If you use cold weather to question global warming, then you're a fanatic. But if you use cold weather to support global warming, you're a reasonable person. Welcome to Global Warming Wonderland.
So I come inside from getting firewood, out of the coldest weather I can remember ever experiencing here in Kentucky, take my coat off, sit down at my computer to see about the latest news. And what to my wondering eyes should appear but a news story from Time magazine arguing that the extreme sub-zero temperatures are the result of global warming.
Now whenever I say anything on this blog that might even remotely suggest that cold weather occurrence might be disconfirming evidence in relation to global warming (whatever the positive evidence may be), the men on the chessboard get up and tell me where to go.
But when someone makes the opposite argument―that cold weather is confirming evidence for global warming―they don't do anything at all.
This is the curious logic of the global warming crowd: Warm weather is evidence for global warming and cold weather is evidence for global warming. In fact, any weather can be interpreted as evidence for global warming.
And if I ever get confused by this logic, I just remember what the dormouse said.
Curiously, these are the same people who will give you long sermons on how any theory that purports to be scientific must be falsifiable. Falsifiable theories, of course, must allow for falsifying data. Here we have a theory that not only does not admit any datum as falsifiable, but considers any datum to be a verifying case.
How, you ask, could the people who take this position not accept any particular weather event as even potentially falsifying and yet think their theory is scientific?
Go ask Alice, I think she'll know.
18 comments:
98% of the articles about the ships trapped in the Antarctic ice don't bother to mention that originally this was supposed to be some sort of global-warming mission.
It's all about maintaining the narrative, you know.
How many times, Martin?
It's called GLOBAL warming for a reason!
In fact 2013 was the 4th warmest year on record based on satellite measurements.
So how on earth does this weather disconfirm *global* climate change? We're having one of the mildest winters I can remember in Europe - so how does that fit in with your claims?
In addition, the article lays out in detail what evidence is used to reach the conclusion that this cold *weather* does not only not contradict current climate theory, but actually supports it.
Which part of the evidence don't you agree with?
Can you cite any research that would counter the arguments made in the article?
Climate is complex - the fact that you don't (want to) understand it doesn't mean that, just because you're cold in Kentucky for a couple weeks, global climate isn't warming.
'Falsifiable theories, of course, must allow for falsifying data. Here we have a theory that not only does not admit any datum as falsifiable, but considers any datum to be a verifying case.'
Complete, utter nonsense.
Here's two types of data that would falsify 'global warming' very, very quickly:
- A reversal in atmospheric temperature trend, showing cooling instead of warming.
- A reversal in ocean temperature trend, showing cooling instead of warming.
Unfortunately, we are seeing the opposite: As I said, 2013 was one of the warmest 4 years on record in terms of atmospheric temperatures:
http://www.newswise.com/articles/2013-was-4th-warmest-year-in-the-satellite-era
Huh...funny how that empircal evidence works, isn't it?
Singring,
How many times, Singring?
I saw a lot in your comment about a point I didn't make (that global warming isn't happening) and nothing about my main point, which was that global warming advocates were using record cold temperatures to confirm their theory that the earth was warming.
'that global warming isn't happening'
So you accept that global warming theory is accurate?
'...my main point, which was that global warming advocates were using record cold temperatures to confirm their theory that the earth was warming.'
I specifically addressed your (ironically) false claim that global warming cannot be falsified.
I also pointed out that the article gives specific, clear reasons for why the author argues that this weather phenomenon confirms (or at least doesn't contradict) current hypotheses in climate science - and they are most certainly not simplistic as you paint them: 'Cold weather therefore the earth is getting warmer'.
At least have the intellectual respect to engage the author on the argument he's actually making.
I asked you to point out specifically which part of the author's line of argument you disagree with and if you can provide any evidence to the contrary.
You didn't respond to any of those points.
So we still don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that this article employs 'curious logic' or that it argues for unfalsifiable theories.
For someone who bemoans a lack of logic, you show a curious dirth of logical argument yourself.
Singring,
So you accept that global warming theory is accurate?
I don't either accept it or reject it, since a) I'm not a scientist and b) I'm not as inclined to accept things on mere authority as you are.
Singring,
Can you give me an example of one weather event that you would accept as a dis-confirming instance of the global warming hypothesis?
...my main point, which was that global warming advocates were using record cold temperatures to confirm their theory that the earth was warming.
That's not what is being claimed. The article suggests that the cold spell is a result of overall warming, not that it is confirmation of the theory.
I don't either accept it or reject it, since a) I'm not a scientist and b) I'm not as inclined to accept things on mere authority as you are.
LOL. I guess corn really isn't grown in ND. And the earth may be anywhere between 6000 and 4,500,000,000 years old. No need to let facts get in the way of an affinity for the denial of reality.
Martin, do you think government authorities should uproot and/or burn all those plants whose geographic ranges are spreading slowly but inexorably northward (or towards higher elevations)? After all, this is one (of several) undeniable indicator of long-term warming. Since these plants fly in the face of conservative "sensibilities", shouldn't authorities be trying to erase the record of their existence?
Art,
I thought this topic might attract you.
The article suggests that the cold spell is a result of overall warming, not that it is confirmation of the theory.
Here is what the writer said: "... it’s actually one more bit of proof that climate change is real."
Can you tell me what the difference is between "one more bit of proof" and a fact or event that helps confirm a theory?
Lysenko, thy name is Singring.
Here is what the writer said: "... it’s actually one more bit of proof that climate change is real."
To what is the writer referring when he talks about "it's"?
b) I'm not as inclined to accept things on mere authority as you are.
LOL. Says the person who swallows an off-the-cuff remark made by a reporter.
98% of the articles about the ships trapped in the Antarctic ice don't bother to mention that originally this was supposed to be some sort of global-warming mission.
So, Lee, is it safe to assume that you do not believe that salt concentrations affect freezing points of aqueous solutions? That's what your comment implies.
If not, then perhaps you can explain the problem you think you see.
> So, Lee, is it safe to assume that you do not believe that salt concentrations affect freezing points of aqueous solutions? That's what your comment implies.
I think what my statement implies is that an important fact is being omitted from the news reports on the subject, and probably because it would tend to harm the warmists' agenda.
I think what my statement implies is that an important fact is being omitted from the news reports on the subject, and probably because it would tend to harm the warmists' agenda.
How does this "important fact" confound the reality of global warming? Please be specific.
> How does this "important fact" confound the reality of global warming? Please be specific.
That's as specific as I wanted to get.
But you ask for more. Here it is...
I'm fairly conversant with how the Left debates: it doesn't. The Left shuts down debate.
Whether through bullying and ridicule (as you and Singring demonstrate), or with defunding, or with threats and intimidation, or (as with the East Anglia scandal), stacking the peer reviews and getting people fired.
There might be a good scientific case against global warming, or there might not be, I have no way of knowing. If one could exist, it might never see the light of day just because of the gauntlet it would have to run.
But it's easy to see the way the wind blows, and the answer always seems to involve making the average person poorer, less free, and more dependent on government decision-makers.
And let's add, when you get past the bullying and obnoxiousness, sometimes I get a glimpse of some not-very-convincing thinking going on.
E.g., your jibe that knowing whether there is global warming is analogous to knowing whether they grow corn in North Dakota. One issue can be settled with direct observation. The other? Well, let's just say if it were directly observable fact, then we can quit paying people to research it. Nobody is researching whether people are growing corn in North Dakota.
I'm fairly conversant with how the Left debates: it doesn't. The Left shuts down debate.
This is code for "Liberals keep referring to facts, evidence, reality. That's an unfair debate tactic."
No problem. Reality isn't really compatible with conservatism.
sometimes I get a glimpse of some not-very-convincing thinking going on.
E.g., your jibe that knowing whether there is global warming is analogous to knowing whether they grow corn in North Dakota. One issue can be settled with direct observation. The other? Well, let's just say if it were directly observable fact, then we can quit paying people to research it. Nobody is researching whether people are growing corn in North Dakota.
Um, ND corn is not an analogy.
A generation ago, corn was not grown to a significant extent in ND - this was (and still is, but to a lesser extent) wheat country. Today, corn and wheat are neck-and-neck when it comes to acreage, yields, and dollar values. What has happened? The growing season in ND, especially nearer the Canadian border, has lengthened by more than a week. This added growing time means that corn is now a profitable enterprise.
The growing season has gotten longer because of global warming. This is a long-term measure of sustained climate change - not an isolated cold snap in January, a heat wave in July, an outbreak of storms in March, but a measure that reflects long-term, durable changes in the temperatures. Needless to say, farmers (conservative lot, for the most part) have "voted for" this warming with their wallets.
The growing season is but one of many long-term indicators of climate change. I have mentioned a few others (the steady movement of plant species towards higher latitudes or elevations, the use of the Northwest and Northeast passages by shippers, sea levels, to name three), and they all say the same thing. Conservatives may not like it, and they may feel that reference to these facts is an unfair debate tactic, but reality is reality. And the truth of the matter is that the earth is getting warmer.
As for the remark that no one is researching corn production in ND, I can only recommend that you turn off Glenn Beck and get out some more, Lee. I suspect that you haven't any clue about how nonsensical that remark is.
Which brings me back to my question - what is it about this "important fact" that confounds the reality of global warming?
Art, by the time the proposition arrives at my doorstep, it takes this form:
"We say there is global warming, and so *you* [meaning me and most people] must be prepared to give up an unspecified amount of your freedom, rights, and money so that *we* [meaning the government and its clients] may solve this issue to humanity's benefit once and for all."
Only problem is, there are far too few facts of the sort I am looking for, when called upon to yield my liberties to the state.
What kinds of facts? Answers to these questions:
... Is global warming really happening?
... If it's happening, is it bad for man?
... If it's happening and it's bad, is it something man can do something about?
... If it's happening and it's bad and man can do something about it, can the U.S. and the Western world accomplish what is necessary without the cooperation of the rest of the world?
...If the answer is no, can we count on help from the rest of the world?
...If it's bad and we can do something about it and we can count on the world's support, how much sacrifice should we count on having to endure?
...And facts, please, since you're fond of them.
Because, quite frankly, the same people who want me to give up what I have for the sake of the sky falling in this case are the same people who are always asking me to give up what I have.
And, oddly enough, the same people who tell me I have to sacrifice my lifestyle seem to be very reluctant to sacrifice *their* lifestyles.
Funny, how that works.
Because the sorts of sacrifices we're being asked to make will cause genuine economic suffering.
And as usual, the poorest are hit the hardest. Leonardo da Caprio will still be able to afford his Lear jet, so no worries there. Prince Charles still gets his castles and his limos. The Obamas still get the million-dollar vacations. Al Gore still gets his $40 million mansion.
But the rest of us may have to endure serious hardship.
So if you're going to require people like me to go along with your ambitious policies, you'd better give me more than North Dakotans have a longer growing season. Because, frankly, that fails one of the earlier questions. Show me something *bad* that's going to happen. I don't consider a longer growing season, per se, to be bad.
Show me the Chinese will go along with it. That's a fact I can respect. What does it matter if I have to heat my house only to 55 degrees if the Chinese are spewing tons of carbon into the atmosphere every second of the day?
Show me that our leaders are so convinced of what is happening that they are willing to lead by example? Let the Obamas give up their $100 million vacations and enjoy life at Camp David. Let Leonardo da Caprio travel first class on a commercial airline. Let Prince Charles trade in his castles for a condo in London. Let Al Gore sell his mansion and live in a nice apartment -- after all, Tipper is gone, he shouldn't need much space.
Show me the scientists are so convinced of this that they are willing to tolerate disagreement and dissent if only to show their seriousness.
And finally, show me there is an exit strategy, one that cedes power back to the people from the state once the goals are accomplished. Because, frankly, the historical facts show that once the government acquires power, it gives it up only grudgingly and often only when there's bloodshed.
I'm sick of leftists who bring people like a pig in a poke. Show me that the leftists of the world are willing to suffer along with me. That's a fact I could really appreciate.
Lee,
Leftist here, showing up to take his share of suffering.
Question: What sorts of liberties do you see yourself being asked to yield up?
Singring,
I know you're not a climate scientist, but where might I go to get a Climate Change 101 lesson?
Also: Thanks for the list of science resources you gave me a while back! :)
Peace to you both ---
Daniel
Daniel, the global-warmist agenda cannot be accomplished without increased government control of the economy?
When the government has more money to spend, the citizens have less.
When the government has more decision-making power, the consumers have less.
When the government can regulate a company out of existence, the entrepreneur goes bankrupt.
I don't believe economics is a zero-sum game. But political power is. And in the economy, political power is like gravity. When enough of it is concentrated, it's the only force that matters.
Post a Comment