Okay, I’ll be quick here. I have no interest in engaging anyone about the science of global warming, if it is a danger, and/or if we caused it. I have my ideas on this and I am sure you have yours. And for this moment, that’s all well and good. Right now, all I want is a little sanity.
A snow storm is not something to point at and say, “See, global warming is not real.” Most of you damn well know it, too. That is as sensible as someone saying, “See global warming IS real,” during a mid-August heat wave.
Global warming does not mean we no longer have weather or seasons. It does not mean the temperature does not dip below 70 degrees ever (Fahrenheit by the way. Screw you Celsius!). Global warming is a lot more complicated that just “things are hot.”
So believe in global warming or don’t. Think it is our fault or not. For now, I don’t care. But please, please, please, please stop citing cold and snow in December as evidence that it is not real.
Thank you.
(And no, this is not directed to anyone in particular or in reference to any article or TV show in particular. This is just a chestnut that always gets trotted out when things get cold and winter-y and I’ve about reached my tolerance capacity for it.)
How about a call to stop citing cold and snow in December as evidence that global warming is real? There are people (scientists) doing that you know.
Ah, Tim, Tim, Tim. I can understand why you might be a bit surly to be on the heavily handicapped side of the debate when a big snowstorm hits, but don’t you realize it’s your side that instigates the chestnuts?
You might think it’s silly to point to a snowstorm as proof that global warming is false, but don’t you think it’s even sillier to point to the snowstorm as proof in favor of the global warming conclusion? Especially when for rebuttal, all us reactionary anti-global-warming-alarmists have to do is cite your side’s arguments from just a few years earlier, when trends were going a different direction.
You see Timmy, you’re calling on a moratorium from a debate that only your side wants — and from the other side of its mouth, keeps insisting is already over. On our side of the debate, we’re simply pragmatists: if it feels colder, go put on another layer; and if it’s too warm, take off your sweatshirt.
In conclusion, stop pretending only one side is being unreasonable, and your COTW might not come off like a weak, backhanded, smug clump of horse manure.
Oh, I almost forgot:
You’re welcome.
That is as sensible as someone saying, “See global warming IS real,” during a mid-August heat wave.
Like the New York Times and Time magazine did?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/science/earth/15climate.html
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2008081,00.html
Wow…goodness! So much excitement here. Where to begin?
All right, well, let’s start with the one that really hurt. Please don’t call me Timmy, AMLTrojan. Tim is fine. Timothy is fine. I’m just not a fan of Timmy. Thanks man, I know I can count on you to be respectful about that.
Second, the whole “winter proves global warming” thing. From what I understand, the argument goes that climate change/global warming alters weather patterns in a way that the produces shorter but more stormy/brutal winters. But I certainly understand that, on the face of it, it does seem a silly argument.
Third, I am sorry that I did speak specifically for or about the fella who wrote an article in a British newspaper in 2000 predicting the end of snow forever. Lo and behold, people on both sides are hyperbolic.
Fourth, putting on or taking off clothes is in fact a pragmatic response to the current temperature. I am sure that those who believe in global warming would tell you that, long term, this does not really address their overall concerns about what it is doing to the planet.
Fifth, to JD’s articles, I would argue that those do more than say, “hey it is July and it is hot” by putting it in historical context, citing arguments against as well, and so on. But I get your point and again I say, me walking out of my house in August and finding it hot is not an argument for global warming.
Fifth, I am sorry if you felt this was a “weak, backhanded, smug clump of horse manure”. I would never pretend that I do not, on occassion, assume a smug persona when I write. I did not think I was doing it here, I actually thought it was more of an agitated tone but, if it came across that way, that is an error on my part. Mea culpa. And thank you for pointing it out in a rather unsmug way. As for the rest of the statement, there is not much I can say. It was written rapidly so perhaps I did not properly invest enough time into and that accounts for its weakness. Backhanded…not sure about as I think I was pretty straightforward in my statement, but, again, perception is reality. As for horse manure, see my response to weakness.
Finally, if I gave the impression that I felt global warming should not be debated at all, I apologize. It should. By anyone who wishing to. I only meant that the use of “it’s cold right now. Global warming is a lie!” be removed from the back and forth as it is specious and a gross reduction of the complexity of the issue as it can be cold in winter and the world can still be experiencing increasing temperatures overall. As near as I can tell, no one who has responded thus far has actually taken issue with that idea.
Overall, thank you for the feedback and I hope I have clarified things a bit.
Fun fact! I think my response is actually longer than my original piece!
Timissimus – feel free to ask those of us who consider science to be important to ignore it in discussions of the Cult of AGW … please try not to be surprised when we decline the hiding, however …
When *both* hemispheres of a planet get colder at the same time, it’s sorta hard to let the Cultists get away with their lack of scientific rigour …
I know that, where I am currently visiting (West Coast of Scotland) tidal levels aren’t perceptibly higher – and the ‘Bridge Over The Atlantic’ at Clachan Seil has not yet become the ‘Bridge *Under* The Atlantic’ in spite of all those glaciers melting as they keep telling us …
Other than that, have yourself a Healthy, Happy, Prosperous (and hopefully fact-filled) New Year !
Funny how Alasdair claims that the scientists who base their opinions on mounds of peer reviewed scientific data are the cultists, and idiots like him who cherry pick stories and look for minor quibbles to conflates as major holes are the scientifically minded ones. You have a strange and unique definition of science and cult dude. It must be fun living in a fantasy world where reality is decided based on your omen whims and not, you know real data.
Who should I look to for reasoned advice on global warming. Educated men and woken who perform experiments, analyze climate data and devote their careers to uncovering truths, or some random Internet troll with a history of extreme partisan bias, reality distortion and absolute unwillingness to adjust his views in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence? Tough call…
OK Timothy (mind if I say, “TIMMAY!”?), based on your response, I’ll beat my sword into a plowshare for now. Perhaps I read too much into your tone. Still, my main point is this: While I can respect wanting to remove “it’s cold right now. Global warming is a lie!” from the debate, it behooves you to recognize that people have been shouting “it’s cold right now. This proves global warming!” from very high places — far higher places than any global warming skeptic is permitted to shout from. As much as you think the former is absurd, so is the latter.
David K:
You haven’t been paying attention. The reason the pro-AGW scientists are able to base their opinions on mounds of peer reviewed scientific data and the anti-AGW scientists can’t is because the pro-AGW crowd control access to the peer review process, and peer-review each other incestuously. We have access to e-mails in which they gleefully discuss this process.
The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz19d3wkmod
Piers Corbyn not only predicted the current weather, but he believes things are going to get much worse. He says there’s a mini ice age coming.
http://www.datelinezero.com/2010/12/22/theres-a-mini-ice-age-coming-says-man-who-beats-weather-experts/
I can’t speak to the science behind either of those articles, gahrie, but I have no problem with the approach as a critique/response to manmade global warming because it is more than, “it is currently cold.” It puts it in a historical context and uses science to predict/describe this as a trend. It is considerably more than, “How can there be global warming when it just snowed.”
gahrie #10 – kudos to you for trying to convey sense to our resident davidkian Projecting Party ad hominem sap …
Tim # 13 – what David K (and apparently yourself, too) seem to miss is that so many of us are basically saying “OK, so it’s record cold in Europe *and* it’s record cold in the US *and* it’s record cold in Asia *and* it’s record cold in Australia FFS ! How can there be Global Warming when way more than half of the entire planet is having record cold ???” … cuz that’s what folk with frozen fundaments planetwide are saying/asking …
In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.
http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us
gahrie, it’s better than that: the author that told us polar bears were in danger of dying out due to having to swim long distances has been placed on leave as his work is being investigated for “integrity issues”. Meanwhile numerous reports since his report came out in 2004 show that polar bear numbers at modern highs, and numerous science journals have recorded polar bears regularly and successfully swimming distances of 400-600 miles for food.
…But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story!
Beat me AML…I was just about to post that story.
This just proves he was telling the truth! Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers (remember them?) have obviously paid off BOMER or whatever it’s called. I mean… four dead polar bears, dude. How can you argue with that? How can you argue with SCIENCE????
From the AP:
“The recent suspension of Alaska wildlife biologist Charles Monnett is unrelated both to an article that he wrote about presumably drowned Arctic polar bears and to his scientific work, a federal official said Friday.”
The official is the head of the agency that suspended him. So, let’s all not jump to conclusions.