PDA

View Full Version : The 10 Dumbest Things Ever Said About Global Warming



Chloe
06-23-2013, 09:03 PM
This is not my personal list. I just found it and thought it could be an interesting conversation...enjoy :)

RollingStone

A list of the dumbest things ever said about global warming is, sadly, almost impossible to curate in any comprehensive fashion. Politicians, talk show hosts, economists, pundits – people are saying dumb things about climate change all the time. But after much exhaustive research, we narrowed it down to 10 prize-winningly idiotic statements on this subject.
1. Carbon dioxide "literally cannot cause global warming."
People have tried to deny climate science in a lot of ways, but it's hard to beat a complete rejection of well-established atmospheric physics. Joe Bastardi, a meteorologist appearing on Fox News, argued that CO2 "literally" cannot cause warming because it doesn't "mix well in the atmosphere" (it does). He's also claimed that warming would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. (In fact, global warming has nothing to do with newly created energy, but with the atmosphere trapping energy that's already around.)
2. "Snow skiing will be hurt – but water skiing will benefit."
In 1990, as the world was beginning to grapple with the devastating predictions of climate models, a Yale economist set out to determine how much was a reasonable amount to spend on combating the problem. Not that much, he concluded, since "Humans thrive in a wide variety of climate zones. Cities are increasingly climate-proofed by technological changes like air-conditioning and shopping malls." Further, he argued, the hardest-hit sectors – like, say, agriculture – are relatively small parts of the economy anyway. And economic growth in other sectors could compensate: "Snow skiing will be hurt – but water skiing will benefit." How reassuring!
The Fossil Fuel Resistance: Meet the New Green Heroes (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/lists/the-fossil-fuel-resistance-meet-the-new-green-heroes-20130411)
RS contributor Bill McKibben lambasted this analysis in his 2007 book, Deep Economy. "It's nice to have microelectronics; it's necessary to have lunch," wrote McKibben. "If global warming 'only' damages agriculture, the rest may not matter much."
3. "We must demand that more coal be burned to save the Earth from global cooling."
The "global cooling" myth is another favorite of climate deniers, despite broad scientific consensus that the planet is in fact warming. But it's got to be an especially appealing fiction when you're the CEO of a coal company – this statement is from a tweet by Don Blankenship, then the head of Massey Energy.
4. Climate change is impossible because "God's still up there."
In 2012, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) contended that acceptance of climate science was at odds with Christianity – never mind that many Christian leaders and institutions take climate change very seriously. "My point is, God's still up there," he told Voice of Christian Youth America. "The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."
A close runner-up in this category: In 2009, Rep. John Shimkus (R-Illinois) cited God's post-flood promise to Noah as evidence we shouldn't be worried. "The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over," he declared. "Man will not destroy this Earth." Well, that must be nice to know.
5. God buried fossil fuels "because he loves to see us find them."
Bryan Fischer, a director at the American Family Association, compared efforts to burn less fossil fuels to telling a friend that you don't like their birthday present. "That's kind of how we're treating God when he's given us these gifts of abundant and inexpensive and effective fuel sources," he observed. "God has buried those treasures there because he loves to see us find them." And everyone knows it's bad manners to turn down a divine treasure hunt.
6. "The President was wearing a trench coat it was so cold, but he's talking about global warming."
This gem, from U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana) in reference to President Obama's 2013 inauguration speech, is part of a long, confused tradition: The conviction that anecdotally observed cold weather of any kind debunks the science of climate change. See also the igloo that James Inhofe's family built on the National Mall (they called it "Al Gore's new home") or the ad from the Virginia Republican Party, aired before the same snowstorm, advising voters to call legislators who supported climate actions and "tell them how much global warming you get this weekend. Maybe they'll come help you shovel." With probably thousands of articles out there now explaining the simple fact that weather is not the same thing as climate (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html), this joke gets dumber every time it's made.
7. "I thought it must be true until I found out what it cost."
Yes, Sen. Inhofe gets two entries. Speaking to Rachel Maddow in 2012, he admitted that his rejection of climate science began with realizing how expensive mitigation would be. Not only is it flatly nonsensical to deny that a problem exists because you don't like its cure, delaying climate action is actually the more expensive course. The International Energy Agency has estimated that for every year the world delays taking significant action to curb climate change, we'll end up paying an additional $500 billion later on.
8. Safeguarding the climate is "a worldview that elevates the Earth above man."
Rick Santorum was a front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination when he called climate science a "phony theology" – "a worldview that elevates the Earth above man and says that we can't take those resources because we're going to harm the Earth." (Santorum has also said, "We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth's benefit.") This people-vs.-planet idea is another common refrain from climate skeptics. They rarely seem to have considered the fairly obvious point that functioning human society depends on a healthy planet.
9. "100 years is a long time . . . There is an extremely high chance that the very nature of human society itself will have changed by that time in ways that render this entire issue moot."
This novel bit of reasoning is from an essay called "In Praise of Dirty Energy (http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/12/02/in-praise-of-dirty-energy-there-are-worse-things-than-pollution-and-we-have-them/): There Are Worse Things Than Pollution and We Have Them," by economist and blogger Karl W. Smith, now a writer for Forbes. Smith accepts the science of climate change – but argues that we should burn more fossil fuels anyway, in order to spur economic growth. As the climate changes, he believes that people will simply build new cities or move north to Siberia, and build a society so technologically advanced it's somehow progressed beyond the need for a stable climate. Piece of cake!
10. "I have a theory about global warming and why people think it's real. Go back 30, 40 years when there was much less air conditioning in the country. When you didn't have air conditioning and you left the house, it may in fact have gotten a little cooler out there, because sometimes houses become hot boxes. Especially if you're on the second or third floor of a house in the summer time and all you've got is open windows and maybe a window fan. Or you have some servant standing there fanning you with a piece of paper. When you walked outside, no big deal, it's still hot as hell. Now, 30, 40 years later, all this air conditioning, and it's a huge difference when you go outside. When you go outside now, my golly, is it hot. Oh. Global warming. It's all about the baseline you're using for comparison."
Oh, OK: All those scientists who have confirmed a pattern of long-term climate change were just getting confused by their air conditioning. Right. Thanks, Rush Limbaugh, for the low-hanging fruit.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-10-dumbest-things-ever-said-about-global-warming-20130619#ixzz2X5xeRWZG

Peter1469
06-23-2013, 09:04 PM
CO2 has risen above 400 ppm (parts per million), yet temps have been flat for the last decade.

Chris
06-23-2013, 09:06 PM
Myth 11: Hockey schtick.

jillian
06-23-2013, 09:12 PM
Myth 11: Hockey schtick.

do you have something to add or you just want to heckle?

jillian
06-23-2013, 09:12 PM
CO2 has risen above 400 ppm (parts per million), yet temps have been flat for the last decade.

i've seen that in some articles.

but i've also seen this, which seems to give a clearer picture.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/temperature.html

Chris
06-23-2013, 09:14 PM
do you have something to add or you just want to heckle?

Apparently you don't. Aren't you familiar with the discredited hockey stick predictions of the 90s?

Chris
06-23-2013, 09:17 PM
i've seen that in some articles.

but i've also seen this, which seems to give a clearer picture.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/temperature.html

The flat temps peter referred to is displayed beneath the hockey stick in the charts below:

http://i.snag.gy/0RHxq.jpg


Things is that was 5 years ago...

Chloe
06-23-2013, 09:18 PM
It's really hard to deny that ever since the industrial revolution the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased beyond what would have been natural, and it's well documented that temperatures have been slowly increasing ever since that time. Hockey stick or not it's so hard to deny that human invention and our way of life has and will continue to negatively affect our atmosphere and in turn our climate...even if it is subtle. It doesn't take much of a temperature increase to really screw things up for us.

Chris
06-23-2013, 09:22 PM
It's really hard to deny that ever since the industrial revolution the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased beyond what would have been natural, and it's well documented that temperatures have been slowly increasing ever since that time. Hockey stick or not it's so hard to deny that human invention and our way of life has and will continue to negatively affect our atmosphere and in turn our climate...even if it is subtle. It doesn't take much of a temperature increase to really screw things up for us.

I won't deny man has an affect on climate, it's only natural.

But we've discussed the effects of CO2: How Fossil Fuels are Greening the Planet (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/11669-How-Fossil-Fuels-are-Greening-the-Planet).

Despite alarming rises in CO2, temps have been virtually flat for over 15 years now. The relationship between CO2 and temps is much more complex than even scientists understand.

zelmo1234
06-23-2013, 09:27 PM
i've seen that in some articles.

but i've also seen this, which seems to give a clearer picture.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/temperature.html

Yes Mr Mann the inventor of the Hockey stick chart. (which is what yoru article is using for Date)

Was ccaught working with others to hide the temp drop! because they were worried about thier funding!

Temps ahve remained flat for about 15 years now actually! last summer it was hot and dry in MI but the 2 summers before that it was cooler and wetter than mormal, and this summer is way cooler!

When I was young we had a better work for Global Warming/ Climate change, or whatever you progressive prefer to use now.

We called it WEATHER!

Chris
06-23-2013, 09:29 PM
Myth 12: Al Bore's "An Inconvenient Truth."

Chloe
06-23-2013, 09:33 PM
Yes Mr Mann the inventor of the Hockey stick chart. (which is what yoru article is using for Date)

Was ccaught working with others to hide the temp drop! because they were worried about thier funding!

Temps ahve remained flat for about 15 years now actually! last summer it was hot and dry in MI but the 2 summers before that it was cooler and wetter than mormal, and this summer is way cooler!

When I was young we had a better work for Global Warming/ Climate change, or whatever you progressive prefer to use now.

We called it WEATHER!

It's very flippant in my opinion to pretend that human beings have no affect on the atmosphere and in turn our climate. We do have the power through the collective acts of 7 billion+ people and all of our industrial creations scattered around the globe to hinder what nature can and can't do. The Earth is made to natural release gases into space, however, when we pump billions of pounds of excess gases into the same atmosphere you are going beyond what would have naturally occurred. Since the industrial revolution every corner of the world that has people in it has been growing in industrial intensity. Whether it's through cars, power plants, jets, construction, farming, and hundreds of other example all combined working together every second of the day, every day. To say that it's just weather is soooo dangerous in my opinion.

zelmo1234
06-23-2013, 09:41 PM
It's very flippant in my opinion to pretend that human beings have no affect on the atmosphere and in turn our climate. We do have the power through the collective acts of 7 billion+ people and all of our industrial creations scattered around the globe to hinder what nature can and can't do. The Earth is made to natural release gases into space, however, when we pump billions of pounds of excess gases into the same atmosphere you are going beyond what would have naturally occurred. Since the industrial revolution every corner of the world that has people in it has been growing in industrial intensity. Whether it's through cars, power plants, jets, construction, farming, and hundreds of other example all combined working together every second of the day, every day. To say that it's just weather is soooo dangerous in my opinion.

OK if it is soooo! important for all of us to go back in time!

Lets look at what the Enviro Nazi's have us doing! We have the cleanset coal technology in the world, but regulations is closing down Coal poer plants. So the mines are shipping the coal over to China and India on Desil powered ships and these countries have polution technology that is about where we were at at in the early 1930's So we have the added polution of the ship and the power plants that polute more!


Driling and refining of oil! we are not allowing the energy companies to drill in the easy spaces that we know there is oil. Instead we are making them use fracking and angle drilling and deep water drilling, then becasue we produce an oil that has a little more sulfur in it we don't let them refine it in America were we ahve the tuffest regulations in the world! but we ship our oil to where they have much less regulation and then we ship the light sweet crude from the middle east here to be refined!


Adding to global polution!

Next we force power companies to use Green energy which in fact is not envirmentally friendly and cost more!

So are those that support these policies really care about global polution or do they just want to feel good?

Chris
06-23-2013, 09:53 PM
Myths 13-23...

TEN MYTHS of Global Warming (http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/)


MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.


MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.



MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.



MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.


MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.


MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.


MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.

FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.


MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.

FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.


MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.



Note, not one of those myths says man does not affect climate change.

KC
06-23-2013, 09:58 PM
Man of course affects his climate and every other part of his environment, although I'm agnostic as to a worrying amount of global warming is occurring. I don't understand the science. In any case, I do not believe that we can have high standards of living for a fraction of the 7 billion+ people living in the world today without there being some pretty dramatic environmental consequences. That much appears clear.

Mainecoons
06-24-2013, 06:43 AM
It's really hard to deny that ever since the industrial revolution the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased beyond what would have been natural, and it's well documented that temperatures have been slowly increasing ever since that time. Hockey stick or not it's so hard to deny that human invention and our way of life has and will continue to negatively affect our atmosphere and in turn our climate...even if it is subtle. It doesn't take much of a temperature increase to really screw things up for us.

It's not hard to deny at all. CO2 has increased. However, the principal greenhouse gas is water vapor and that simply changes with climatic conditions.

Gorebal warming is nonsense on two fronts: First, as actual temperatures are showing, there's no direct relationship between a lesser greenhouse gas, CO2, and warmer temperatures. Second, it is stupidity and foolery to think that you are going to have any serious impact on CO2 planetwide by wrecking the cleanest economies (the U.S. and Europe) with policies that are draconian and embody scientific nonsense while the world's greatest polluter, China, and its wannabe, India, run amuck.

All you are doing is substituting dirty economies for clean ones when global warming has already basically flattened out. This can only make sense to emotion-driven technological ignoramuses.

Cigar
06-24-2013, 07:00 AM
"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do."
~ Ronald Reagan, 1981

Frogger
06-24-2013, 08:23 AM
do you have something to add or you just want to heckle?

He did add something, jillian. He reminded us of the nepharious ways in which the anthropromorphic global warming crowd have attempted to fudge the results in order to fool the people into thinking something is happening that is not happening.
The fact that you either don't agree with or don't understand what he posted doesn't mean he is simply heckling.

Micketto
06-24-2013, 08:54 AM
Some of the quotes, out of context, are cute.... but Rolling Stone's very liberal agenda, and the shenanigans it is known to pull in it's articles, sort of relieve it of any credibility.... and allow it to just be a Music Magazine, safe from judgement.

Do you really believe Sen. Inhofe said, when asked if he believed in GW:
"I thought it must be true until I found out what it cost." ?

Chris
06-24-2013, 09:03 AM
Some of the quotes, out of context, are cute.... but Rolling Stone's very liberal agenda, and the shenanigans it is known to pull in it's articles, sort of relieve it of any credibility.... and allow it to just be a Music Magazine, safe from judgement.

Do you really believe Sen. Inhofe said, when asked if he believed in GW:
"I thought it must be true until I found out what it cost." ?

Ignoring the ad hom against Rolling Stone, it's not a matter of belief did Inhofe say it, it's fact: Inhofe’s Stunning Admission To Maddow on Global Warming: ‘I Thought It Must Be True Until I Found Out What It Cost” (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/16/446008/inhofe-maddow-global-warming/).

It's truly an odd statement but while Inhofe is a major denier the question of cost is significant.

Micketto
06-24-2013, 09:45 AM
Ignoring the ad hom against Rolling Stone, it's not a matter of belief did Inhofe say it, it's fact: Inhofe’s Stunning Admission To Maddow on Global Warming: ‘I Thought It Must Be True Until I Found Out What It Cost” (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/16/446008/inhofe-maddow-global-warming/).

It's truly an odd statement but while Inhofe is a major denier the question of cost is significant.

You can ignore all the ad hom you want, the fact is the "dumbest things ever said about global warning" all fall on the side of those who don't believe in it. What a coincidence. And what better example of my "ad hom".


As far as Inhofe... He found out how much the government was spending to try and prove AGW and so he started researching it.
That's when he found out scientists who didn't believe in it were "rejected from the process".

Taking that out of context and presenting it as if he said he believed in AGW until he saw how much it cost, is typical RS/Leftist technique.
So much for the ad hom.

If that is one of the top ten "dumbest things ever said about global warning", then RS needs to look harder for a story.


Maybe another Lady Gaga, Howard Stern or Perez Hilton interview....

TheInternet
06-24-2013, 10:02 AM
Yes Mr Mann the inventor of the Hockey stick chart. (which is what yoru article is using for Date)

Was ccaught working with others to hide the temp drop! because they were worried about thier funding!

Temps ahve remained flat for about 15 years now actually! last summer it was hot and dry in MI but the 2 summers before that it was cooler and wetter than mormal, and this summer is way cooler!

When I was young we had a better work for Global Warming/ Climate change, or whatever you progressive prefer to use now.

We called it WEATHER!

Scientists paid to study man made global warming will always have data for man made global warming. No over paid government scientist is going to prove themselves out of a job.

Chris
06-24-2013, 10:02 AM
You can ignore all the ad hom you want, the fact is the "dumbest things ever said about global warning" all fall on the side of those who don't believe in it. What a coincidence. And what better example of my "ad hom".


As far as Inhofe... He found out how much the government was spending to try and prove AGW and so he started researching it.
That's when he found out scientists who didn't believe in it were "rejected from the process".

Taking that out of context and presenting it as if he said he believed in AGW until he saw how much it cost, is typical RS/Leftist technique.
So much for the ad hom.

If that is one of the top ten "dumbest things ever said about global warning", then RS needs to look harder for a story.


Maybe another Lady Gaga, Howard Stern or Perez Hilton interview....

I agree, it was biased, but not dishonest as you implied.

And that bias has been countered by many facts from "the other side".

The fact is Inhofe said it and meant it. The link goes to a video of him arguing with Maddow, denier vs alarmist, laced with logically fallacious and factually errant nonsense.

Chris
06-24-2013, 10:18 AM
This is a good article that distinguishes climate and weather, science and hokum.

Climate change: the rain in Spain (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/23/climate-change-britain-wet-weather)


Weather is what happens. Climate is the sum of what happens, averaged over a generation or more. The unpromising start to the British summer, and the apparent recent trend towards cool, wet summers, are just that: an unpromising start, and an apparent trend. Neither is in itself an indicator of climate change. Rain in June does not mean that global warming is not happening. A succession of disappointing summers does not mean that in a warmer world Britain can expect mild winters and wet summers as a matter of course. The Met Office conclusion that Britain might be caught in a natural cycle of cooler summers with more rainfall than usual – and that describes six of the past seven summers – is just a reminder that climate is the long-term average of ups and downs.

It has become increasingly possible to make connections between ocean surface temperatures, or aerosol distribution in the atmosphere of the northern hemisphere, or shifts in the jet stream, or reductions in the Arctic ice cover, and changes in regional weather patterns, but these things are still only associations, tentative connections that seem to make sense. Predictions based on good observations of these connections can still turn out to be gloriously wrong: in April 2012, a hosepipe ban in expectation of severe and extended drought was the cue for the wettest summer in a century. Climate is an observed pattern, and farmers place their bets on climate's overall probabilities. Day-to-day weather, especially in a maritime climate, is chaotic.

Micketto
06-24-2013, 11:44 AM
I agree, it was biased, but not dishonest as you implied.


Pretty widely known that what people imply, and what you infer, are often worlds apart.

And due to your love of arguing... often intentionally.