Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
One year ago . . . the End of Snow. One year later . . . Woist Blizzahd Evah!
Well, worst in our lifetimes, which is all that matters, right?
It’s possible weather runs in cycles, but the cycles last so long that humans don’t recognize them. “It hasn’t snowed this hard in 50 years” may be perfectly true and yet perfectly normal . . . if snowfall runs in 100 year cycles.
The reason Global Warming Alarmists have to fudge their data and shift from tree rings to temperature readings to make their models work, is because we don’t have reliable data from a long-enough time period to draw honest conclusions or propose sensible solutions.
It’s like checking the thermometer at 7:00 am and again 8:00, lowering the 7:00 am temperature to account for not being fully awake when you took that reading, then drawing a line on a graph and predicting the world will be aflame before midnight unless we all stop drinking hot coffee. If temperatures are cyclical, rising and falling with the sun, then you don’t have enough data to support your prediction – whether or not you fudge the data – and your proposed cure won’t solve anything.
Joe Doakes
What part of “settled” are people missing, doggonnit?
Never mind that the single biggest input to global heat is not constant, and that man has done absolutely nothing to impact it’s contribution. I refer, of course, to the nearby star that we orbit, which we commonly call the sun.
Sun? Surely you meant 0bumbler?
I’m with JPA. You sure about that, Loren?
Discussed this recently with my kids on the way to church, and the chief issue with the theory (and evolution for that matter) is that the theory is presented as if you can’t falsify it/prove it wrong. And if there is no possibility of evidence against the theory, then you by definition have no test by which to prove it. “oops.”
This is what you get a century after removing logic from schools and colleges, I guess.
I’ll ask people what “the hottest year in recorded human history!” means. Very few seem to know that the data to be able to say some specific year is the hottest, or coldest, only goes back to 1880 or so. We’re asked to believe something unusual is happening on a 4.5 billion year-old planet with only 135 years of data. As far as specific years go, it means nothing.
The other fun one to ask, is what is the “correct” climate that we should strive too. Is it when Montana is tropical, or when Wisconsin was covered with glaciers? Or something in between? Who picks and what is the justification.
And how can we claim that the earth was cooler today if indeed we find evidence of tropical climates under permafrost?
Excuse me, how can we claim that the earth is hotter today when we find evidence for ancient tropical climates buried under permafrost? Sorry about that!
Great info! I got so tired of both sides being angry at each other that I made my own website.