Global Warming? My A$$ Its Cold Outside

Using that logic let's talk again in August when it's 100+ and I guess global warming will be back on track.

It is amazing that despite the scientific evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming people use a cold spell as evidence that glonbal warming is false. The first three weeks of the 2013 calender year where all well above average, that doesn't prove or disprove climate change either. The long term trends we are seeing in both temperature and precipitation patterns are what should be disturbing people.

all my east coast peeps in the snow, i'm in the socal equivalent - rain.

it's insane, some people drive no different, others drive like they're in a blizzard. this morning, there were probably about 20 drivers who cut in front of me, into the healthy cushion i had created, only to immediately brake.

It is amazing that despite the scientific evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming people use a cold spell as evidence that glonbal warming is false. The first three weeks of the 2013 calender year where all well above average, that doesn't prove or disprove climate change either. The long term trends we are seeing in both temperature and precipitation patterns are what should be disturbing people.

You do know that its no longer called global warming because it works better when they can blame every weather condition on whatever they call it this week.

Rather than bicker about something I can guarantee not a single one of us is much of an expert in (based on the level of discourse here lately) I would encourage everyone to do some research on the issue. There is plenty of reading to do the theories of global warming (which is almost definitely happening) and it's causes. Try and read up on both sides of the argument and see what you think. And negative points for anyone who uses any specific weather occurrence or short time period weather state as evidence of anything.

Rather than bicker about something I can guarantee not a single one of us is much of an expert in (based on the level of discourse here lately) I would encourage everyone to do some research on the issue. There is plenty of reading to do the theories of global warming (which is almost definitely happening) and it's causes. Try and read up on both sides of the argument and see what you think. And negative points for anyone who uses any specific weather occurrence or short time period weather state as evidence of anything.

I just like picking at the global warming nuts. Ops, sorry climate change.

How we know Global Warming is real (http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/how-we-know-global-warming-is-real/)

Although I see how it's now being used as a bludgeon by the EPA to enforce some odd rules.

How we know Global Warming is real (http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/how-we-know-global-warming-is-real/)

Although I see how it's now being used as a bludgeon by the EPA to enforce some odd rules.

Facts. I love them. This is dead on.

I find it interesting that it's actually thermal expansion of water that causes sea level rise, and not the melting of ice caps.

Grabbed this off Michael E. Mann's ( an American physicist and climatologist) facebook page. I'm a weather nerd so this is right up my alley. Sorry it's long.

Some additional thoughts about terminology: "Denial" vs. "Skepticism" in the Climate Change Debate.

This is a topic I explore in some detail in my book "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars" (http://bit.ly/sRasaq (http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2FsRasaq&h=zAQGbrfXU&s=1)), particularly in Chapter 6, "A Candle in the Dark" (which pays homage to Carl Sagan's masterful discussion of true skepticism vs. fake skepticism/antiscience/denial in "The Demon-Haunted World").

My view is that far more damage is likely done to the discourse on climate change by pretending that those who deny the existence of the problem are simply "skeptics" and labeling them as such (or using similar euphemisms). Doing so simply provides cover for bad faith attacks on the science, and potentially leads those in the middle (or are much more likely to be be potentially part of any meaningful progress in climate change mitigation) to stay on the sidelines rather than engage, believing that the threat has been exaggerated or overstated.

Work by Ed Maibach and others (see e.g. this piece: http://www.minnpost.com/environment/2011/11/why-arent-we-more-worried-about-global-warming (http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.minnpost.com%2Fenvironmen t%2F2011%2F11%2Fwhy-arent-we-more-worried-about-global-warming&h=XAQH9fHRm&s=1)) has shown that the single greatest obstacle to progress on this issue is in fact the belief by those in the middle that scientists are *not* in agreement" on the reality of the problem, despite the overwhelming consensus that actually exists.

Allowing the forces of antiscience to continue to frame themselves as "skeptics" plays right into that fallacy, and arguably does far more damage than alienating those who actively deny the science (what are often referred to as "climate change deniers") by calling them out for their denial. Yes, deniers don't like being called deniers (just as fools don't like being called fools, etc). But not calling them out for what they are is potentially a far greater threat to progress than alienating those who are (a) unlikely to change their mind and therefore (b) unlikely to actively work toward any truly meaningful mitigation efforts.

It is telling in that regard that President Obama yesterday in his Inauguration speech chose to call out those who "deny" the science of climate change despite the overwhelming evidence. This implies that his administration, his advisers and speechwriters, etc. have come to the same realization: That the continued denial of the problem by some poses a far greater threat than does offending those who are engaged in that denial, and unlikely to be part of any meaningful solution (i.e. carbon emissions regulations).

Yes, I am a denier.

Facts. I love them. This is dead on.

I find it interesting that it's actually thermal expansion of water that causes sea level rise, and not the melting of ice caps.

Not too sure where I stand totally but I have read enough to know this...the entire debate has been politicized and there is unbelievable bias on each side. Too often "facts" on each side are not actually real facts but suppositions masquerading as facts. The facts seem to be this...warming is happening although its extent is debated. Why that warming is happening isn't positively known. Those who believe it is caused by humans base there beliefs on models. Models made by humans...who believe in man-made warming. Even they'll admit the models aren't right. How wrong they are matters. If they're just wrong in terms of degree then they're basic theories are correct but skeptics accurately point out that only one of the myriad of reasons they believe the models are wrong has to be right to totally invalidate the theories. Alas, some more reasonable skeptics make some good points. If you're a denier then you're definitely wrong because the skeptics don't have more scientifically proven causes either.