most points wins is a self-fulfilling delusion perpetrated by the opaque fraternity of peer review.
  • By cherrypicking away all of the Giants’ scoring plays, the game becomes a Patriots shutout.


* I don’t think this word means what they think it means.

9 comments:

Julia said...

Wonderful satire Chuck - I shall link to this in my Superbowl write-up. Wasn't it an atrocious game?

Callan Bentley said...

Awesome!

hahajohnnyb said...

Lame commie propaganda.

andrew said...

Brilliant.

Chuck said...

I only saw the second half (The game starts mid-morning Monday down here- so my viewing was constrained by my lunch break). But it was awesome football (Disclaimer: I played D line in high school, so low scoring slugfests with lots of sacks are my idea of Nirvana).

Johnny, I'm assuming that you've never been to a bona-fine communist country (modern China doesn't count), and are using the term in the reflexive manner of a sheltered ignorant American.

MJC Rocks said...

Thanks for pointed satire. I've linked to your site, and a paper copy adorns my office door.

Julian said...

This? Is sheer genius.

Thermochronic said...

As a Chicago Cubs Fan I find your suggested approach to determining the winners of sporting events very intriguing. Can I call the last 99 years part of a normal trend, really nothing to worry about?

Neil' said...

Yeah, LL, this is a cute and revealing satire. Too bad the GW/AGW skeptics keep purveying their influence. Do keep in mind that AGW traditionalists must keep on their toes about issues like the subtlety of CO2 compared to H2O absorption spectra, lower versus upper atmosphere effects, various ironies, etc.

As for the game itself, it was great football. About whether you can see the nano-scale details in that physics-of-football video trophy mentioned at http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/29/win-the-smallest-trophy-ever/, here is a reminder showing my reply there:

~~~~~~~

No, Lab Lemming, we can beat those traditional limits of resolution. Google for near-field microscopy and look at the pictures of fine detail (way less than 1/2 lambda.) The whole idea is, you get a scanning probe so close to the sample that the intensity received is from the proximity. Imagine patches around 50 nm that emit cyan light around 500 nm. The tiny probe (about that diameter) with a sensor at the tip (roughly speaking) gets close to the patch and more photons are absorbed there. It is not imaging in the conventional sense, that is why we can “see” finer detail than per traditional formulas based on numerical aperture, lambda, optical medium. So my challenge remains.

See http://www2.chem.ku.edu/rdunngroup/new_page_6.htm.


These spatial resolution limitations have been well known for some time and, not surprisingly, led many to begin exploring alternative ways of achieving higher resolution optical measurements. Early in the 20th century, Synge published a series of visionary papers in which he proposed a new type of optical microscope designed to circumvent the limitations imposed by the diffraction limit. This remarkable collection of papers details the foundations upon which the modern day NSOM is based.