Slate continues its trek towards Bat Guano Crazy, and is really upset over that study, which I’ve mentioned, about people really enjoying the wonderful weather created during the current warm period. Warmists like to blame it mostly/solely on the activities of Mankind (thought most refuse to give up their own outsized carbon footprints), Skeptics say it is mostly/solely caused by nature. Just like the previous Holocene warm periods.
It Doesn’t Matter If You Think It’s Nice Out
Our understanding of global climate change needs to move beyond our personal experiences of weather.It’s raining in Washington, D.C., as I write this, drops tapping out a steady beat that recalls the rhythms of my Oregon childhood. There’s something familiar about this weather, whatever its imperfections. Meanwhile, 1,100 miles to the southwest, a storm system threatens Dallas with tornadoes and massive hailstones. And in Maine, record April snowfalls blanketed the region just days ago. From my desk, though, these anomalies seem impossibly distant—problems that I might read about later but certainly won’t experience.
I am not alone in my easy ignorance. Research published recently in the journal Nature proposes that 40 years of seemingly pleasant weather may be blinding many Americans to the realities of global climate change. Explaining their work in the New York Times, the two researchers, Patrick J. Egan and Megan Mullin, write, “80 percent of Americans now find themselves living in counties where the weather is more pleasant than it was four decades ago.†For most of us, the winters are milder, while the summers remain temperate. Happy with the way things are, Egan and Mullin propose, we have little reason to consider that the clement weather we experience today may evolve into a harsher climate down the road.
So, don’t fall for this great weather! Because great weather is bad! And we’ll be doooooooomed soon! Our computer models, the ones that failed to actually predict the last 18+ years of the Pause, tell us so!
Cult of Climastrology member and article writer Josh Brogan wants you to forget all about how you feel, though
It may, however, be that weather—mild or extreme—has never been the right lens through which to consider climate change at all.
Trenberth is right, of course, that for many, the weather only truly registers when it is unavoidably bad, but even then it does not seem to persuade us to do something about it. There’s likely more at play here than the assumption of selfishness that underlies Egan and Mullin’s work: Weather is inherently confined by the local and immediate conditions of space and time, a question of what we perceive rather than what is. To talk about the weather is to talk about about where we are, what we’re feeling and experiencing, and not about the world that exists beyond our narrowly bounded horizons. In the same way that climate is long-term and weather is short-term, climate change is a global development, while weather names a more local and personal set of experiences. In that sense, focusing on it may actually blind us to the larger stakes.
Essentially, through the rest of the bloviating article, he wants us to think globally. OK. The rest of the world is tending to have great weather, too. No one is doomed from a minuscule 1.4 degree Fahrenheit increase in temperatures since 1850. The earth was not doomed when the temperatures were higher during previous Holocene warm periods. Warmists are welcome to go for it, though, and consider that their own use of fossil fuels and their large carbon footprints are killing Gaia, per their talking points. If they really believe this, they will act accordingly within their own lives. Why won’t they?
No Teach great weather is not “bad”
In fact it is quite good especially if you have a narcisstic personality and are self centered with no or little attachment to other human beings
Climate change will be much more easily felt with by the 1% of human beings on the planet that have incomes over $50000US
Now that 1.4 degree increase, Teach that is the average increase some areas are seeing double or triple, others none or even increasing cold
Well Teach we warmists ARE making changes in our own lives. We are electing leaders who are enforcing higher gas mileage on the free markets. We are electing leaders that demand less carbon pollution from power plants. All of those things have bigger impacts. And most of all we are educating others and changing public opinion. Now even most in the GOP recognize the problem
Check out the results of the Yale/George Madon poll
Rasmussen doesn’t even call cell phones only land lines
That skews towards older R voters who have landlines
One poll really means something but that other poll doesn’t?
Thanks, retard.
I’m an older R voter who doesn’t have a land line.
The average of the last six national polls (including Rasmussen) has Clinton ahead of Trump by 6.2%, 46.7% to 40.5%. The Republican pollster, Rasmussen, has Trump ahead by 2.
Both Clinton or Sanders lead Trump or Cruz in head to head matchups, nationally.
It’s amazing that as unlikable as Clinton is, the Republicans have found two candidates even more unlikable!
Interestingly, Kasich leads Clinton 47.6% to 40.4% (avg of 5 latest polls).
The most popular of all in the head to head matchups is Bernie Sanders!! If the parties followed the pollsters, they’d run Sanders vs Kasich: an unabashed liberal vs. and unabashed conservative.
But it’s early yet and the national campaigns are just beginning. Trump vs Clinton will be the ugliest campaign fight in a long, long time. And then Cruz picks Fiorina as his mate!!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
Nate Silver (he will tell us who will win each state before the 2016 election) has an interesting analysis of the state by state median family income of the primary voters for each major candidate.
Kasich………. $91,000 (the “traditional” Republican candidate)
Cruz. ………. $73,000
Trump……….. $72,000
Sanders……… $61,000
Clinton……… $61,000
(N.B. – The national median household income is approx. $56,000/yr).
Additionally, Silver details how poor Americans (< $30,000 yearly household income) do not vote for Republicans (which also explains why Republicans work to suppress poorer voters). If Dems could get all poor folks to vote the Dems would win every national election in a landslide.
Oops, here’s the Nate Silver citation…
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/
“Self-centered with little to no attachment to other human beings.” If you’re so worried John, then why would you want the poor of the world to pay more for energy, unless you’re a hypocrite? Guess I answered my own question.
It will be hard for Clinton to continue her campaign from a prison cell. Note that Clinton is having a very hard time running against a committed communist who is a nut. Trump has not polled well against her due to the large number of Republican candidates and the fact that only now he is emerging as the presumptive nominee. As to the poor coming out to vote, they are just as lazy in that activity as they are in all other activities.
dave,
Is Secretary Clinton in jail? I hadn’t heard.
Senator Sanders is not a committed communist and no nuttier than Trump or Cruz.
Trump has had one serious opponent the past month (the period covered by the polls). Do you understand the concept of a head to head poll?
The poor don’t have the luxury of free time that doctors do. Plus, they have to work for a living.