If it’s hot, it’s global warming. If it’s cold…well, that’s just weather.

This kind of talk drives me nuts.  Al Gore is out and about spouting off that the recent drought in Australia and the wildfires in Texas are further proof of global warming.

Gore, speaking Thursday in Detroit, reeled off statistics about huge downpours in Pakistan and Colombia, wildfires in Australia and drought in Texas the past year that he said are clear evidence of the looming climate crisis.

Read the full story, here.

So he takes extreme weather events of one year and uses that as “evidence” of AGW, and us skeptics are the ones who are anti-science?  Here in the Bay Area we’ve had two of the coolest summers consecutively that I can remember (except for this past week of Indian Summer).  Can I predict a coming Ice Age?  And if I scare enough gullible people into believing that, can I, too, become a billionaire?

I find it especially amusing when people state that it’s been the hottest in (insert city of your choice here) since 1925, and look at you like they’ve just handed you definitive proof of AGW.  In that statement they have just admitted that it was hotter in 1925, when the fossil fuel consumption was minimal compared to today. 

There use to be glaciers in Yosemite and a sea at the Grand Canyon.  When was it that we decided that the earth had become a static environment and any change was unnatural?  Probably when politicians realized a profit could be made by spreading that assumption.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Environment and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to If it’s hot, it’s global warming. If it’s cold…well, that’s just weather.

  1. Oliver Yu says:

    There are 2 things I have with global-warming scientists:

    The first is that science is naturally skeptical; the null hypothesis is that the existing body of knowledge is correct and scientists are skeptical of new fantastic theories that attempt to describe a world that is already pretty well described. Yet, when presenting the theory of man-caused-global-warming (which is scientifically believable, btw), those who are skeptical are now radical “climate change deniers.” Instead the defendant being innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is guilty until proven innocent and those who doubt his guilt are extremists.

    The second is that somehow – given no dwindling supply of government waste and incompetence – giving MORE money to the government is the solution to the putative global-warming.

  2. Bill Chance says:

    I am an enviromental scientist and I have never seen any evidence that global warming (which is almost certainly occurring) is tied to human activity in any way. Coincidence is not causation an d causation is very hard to prove.

    Pretty much every one in the global warming debate warps the argument to benefit their own situation. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s