Republicans: Winter is Evidence of Global Warming Fraud. So Elect Us…

by JC

How much more stupid can republicans get? Plenty. What do local weather events have to do with global warming? Absolutely nothing.

Claiming that winter events in parts of the country are evidence that global warming isn’t occurring only points out the ignorance of the difference between “climate” and “weather.” Even in a climate that has warmed several degrees above current average temps, winter will occur. But sea levels will still rise, coastlines will recede, drought patterns will change, food growing capacities will change, populations will migrate, and wars will be fought over scarce resources like water.

And republicans holding a snow shovel in their hands will go: huh, how can it be?

Here’s a graph. Maybe it makes sense to some people. But not to republicans who just want to use a snow storm to win an election.


–Change in global surface temperature anomaly as computed by NOAA (NCDC Dataset), NASA (GISS data set) and combined Hadley Center and Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (UK) (HadCRUT3 data set). Uncertainty in the HadCRUT3 data is shown in gray. Image and quote below credit: WMO:

The year 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest on record since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850, according to data sources compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)…

The current nominal ranking of 2009, which does not account for uncertainties in the annual averages, places it as the fifth-warmest year. The decade of the 2000s (2000–2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990–1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980–1989)…

This year above-normal temperatures were recorded in most parts of the continents. Only North America (United States and Canada) experienced conditions that were cooler than average. Given the current figures, large parts of southern Asia and central Africa are likely to have the warmest year on record.


  1. I have a simple question/answer/comment for you JC –

    Q: What ended the last Ice Age?

    A: Global Warming

    Comment: These things come and go in cycles, it is unstoppable. There may have been a couple of cavemen in mesopotamia when the last ice age ended, but I’m pretty sure that they didn’t cause it.

    The GOP’s problem, as well as most of the population in America’s, is that Al Gore turned it into a religion.

  2. CharleyCarp

    ‘Global climate change’ is by far the better term, and I think the one that is used by actual serious persons.

    Of course the global climate changed a bunch of times prior to the dawn of man, or the ability of man to influence the climate. But saying that this fact tells you anything at all about what is happening in our time is like arguing that because humans had nothing to do with the extinction of the brontosaurus, we could not have been responsible for the extinction of the dodo or the passenger pigeon.

  3. Pogo Possum

    “. . . .There’s a huge-ass iceburg floating off of Australia. Be sure to click through the pictures. Global warming, schmobal warming, right?. . . ”
    Various & Sundry for the Weekend
    December 12, 2009 in Bozeman, Environment, Missoula, Missoula County Commissioners, Montana, Various & Sundry, War, homelessness, newspapers

    by jhwygirl

  4. Widowmaker

    The skepticism is what allowed the UN report to get rooted out and its numerous fallacies out. It is what allowed the Dutch to point out what was wrong with the IPCC report. Its what allowed climate-gate to occur. If I was a die hard “Changist” I would be glad that there are people willing to show the large holes in my theory. Or, is the discussion already over? Is the anger towards the skeptics, or is the anger towards yourself at yelling what you thought was “truth” and ended up being based on some college paper that had a wild imagination?

    • JC

      Anger? Hardly. I just think that deniers are substituting republican ideology for science, like the video from the VA republican party shows.

      I think that is pretty ignorant.

  5. Thomas Paine

    What do you expect from a group who has many members who believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and loves a museum with saddled dinosaurs?

    These are people who are proud of their ignorance and wear it like a badge of honor. And it explains why Faux News is so popular. Thinking makes their heads hurt. It’s far easier to let the dark emotions fly and trumpet the simple wisdom of the common man these egghead scientists seek to overcome and destroy with all their fancy instruments and numbers and stuff. And everyone knows they’re nothing but tools of the Socialist/Communist/Fascist Democrats who only want to enslave us and steal our guns. I mean, it’s so obvious.

  6. Pogo Possum

    “. . . .There’s a huge-ass iceburg floating off of Australia. Be sure to click through the pictures. Global warming, schmobal warming, right?. . . ”
    Various & Sundry for the Weekend
    December 12, 2009
    by jhwygirl

    I agree, J.C., using anecdotal evidence to try to prove or disprove mankind is responsible for global warming is not valid. Seems like all sides tend to make this mistake.

    Guess you just forgot to point that out when jhwyGirl brought up iceburgs a few months ago.

    • Nice try, Pogo, but wrong. The big ass iceberg that jhwygirl was referring to is significant because it’s a very large piece of the South polar ice sheet that is disappearing at a rather alarming rate. There’s a pretty big difference between anecdote and predictable empirical consequence of a larger effect.

  7. Pogo Possum

    Thanks for making my point Wulfgar. One person’s winter storm is another’s iceberg.

    Same argument just different anecdotal evidence.

    • JC

      Didn’t the Titanic sink after it hit an iceberg? Or do you just have anecdotal evidence that it hit an iceberg, or did the ship and the iceberg just happen to be in the same vicinity and there’s no real causality?

      And after all, the iceberg off Australia is, as they say: “only just the tip of the iceberg.”

  8. Pogo Possum

    Or should I say, one person’s “big ass iceberg” is another’s “big ass storm.”

  9. Lizard

    i’m agnostic about global climate change, and skeptical to what degree man is fueling this warming spell, and i suspect cap and trade is another scam, though not to the extent some folks believe (ushering in a global currency and the NWO, for example)

    i do have faith the scheming bastards who profit from war and misery will find some way to profit from polluting, though.

    • problembear

      sure. go ahead and gamble with the future of our kids. 99% of the earth’s most eminent scientists are probably wrong anyway. why slow down and figure out less carbon belching ways to live?

      we’re already careening down the highway at 85 miles an hour in this Lincoln town car of a country and everyone is comfy in these nice butt-warming leather seats-just because there’s a little fog obstructing the view, why worry? just a bunch of environmentalist kooks. hell- nobody can absolutely prove that the road might end at a cliff or a hair-pin turn…. and we’ve always been ok so far…

      “we’re lost but we’re making good time.” – Lawrence Peter “Yogi” Berra.

    • i do have faith the scheming bastards who profit from war and misery will find some way to profit from polluting, though.

      Wait until the water wars start. They won’t have to scheme much. The question is, do we stand up now, or just bitch on our computers later?

    • Lizard

      don’t preach to me about gambling with the future of kids, pb. that “man” is the main driving force behind climate change is not a scientifically proven fact, no matter how many worship at the alter of gore. and cap and trade won’t help anything. it’s just another scam.

      that said, cutting down on polluting emissions would be a great thing, scaling back on our dependence on oil, considering there’s a good chance we’re already past the peak, would be fan-fucking-tastic. and while we’re at it let’s stop fishing the oceans to death and filling up landfills with plastic bottles.

      just because i’m skeptical about the manmade aspect of climate change doesn’t mean i think our destructive human impact on the earth should continue unabated.

      • klemz

        That’s pretty much how I feel about it. Why does there have to be a crisis before we feel the need to act sensibly? I hope global climate change has been overstated, but I don’t feel that, if it is, that gives any of us the license to use 15 times our fair and equitable allotment of resources (say nothing for sustainability, which is pretty much a lost cause at this point).

  10. Lizard

    here’s a few rhyming lines penned by yours truly:

    sorrow is the marrow of this brittle-boned disaster
    where a dark occult design is pushing us all faster

    pushing over edges sacred earth has set in place
    they map out all the lines in the network of her face

    and redirect the energies from channels dug in stone
    sorrow is the marrow of men who kill their home

  11. problembear

    was responding to the subject of jc’s post, liz.

    but i could live with that….

    same way to nail a board. you just hold your mouth different.

  12. Big Swede

    You can’t spell UNACCOUNTABLE without the UN.

  13. Yes and you can’t spell Dumbass without the UM or an MBA. Pull your head out, Swede.

  14. JC

    I don’t why anybody is referring to the UN, IPCC, or Al Gore in this thread. Nothing I’ve said, or have referenced comes from there.

    The three data sets in the chart above come from NASA, NOAA, and HadCRUT (a branch of Britain’s Met office, which is similar to our National Weather Service). I guess if you don’t believe in science, then you don’t care about statistics or graphs or any of that rigamarole.

    Then again, I’ve never accused some of the people here of believing in science. Why should they do that when they have greater icons like Sarah Palin to worship?

    So here’s a followup question(s) to the deniers:

    Even if you don’t believe in human causality, the evidence is clear that overall, the globe is warming (that’s what the graph above shows). And warming causes climate change with all of the impacts on human and other species’ environments and habitats.

    What do you want to do about it? If you don’t believe in altering human energy use and other carbon-producing activities, what do you want to do to mitigate the impacts of global warming and climate change?

    Or are you just going to play ostrich because if it isn’t human caused, so it is god’s plan and we just have to live with it? In other words, being reactionary instead of proactive.

    • Lizard

      here’s some food for thought from alexander cockburn regarding the controversial emails that have renewed skepticism about the “science” of climate change:

      Many of the landmines in the CRU emails tend to buttress long-standing charges by skeptics that statistical chicanery by Prof Michael Mann and others occluded the highly inconvenient Medieval Warm Period, running from 800 to 1300 AD, with temperatures in excess of the highest we saw in the twentieth century, a historical fact which made nonsense of the thesis that global warming could be attributed to the auto-industrial civilization of the twentieth century. Here’s Keith Briffa, of the CRU, letting his hair down in an email written on September 22, 1999: “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple…I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.”

      and this:

      Other landmines include particularly telling emails from Kenneth Trenberth, a senior scientist and the head of the climate analysis section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. On October 14, 2009, he wrote to the CRU’s Tom: “How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”

      In other words, only a few weeks before the Copenhagen summit, here is a scientist in the inner AGW circle disclosing that “we are not close to knowing” whether the supposedly proven agw model of the earth’s climate actually works, and that therefore “geo-engineering” – global carbon-mitigation, for example — is “hopeless”.

      This admission edges close to acknowledgement of a huge core problem – that “greenhouse” theory and the vaunted greenhouse models violate the second law of thermodynamics which says that a cooler body cannot warm a hotter body XX. Greenhouse gasses in the cold upper atmosphere, even when warmed a bit by absorbed infrared, cannot possibly transfer heat to the warmer earth, and in fact radiate their absorbed heat into outer space. Readers interested in the science can read mathematical physicist Gerhard Gerlich’s and Ralf Tscheuchner’s detailed paper published in The International Journal of Modern Physics, updated in January , 2009, “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”.

      here’s the link

      so there are deniers, and their are skeptics. i’m a skeptic. there’s a difference.

      • JC

        Back to my question. What are you going to do? Nothing?

        It’s easy to be an armchair skeptic. So you don’t believe the science. You don’t believe that the globe is warming–from whatever reasons. What do you believe?

        If skeptics distrust science, then there is no hope that any kind of science will change their minds. It’s not the science that’s the problem. It’s politics and distrust of science and scientists in general.

        And with all the thousands of scientists offering up data and analyses, it is simple to find one or two anecdotes to discredit falsely the vast bulk of evidence. And that gives skeptics and deniers the comfort to disabuse themselves of any responsibility for future consequences of global warming.

        And I find that sad. I see no difference between deniers, and skeptics who offer no path to an understanding that will relieve themselves of skepticism.

        In other words, being a skeptic is just an excuse to maintain the status quo.

        • Lizard

          nothing? that’s bullshit, JC, and don’t you dare discount my legitimate uncertainty as armchair skepticism.

          what am i going to do? i’m going to continue doing whatever little things i can to lessen my footprint, like biking, recycling, composting, and letting my lawn go brown in the summer.

          what, do you think i’m some cretin who don’t like thems scientists dicktating my behavior?

          surprise surprise, some people are weary of “science” because (depending on the funding) science can, and often is distorted and manipulated. why? because the accumulators of capital will protect themselves by any means necessary.

          you don’t have to convince me humans have been very poor stewards of this planet. i get that. in fact, i participate every day in the degradation of this planet.

          but when a solution is being sold to me about carbon emissions from sources i don’t trust, like politicians (of both parties) i tend to become weary of the problem these solutions are meant to fix.

          i don’t DENY the earth is warming, and that the consequences will be disastrous. i do, however, remain SKEPTICAL about how the problem is being framed, and therefore skeptical about the solutions being offered to fix global climate change.

          • JC

            Ok, you’re still missing my point. I’m not asking about how you, in your daily life can change anything. If you believe the globe is warming, what do you want our government to do about preparing for the consequences. Not what we should do to avoid or minimize those consequences. Because there already have been, and will be more, consequences.

            I wanted to: 1) establish if you or others believe the evidence, as presented above, that the globe is warming; 2) If you do agree, then what should our government do to mitigate the actual consequences when they occur.

            I’ve pretty well conceded that our government, and most others in the world lack the will do any sort of preventive actions to minimize what human contribution there is (and deniers and skeptics will say none).

            So all that is left to debate, is what we are willing to do as a country to mitigate the disasters as they occur. Of course, if you don’t believe the globe is warming, then you (I’m not necessarily looking at you here Liz) don’t have to do anything.

            Either way, human contributed or not, global warming is going to have severe consequences. Whatcha want our government to do about it? Keep building higher levies in New Orleans? Vacate Manhattan Island?

            I don’t think people are realistically weighing the costs of just reacting to global warming against the costs of working to minimize human contributions to it.

            I don’t support cap and trade, either. I think a flat carbon tax is a much better way to go. Use proceeds to provide research and incentives into alternative, non-carbon based energy.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,671,485 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,737 other followers

  • February 2010
    S M T W T F S
    « Jan   Mar »
  • Categories

%d bloggers like this: