Have you ever noticed that we see more of these stories and opinion pieces when weather events do not help the “climate change” narrative? Here’s anti-science Ian Steadman at the New Statesman
The weather and climate change are not the same thing
One of The Armstrong and Miller Show’s better sketches opens with a couple sitting in their living room on a rainy day. The man tuts, gestures to the window, and asks: “Whatever happened to global warming, eh?â€
“Stop!†a voice-over demands. “From 1 October, if you say, ‘Whatever happened to global warming, eh?’ whenever it’s a bit cold or wet, you could be cooling off – in jail.†It’s a simple gag about the kind of bore who doesn’t understand the difference between weather and climate.
The confusion between the two is sometimes deliberate and sometimes not. The wilfully ignorant came out in force recently, reacting smugly to the plight of the 74 passengers on board the MV Akademik Shokalskiy, a Russian research vessel chartered by the Australasian Antarctic Expedition (AAE) that has been stuck in ice since Christmas Day. On 2 January, 52 non-essential crew members were successfully evacuated from the ship.
Yet, when it’s warm, when a hurricane occurs, when there are tornadoes, and “Indian summer”, etc, these same Warmists come out in force proclaiming that this weather is proof!!!!!!!!! of climate change. Heck, they now blame cold weather and snow on “climate change” caused by greenhouse gases.
Yet one localised incident does not disprove the vast body of evidence demonstrating that the world is heating up, decade by decade. This kind of propaganda trick is no different from a creationist using a missing link in the fossil record of a single species as “proof†that the entire structure of evolutionary theory is flawed.
On one hand, Ian is correct. The Earth is certainly in a warm period. But, Skeptics are not arguing against a warm period: we’re arguing about causation. Warmists proclaim that it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind. Skeptics argue that it is mostly/solely natural. Warmists proclaim that the Arctic will completely melt. Yet, this year the Arctic was above previous years, when we were told it would be ice free in the summer. This was the least active tornado year on record. There have been no major hurricanes making landfall on the US since 2005, the longest time since the Civil War. Only one barely-a-hurricane to make landfall since 2008. This decade has been one of the snowiest on record (so far). What was drought is now wet. 4 of the past 5 winters were really cold, and this year looks to be shaping up into an average winter. None of this is supposed to happen, according to Warmists. So, yes, Skeptics highlight all these weather events, because we were told the opposite would happen.
The models predicted the opposite. They did not predict the 17 year pause. They did not predict that there would be no warming, in fact slight cooling, during the 21st Century. Climate is the long term effect of weather. 17 years is a long term.
Anyway,just remember to remind Warmists that weather is not climate when they start trotting out weather events when it gets warm.
The Pirate typed:
“The Earth is certainly in a warm period. But, Skeptics are not arguing against a warm period: we’re arguing about causation .
Warmists proclaim that it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind. Skeptics argue that it is mostly/solely natural. Warmists proclaim that the Arctic will completely melt .
Yet, this year the Arctic was above previous years, when we were told it would be ice free in the summer .
This was the least active tornado year on record . There have been no major hurricanes making landfall on the US since 2005, the longest time since the Civil War . Only one barely-a-hurricane to make landfall since 2008. This decade has been one of the snowiest on record (so far).
What was drought is now wet. 4 of the past 5 winters were really cold, and this year looks to be shaping up into an average winter. None of this is supposed to happen, according to Warmists .”
And does any of your irrelevant gibberish refute the theory of AGW? Nope. Still warming. Still because of CO2.
So, Jeff, what is the acid that is causing the ocean pH to lower, last answer was not right. And how does CO2 get to the upper atmosphere and cause the greenhouse effect without increasing its concentration at lower levels, again, last answer was wrong.
“Does any of your irrelevant gibberish refute the theory of AGW?” Why, yes it does. Because all those things listed that didn’t come true were supposed to be the effects of “the warming”. If things don’t happen the way your theory said they would happen, time to change your theory. “Still warming because of CO2.” J, I see below that you have trouble answering people’s valid questions. Surprise. So does (quoting Mark Steyn) “self-appointed Nobel Laureate Michael Mann, who the other day was before the Virginia state Supreme Court explaining why he shouldn’t have to release the scientific data behind his increasingly flaccid “hockey stick.” Jeffery, that’s what people do who have the data to back up their assertions, right? Hide it? The Ship of Fools sails on.
daisy beauregard duke,
And you’re still full of shit.
You answer the questions and I’ll correct your answers.
jl and the Pirate,
Please cite your sources for all the claims you made.
What person or what scientific bodies claimed no more cold, no more snow, no more winter, more tornadoes every year, more hurricanes every year etc.
Or is it the same hack writing for Newsweek in 1975?
Earth still warming because of atmospheric CO2.
Nice diversion, J. Please show the hockey stick data..oh, wait- it’s still in hiding. Probably till they can manipulate the data to match the “theory.” Please cite data (this is a weeks old question)that shows what percentage of non-existent warming is from CO2. 10%? 30%? 50%? I see you still have nothing.
“Or is it the same hack writing for Newsweek in 1975.” I see, it’s Newsweek’s fault, not the fakes they got the information from. Anyway, one of those hacks proclaiming a new ice age was James Hansen, the same Hansen who has now flipped sides and scare-mongers about global warming. July 9th, 1971- Washington Post: “US scientists see new ice age coming.” “……NASA research was supported by a computer program developed by Dr. Hames Hansen.” So the idiot had a faulty program then, and he still has one now. You can’t fix stupid.
jl,
Perhaps you could do some homework.
Hansen did NOT predict a coming ice age. Not even a little bit.
Many of conservatives’ beliefs are actually false, passed around from conservapundit to FOX to the cloistered conservative ignorati.
Please just tell the truth. Sheesh.
jl-
Huh? Are you now denying that the Earth is warming? That’s all the “hockey stick” is telling you – we’re in a period of rapid warming.
The data used for the proxy reconstructions (at least a dozen that confirm Mann’s reconstruction in 1998) are available if you’re interested in finding it.
jeff,
You do not have credibility. You do not understand the very principals of AGW and can not satisfy those of us that need your enlightened information in order to believe. Answer the questions.
daisy duke,
I’ve answered two questions and that is enough. YOU answer the questions. You’ve had 6 whole yrs of chemistry from LSU and claim to teach something to medical students.
You’ve demonstrated that you have no interest in understanding anything and only wish to play silly denier games.
Do you really think I’m concerned about whether the likes of you or the Pirate or the regular commenters here find me credible? Enough already.
Jeff,
You haven’t answered the questions. You don’t know the answers. You post here constantly and don’t care if anyone finds you credible??? Do you see a mental health professional? You may need more medication or a restriction on buying a gun, driving a car, etc.
david,
I specifically stated I don’t care if the regular commenters here and the Pirate find me credible. Other readers will decide if my info is credible or not. My objective is to point out the logical inconsistencies in the Pirate’s tales and to refute the added lies of his regular defenders. Not all the readers are as gullible or devious as you and the 2 or 3 other regular commenters.