This morning we stand only a day away from a major snowstorm hitting Indianapolis. Funny thing is...we are several days into Spring. Yep, so far this year the weather has been the opposite of last year. The temperature on St. Patrick's Day was in fact some 50 degrees cooler than it was last year.
Of course the alarmists now admit they are wrong, right? Not a chance. Now we are told this colder than average weather and spring snowstorm is just "weather" and it has no meaning. Climate change refers to long-term changes after all. So why wasn't it "weather" last summer? Facts are inconvenient things for the alarmist crowd.
Of course, you also have those who actually try to incorporate the colder, more snowy weather into their global warming theory. Better yet, they just start calling it "climate change" and that way they don't have to exert any effort explaining how global warming can make the planet cooler.
Of course it's all nonsense. Last summer's very hot temperature and drought was weather. Tomorrow's snowstorm will be weather. The climate changes - and it always changes - happen over very long periods. You have warming and cooling periods that last hundreds of years, often millions. A 140 year snapshot of weather records - which is how long we've been officially keeping such records - is nothing. For humans to try to gauge the direction of the climate by their own lifetime experience on this 4.5 billion year old planet is like picking up a tiny grain of sand on a beach and concluding the chemical composition of the entire beach based on analyzing that one grain.
It is entertaining though when cold weather and snowstorms cancel global warming hearings in Congress. Earlier this March was not the first time that happened.
5 comments:
It's more like Global Worming or angling for other people's property & cash.
Paul:
You're confusing weather and climate, again.
Climate is long term; weather is minute/day/month by minute/day/month.
There is no disagreement over global warming (unless you count the paltry 24 peer-reviewed articles out of 13,950 total climate change articles).
http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart
And don't pretend that this links to some liberal writer. James Powell was a Reagan (gasp!) appointee.
If you can't do better than collusion or fraud to prove you case, you don't have one. There's a professional or ethical lapse with regard to what's supposed to be "science." "Scientists" we know (family & friends involved in climate research) don't want to discuss Climategate. The topic quickly turns to "let's talk about something else."
P.S. CO2 is not a pollutant:
junkscience.com/2012/08/20/how-to-kill-the-manmade-global-warming-hoax/
Pete: Your "argument" is invalid on its face. Just because something occurs naturally in nature doesn't mean it's not a pollutant. If you leave a hot, steamy one in the river that supplies our drinking water, yes, you are a polluter.
Post a Comment