Global warming deniers: what went wrong with sticking your head out the window to prove it's colder than usual?

Maybe they’ve all melted?

@ETpro
You are correct.
I have read the studies. They predicated increased precipitation in some areas and drought in others.

I do hope you are aware that “look, it’s snowing, moron!” was not the basis for global-warming denial.

I agree the weather patterns have changed. I am not convinced it is man-made.
On a planetary scale, this may be a pattern that goes over thousands of years, not unlike the Ice-Age.
I also think its a good idea for us to clean up after ourselves, just ‘cause it’s the responsable thing to do.

Well, I’ve heard them say that people (the liberal conspiracy people) are making up temperatures, that’s it’s not really above 100 degrees, etc.

Here is a clip that made me laugh out loud I think may be appropriate to share.

Bill Nye (The Science Guy) is trying to explain global warming to Fox News, and that science is real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTvZp6Cc8xc

As an FYI, I found this particular link posted by a Global Warming denier on You Tube who positions Bill Nye as a Shill for Global Warming.

@ETpro no where near as hot this year as I remember the summer of 1977. Pay attention to trends and not Al Gore’s ass blocking my open window! I need a breeze Dammit!

We don’t disagree that Global Warming is a fact. But we may disagree on the causes of it.

@Nullo No one is saying that it’s the basis of global climate change denial. Indeed, I have never gotten the impression that evidence was any sort of major influence on that side of the issue. Some deniers do, however, use precisely the argument that @ETpro is targeting. It may be foolish, but it is very real. I used to have a coworker who brought it up every winter.

And note that @ETpro is not saying that the summer heat proves the opposite. All he is pointing out is that the “logic” behind the “look how cold this winter has been” argument is equally valid for a “look how hot this summer has been” argument. They’re equally bad arguments, but understanding how the one is bad helps understand why the other is also bad.

One could go further, however, and note that the theory of global climate change predicts colder winters (something the theory’s critics often ignore) and hotter summers in many places. So the fact that we’re seeing both is, as it turns out, consistent with and supportive of the view. Still, evidence has never been a major influence on the “skeptical” side of this issue. Moreover, the the theory predicts that these things move in a sawtooth pattern (which would explain why some summers from years past might be hotter than this summer).

Ultimately, though, this question seems to be about one thing: pointing out a bad argument on the “skeptical” side of the “debate.” If we all agree it’s a bad argument, other comments are superfluous.

The normal, periodic variations in weather have been occurring and changing over the entire existence of the Earth. There is no one theory that is accurate over any other theory. They are all conjectures based on varying/biased evidence.

I just read that the person who wrote of the Polar bears drowning because of global warming in under investigation regarding the veracity of his story.

I totally agree with you @YARNLADY especially when most of the studies and reports I read these days show the polar ice caps actually expanding.

i have never been able to understand how and why this became a political issue.

@janbb Because of Cap and trade is a windfall to the Government. C & T is essentially a huge tax on energy and the companies that produce it down to the corporations that use energy which ultimately trickles down to the unwitting consumer who will pay more for electricity, gas and other utilities, goods and services that use fossil fuel derived energy. Some people think C & T will generate revenue but it all will come at a cost to us taxpayers who will ultimately have to pay for it’s existence. Big oil and other utilities will simply pass this cost on to us. Cap and traded is NOT a viable solution to global warming and hence a HUGE political football.

@ETpro Motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, etc..etc… If it’s cold outside, that registers because it conforms to their worldview. If it’s warm, that gets ignored.

Similarly, if the world’s major science academies, the vast majority of scientists, the vast majority of peer reviewed science, etc.etc.etc. provide overwhelming evidence that the climate is warming and our greenhouse gas emissions are the primary cause. Gee what a surprise, that’s ignored too.

But if a couple of webpages, a handful of contrarians scientists, and FOX says it’s all a greeny, leftwing, big government, tax raising, Gore driven conspiracy, then that’s gotta be the truth.

It’s actually quite fascinating if you follow this for long enough. The deniers wheel out the same long debunked arguments, wear their scientific ignorance with pride, and confidently assert that the science is wrong or inadequate, when they’d never do so with respect to other areas of science that they’re equally untrained in, and don’t conflict with their political or ideological world views.

I tend to just point deniers to the skeptical science’s website, where they can try to argue with relative experts, and in the process gaze at the incredible list of failed arguments against anthropogenic warming,

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

or kindly request that if they are so conifdent that it’s all bunk, to go publish their results in a peer-reviewed climate science journal.

The result is inevitably underwhelming.

@Cruiser How you remember 1977 in’t very scientific, and even if your memory is perfect, I strongly doubt you were everyhere on earth measuring global temperatires all year long in 1877. 2010 ties 2005 as the warmest year since records began being kept in the 1800s, so your memory of 1977 being the hottest ever may be accurate for a particular locale, but it is not accurate for global temperatures. I don’t get that from Al GOre or from sticking my head out a window. I get it from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies The coorealtion between the rise of atmospheric CO2 and temperature rise is remarkable, and is exactly what the science would predict it would be. There have been a long litany of natural causes pushednfoprward by pseudo-science groups funded by the $37 trillion per year fossil fuel industry. All have been debunked.

The Global Warming brigade would have been right it would have been a joy. This has been as lousy of a summer as last summer. Where was the heat? If I wanted Spring the from Winter, to Fall I would have been further north.

@Hypocrisy_Central Meanwhile, it’s blisteringly hot where I am despite a history of moderate summers. This is why the view is more properly known as “global climate change.” The abnormalities you are experiencing and the abnormalities I am experiencing are all data points that are consistent with and support the theory of global climate change.

@SavoirFaire It really is global warming. It’s just that, like a pot on the stove, when you first turn up the heat, the contents start to qwirl around and seethe, and sold spots sometimes get dragged to areas that had been warm. But the global trend is abundantly clear. Temperatures are warming, and have been since the Indistrial Revolution began. And the rate of heating is ramping up.

@ETpro At the scientific level, “global warming” is a perfectly appropriate name. At the political/rhetorical level, however, “global climate change” is more appropriate. Because people who only have a denying agenda will never allow themselves to understand how global trends can have seemingly dissimilar local effects. Thus I use the name that reflects the effects rather than the cause when dealing with the “stick your head out the window” crowd.

I am a lot more comfortable with the name “climate change” because of the controversy.

I think everyone should read this.
http://bigthink.com/ideas/39596

@SavoirFaire Excellent point. Thanks.

@philosopher Thanks for the great link. Enjoyed reading it.

A somewhat similar argument to the one in the previous link can be found here.

@SavoirFaire What is it going to take for the simple truth of that to catch on?

@ETpro
I fear that some only believe what they see or experience. They are the same people who are against Science, research and Space Exploration in many cases.
I also prefer documentation (facts) to believe but; I understand that some Scientific concepts are not easy to comprehend. I have several credits in Science but I am not a Scientist. I think most Politicians understand less than we do. They never read the Science. They do what the Lobbyist want. This is bad for humanity.

@ETpro I think we’d have to focus on the economic benefits of cutting carbon emissions. The article mentions that this has worked in the past, and I have had some success with getting people to recycle after showing how it was good for the economy. People tend to find their wallets rather more convincing than other forms of evidence.

Here is the comic mentioned in the article, by the way.

@philosopher Great answer. Thanks.

@SavoirFaire I’ve been crying out for them to do that. So far, its’ just a voice crying in the wilderness.

@SavoirFaire
I fear we are in for more problems after 2012. The Elitist R works for people that would destroy the Earth to enrich themselves. The facts are bad for the businesses they support. They do not wish to create Alternative Energy Sources. They prefer to support OPEC and Oil Companies.
I do not understand how they do not grasp the future they are creating for humanity. We all live on Planet Earth.

@philosopher Just so you know, there are a fair few people who would gut NASA’s corpse to feed the social programs. And they’re not typically the same people who deny anthropogenic global warming.

@Nullo
That is why compromise is needed.
The Elitist would enrich themselves and leave everyone else to die.They would exploit the Middle Class, elderly and let people who are disabled die. Many only learn when it affects their family.
We only have one Planet. Humanity needs to explore Space and maintain Earth. This is what is best for humanity. Not comprehending this is short sited and stupid.