Saying global warming isn’t real because it’s cold out is like saying the sun isn’t real because it’s dark out: http://t.co/VIYVgoLMpm
— Ezra Klein (@ezraklein) January 7, 2014
It set me on an early morning Twitter rampage. I don’t know how many tweets I blurted out, each one more indignant than the one before.
Unfortunately I have to make a living, so promised to blog about it today, my day off.
Then I realized I’d already written about it in the early summer. So I just tweeted that and went on with my day.
Looking at the tweet again, though, I realize there’s something important that Klein gets wrong that we need to talk about.
Who’s he talking about?
Exactly who looks out on a single cold winter day and says, “This proves global warming isn’t real”?
I mean, yes, all us skeptics and deniers joke about that.
If there’s a record cold day, or there’s more of them strung together than we’re used to.
But no serious person looks at that cold weather snapshot and declares—on that basis alone—that global warming is a hoax.
Maybe Ezra’s circle has less serious people in it than mine does.
Where’s the parallel?
When serious skeptics argue against the AGW hypothesis, they’re talking about trends (like a whole decade with no warming). Polar ice growing where Warmists had insisted ice would be gone by now.
Mr. Klein somehow draws a parallel between a trend going in the opposite direction from his predictions and a 24-hour sun cycle that’s been going on uniformly for how many millions of years?
We’re pretty confident the sun is still there because it was dark last night and it was light yesterday. And this has been going on for our entire lives and on and on throughout the ages.
But global warming?
There is a parallel
Just not the one he thinks.
The real parallel, while not perfect, is valid—certainly more valid than the one Klein drew—and very pertinent to the global warming debate.
There are many scientists (not the in-group of scientists whose papers are regularly published and approved by—wink wink—peers, but genuine, credentialed scientists nonetheless) who believe climate warming and cooling are driven by solar cycles more than by humans.
The cycles they describe form an enlarged, somewhat predictable, model very similar to the familiar cycle of day and night.
Just a whole lot longer than 24 hours. And quite a bit more complicated.
It’s amusing how often we are reminded that climate isn’t weather
And yet climate is defined by temperature and other data snap shots.
Which is weather.
Climate is weather—writ large over time and territory. An aggregate of weather events. One of which we’re now experiencing.
Ice growing at the polar caps.
Record low temps.
Pretty much the opposite of what warmists claimed was happening when James Hanson made his seminal (and sweaty) 1988 appearance before Congress and they turned off the air conditioning.
That was when climatologists still believed in weather.
Again, a single weather event can’t melt polar ice. Or form it.
But a series can and a straight-line warming series is just what global warming “science” predicts.
String enough weather events together and you have a new series.
If that series does not come remotely close to your prediction it’s time to re-examine your hypothesis.
Science that doesn’t adjust its hypotheses when faced with contrary evidence isn’t science. It’s blind religion.
Saying you believe in something despite consistent evidence to the contrary and against all scientific evidence is blind, fanatical religion. It is the Roman church at war against Galileo. It is the opposite of science.
An appendix rant
As we were discussing Klein’s tweet yesterday, somebody offered that old global warming “proof” (that not even Gore believes) about 98 percent of “scientists.” Which takes me back to the core question about global warming “research”:
Who picks the “peers” who pick apart the “peer-reviewed” papers?
100 years from now, a teacher will ask a student for a famous real-life example of the True Scotsman Fallacy.
The answer every student will be able to give?
If you let me pick the experts, I can make science anything I want it to be.
Except one thing.
An accurate reflection of reality.
The concept of Global Warming began as an elementary hypothesis which caused concern which provoked a panic which morphed into a hoax and then into a furiously inept defense.
The hoax isn’t that global climate isn’t warming (or wasn’t). It’s the particular choice of causes and the horribly gone-wrong prediction of outcomes and critical solutions.
I have never seen such large-scale obfuscation over such an extended time ever. Despite abundant evidence to the contrary.
How does this happen? Where is the Press? Where is the in-born skepticism they claim they have?
Please, people, show some mercy.
Let’s put this thing to bed.
And please…for the sake of the children…
Can we once again learn how to draw valid and useful analogies?