That's where you're wrong. I've seen one climate scientist and blogger and contributor to Skeptical Science blog that a heat wave was proof of global warming, something to do with statistics and the heat wave is outside the 95% boundary.
You frequently bring up such non-arguments, where you assume warmers behave as you do. It is akin to a skeptic arguing that all skeptics accept global warming as real and merely dispute the level of global warming, when in fact many dispute that CO2 causes global warming.
There is a logic difference between your two points. However, that is not the argument being made. Generally any heat wave is seen as evidence of global warming, without any analysis of whether it is unusual. It is basically begging the question, you assume global warming is happening, therefore global warming is the cause.
Well ChemFlunky. You can come into outback Australia any time between the last century and now to still get fried during the daytime and freeze at night in most desert areas. From the north much of these same areas also get inundated with massive monsoonal floods that come seasonally every year. Then from the North East we get the El Nino droughts that last on average every 7 years only to be broken by the massive La Nina floods that last approximately 18 months to two years. Massive cold fronts from the strongest weather system in the world are generated from the Southern Ocean that dominates the Southern States with cold but dry weather and provides relief to more northern states with what is called southerly busters that bring clod, windy thunderstorms during the very hot summer of coastal NSW.
Nothing really changes from these weather conditions that have always been extreme and Australians have always had to deal with. Nothing is new - the most extreme continent on the planet. The only difference these days is people live in the bush and get exposed to floods and fires. Firebugs also come out of the woodwork every year for cheap thrills at everybody else's expense - sometimes deadly expense.
Not every "skeptic" is Richard Lindzen and not every "warmer" is James Hansen. So, it is true that some people do use hot weather as "proof" of global warming. And these "warmers" are wrong. Record cold is mathematically possible in a warming world and record heat is possible in a cooling world. You can't tell whether Earth is warming from today's weather or even from one location. What matters is the trend in global average temperature.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
Sorry when you suck someone into your ridiculous argument expect to be ridiculed. I reject your assumptions about man's influence on climate change so when I point at nice weather and say boy I sure do love this global Warming I am mocking the warmist position that bad weather is a result of burning fossil fuels. When I laugh and say Damn I just shoveled 2 ft of global warming off my drive, I'm being sarcastic, when the warmist response is that all weather conditions are what we can expect it bolsters my opinion that you can't fix stupid.
Quote by Steven Guilbeault, Canadian environmental journalist and Greenpeace member: "Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter."
Same old confusion. In true science hotter is hotter and colder is colder and it takes a person with discern to separate the two. Yes, as you say, it is hotter in Australia while it is colder in the US. OK then we are referring to GLOBAL then. So let us stick with GLOBAL.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
Here is the GLOBAL. Get it? Global. Does that mean something to you? Don't you see it? Even your fellow greenies admit the earth is cooling.
But in 2009, as the thermometer hit record lows in America, he and other climate scientists panicked in a flurry of emails: “Skeptics will be all over us – the world is really cooling, the models are no good.”
Read more: http://joemiller.us/2012/08/busted-leake...
So you see, your fellow opportunists even know that the earth is cooling, but yet they still have rubes like you conned. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! How does it feel to be conned by people of your own ilk? In the con game this is called a double blind because it means conning someone in your own group. It works this way: You take a pidgeon and pat him or her on the back and prop them up then you lead them down the path of ignorance. Ha! Ha! the world is full of suckers, so you are not unique. You can salvage something from that.
Warmer or colder where one is at any given time is not a barometer to judge f/. The category is "GLOBAL" warming. Thus, one has to look at the change in global temperature which has risen dramatically at an alarming rate.
Is it man's fault? ... we can't afford to gamble on that. If it is, he needs to raise the pollution standards as an answer ... something he should be doing anyway.
But it doesn't surprise me the dramatic rise is occurring roughly 170 yrs. after the industrial revolution when man stepped up his pollution.
Come on Chem, warmers have been doing that for years, it is only lately skeptics have started doing it, but anyway half the time warmers blame the cold weather and snow on AGW.
Warmers blame everything thing on AGW from ice extent to increased prostitution, the list is enormous.
Another question could be if in each hemisphere they are having extreme temperatures for their season: could the tilt of the earth be changing? This would totally mess up the Leftist view of Humans are a virus to the planet.
The basic premise of "CO2 Warming" is and always has been wrong. You give too much credit to CO2 in its ability to cause "substantial" warming.
The "signs" that have been dug up by extreme environmentalists as "proof" have been happening for centuries. It will take an act of a "supreme intelligence" to finally convince those who have fallen prey to human intellect.
nicee
It's winter, so the "skeptics" are out in force saying things that basically boil down to "See, it's cold! This disproves global warming!" Whenever the "warmers" call them on it, they generally claim that "warmers" do the same thing with unusually hot weather.
But, it seems to me that the respective statements tend to go about like this:
"Skeptic": "It's freakishly cold. This shows that global warming is false/over", or "There is snow in a lot of places right now, so where's your global warming?"
"Warmer": "It's freakishly warm. We can expect more events like this with AGW", or "We have had more freakishly warm weather events over the past several years. This supports the idea of global warming."
I think I've only seen "warmers" bring up individual warm weather events as "proof" of AGW in direct rebuttal to a "skeptic" saying that an individual cold weather event is "proof" that AGW is false or over. Eg "We're having record low temperatures this winter in the US." "Well, over in Australia, we're having a record heat wave."
Do you see the logic difference between those 2 positions? Which is more sound, solid, and scientific? Any other thoughts?
Lol.
