# "It's cold, so there's no global warming." Do they KNOW that's false? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 13, 2011, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421 "2011-01-13T03:27:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/1 "2011-01-13T03:27:25Z")
So I just saw a conservative website’s story entitled (IIRC): “Global warming update: snow in 49 states.” The obvious implication is that if it’s cold, that means global warming is not happening. This just advances the false (though admittedly with at least a little basis in “common sense”) perception that “global warming” means that everywhere on the planet will be hotter all the time. Do people who do this know it’s false, and are just advancing it anyway for their political agenda, or do they really don’t know? I mean, there’s arguing (which I don’t necessarily mind, even on a subject like this) and arguing in bad faith, and I’m wondering how much of it is going on here… ---
**Author:** ![Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hilarity_n.suze/32/6223_2.png) [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hilarity_N.Suze)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/2 "2011-01-13T04:00:20Z")
If they are going to call it “global warming” then a warming trend should emerge. No such warming trend has emerged. Now they are backpedaling and saying, “Oh, we meant global climate change.” Okay. Why didn’t they state it that way when they proposed the hypothesis? I guess it was because they thought it was going to be warmer, right? And then, when that didn’t happen, they changed the terminology, so that any weird weather qualified as global warming. I mean, really. If the whole world gets colder, you can’t really call that “warming” now, can you? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/3 "2011-01-13T04:07:49Z")
> [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](#): > > If they are going to call it “global warming” then a warming trend should emerge. No such warming trend has emerged. > > Now they are backpedaling and saying, “Oh, we meant global climate change.” > > Okay. Why didn’t they state it that way when they proposed the hypothesis? I guess it was because they thought it was going to be warmer, right? And then, when that didn’t happen, they changed the terminology, so that any weird weather qualified as global warming. > > I mean, really. If the whole world gets colder, you can’t really call that “warming” now, can you? Let me guess, another victim of the right wing echo chamber eh? Fact: Climate Change and Global warming have been used from way back, it was a right wing spinner that decided to make the Republicans insist on using only the term “climate change” as it was less scary than “Global Warming” [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mqMunulJU7w/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEmCOADEOgC8quKqQMa8AEB-AHUBoAC1gOKAgwIABABGEQgXChyMA8=&rs=AOn4CLBxlJL73bJIrZYo1w4t0OgtByKKUw "Global Warming? or Climate Change?") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqMunulJU7w) It worked so well that right wingers swallowed that silly argument of changing terms hook line and sinker. As for the warming not showing: > **[What has global warming done since 1998?](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm)** > > \The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due... > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > 2005 was the hottest year globally, and 2009 the second hottest. > > No, it hasn’t been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn’t the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What’s more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010. > > Though humans love record-breakers, they don’t, on their own, tell us a much about trends – and it’s trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data, globally, and taking into account other variables – like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity – not by cherry-picking single points. ---
**Author:** ![Long\_Time\_First\_Time](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@Long\_Time\_First\_Time](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Long_Time_First_Time)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/4 "2011-01-13T04:15:12Z")
> [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](#): > > If they are going to call it “global warming” then a warming trend should emerge. No such warming trend has emerged. > > Now they are backpedaling and saying, “Oh, we meant global climate change.” > > Okay. Why didn’t they state it that way when they proposed the hypothesis? I guess it was because they thought it was going to be warmer, right? And then, when that didn’t happen, they changed the terminology, so that any weird weather qualified as global warming. > > I mean, really. If the whole world gets colder, you can’t really call that “warming” now, can you? But that’s not true, a warming trend HAS emerged. 2010 is tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record (link: [http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2011-01-12-2010-warmest-year-climate-change\_N.htm](http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2011-01-12-2010-warmest-year-climate-change_N.htm) ) “It was the 34th consecutive year that the global temperature was above average, according to the data center. The last below-average year was 1976.” The concept, which, to paraphrase Shaw’s quote, a lot of people’s paychecks depend on their not understanding - it that climate and weather are not the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/5 "2011-01-13T04:31:38Z")
> [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](#): > > If they are going to call it “global warming” then a warming trend should emerge. No such warming trend has emerged. > > Now they are backpedaling and saying, “Oh, we meant global climate change.” > > Okay. Why didn’t they state it that way when they proposed the hypothesis? I guess it was because they thought it was going to be warmer, right? And then, when that didn’t happen, they changed the terminology, so that any weird weather qualified as global warming. > > I mean, really. If the whole world gets colder, you can’t really call that “warming” now, can you? Try and keep up. “Global Warming” does not mean it’ll be 72 in Anchorage in January. Weather patterns change and weather is a complex beast. Try reading a little. (For instance warmer air can hold more moisture, more moisture = more precipitation = more snow/rain…blizzards in the US in winter, floods in Australia in summer (which is our winter)). ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/6 "2011-01-13T04:32:27Z")
I swear I read somewhere that winters themselves could actually become MORE intense, just from the more extreme changes in the weather patterns. Did I hear that from a bullshit cite? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Wile\_E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c37758/32.png) [@Wile\_E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wile_E)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/7 "2011-01-13T04:50:30Z")
> [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](#): > > If they are going to call it “global warming” then a warming trend should emerge. No such warming trend has emerged. > > Now they are backpedaling and saying, “Oh, we meant global climate change.” > > Okay. Why didn’t they state it that way when they proposed the hypothesis? I guess it was because they thought it was going to be warmer, right? And then, when that didn’t happen, they changed the terminology, so that any weird weather qualified as global warming. > > I mean, really. If the whole world gets colder, you can’t really call that “warming” now, can you? You can in the summer. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/8 "2011-01-13T04:52:06Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > I swear I read somewhere that winters themselves could actually become MORE intense, just from the more extreme changes in the weather patterns. Did I hear that from a bullshit cite? 😕 Winters are bound to take less time, but it is silly from some deniers to say that scientists are saying that winters would disappear, far from it. More heath would increase the water vapor content in the atmosphere, that was predicted and it is happening. (Leading to more intense snow falls and rains.) What has been uncertain is where exactly on earth the intense effects would affect humans the most. What is unfortunate is that many on the right are ignoring the science and deny that global warming is intensifying natural weather phenomenons. > **[The Queensland floods](https://skepticalscience.com/The-Queensland-floods.html)** > > As the Queensland floods have now hit Brisbane, a number of people have emailed or posted comments enquiring about our well-being. Many thanks to everyone for their thoughts and concern. I'm happy to say the Cook family is safe and dry - we happen to... > [@](#): > > As the Queensland floods have now hit Brisbane, a number of people have emailed or posted comments enquiring about our well-being. Many thanks to everyone for their thoughts and concern. I’m happy to say the Cook family is safe and dry - we happen to be located in a relatively elevated area (not by design - extreme flooding was not even on my radar when we moved into the area). However, many nearby suburbs have not been so fortunate. > > Ten minutes south-east from us, low-lying areas of Strathpine were evacuated yesterday. South Pine River has burst its banks and covers a large portion of the suburb: > > Meanwhile, to the north-west of us, just down the road from our church, One Mile Creek has also burst its banks and blocked off the road: > > Up to 40,000 homes are estimated to be affected by flooding over the next day, when the Brisbane River peaks at 3am tomorrow morning. But while the flood waters rise gradually here, incredible scenes were witnessed earlier this week in the town of Toowomba, 90 minutes west of Brisbane. The media are referring to it as an inland tsunami - a wall of water rushed through the town, dragging along cars, shipping containers and even houses. We heard accounts of entire homes being plucked off their foundations and carried by the waters, with people inside crying out for help. The tragedies this and other Queensland towns have endured are heartbreaking and the damage mindboggling. > > When these kind of extreme events happen, people ask “Did global warming cause this flood?” as if the answer should be yes or no. **It’s more appropriate to ask does global warming have an effect on these types of events?** The scientific evidence indicates yes. As temperatures have risen, we’ve observed more water vapour in the air. More water vapour leads to more extreme rain events. Over the last few decades, we’ve observed an increase in the number of extreme precipitation events. And we expect the number of extreme precipitation and flooding events to increase as global warming continues. > > It’s times like this that I can’t help thinking of the words of NOAA scientist Deke Arndt, **“Climate trains the boxer but weather throws the punches”**. Weather will always throw these random punches at us. Occasionally it gets in a lucky punch that knocks us off our feet. But **what we’re doing is training weather to throw harder punches at us and more often**. That’s what is being observed and that’s what we expect to see more of in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Rachellelogram](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rachellelogram/32/8689_2.png) [@Rachellelogram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachellelogram)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/9 "2011-01-13T05:03:13Z")
The opening line is obviously a bullshit argument. But I think there exists reasonable doubt that GW has primarily anthropogenic causes. The earth has cycled through climate shifts and “ice ages” (which contrary to popular fiction do not actually cause the earth to resemble a ball of goddamn ice) in the past, before our species even existed. So until AGW has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the majority of the population (alongside other gems such as the sun not going around the earth, and the earth not being flat), you’re not going to get a lot of people to care about it. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/10 "2011-01-13T05:05:37Z")
From a physical standpoint, it makes sense that global warming would be associated with more extreme weather events, because there is more energy being trapped in the system. That can manifest itself as major snowstorms as well as heat waves or hurricanes. However… Global warming at the predicted rate would have virtually no effect in the short term. We’re talking about a temperature increase of less than one degree per decade from global warming, whereas the annual variation in temperature is, as I recall, around .3-.4 degrees. So an extreme weather event or even an abnormally hot year is not proof of global warming, and a calm or cool year is not proof that global warming does not exist. Annual weather changes are dominated by other phenomenon, such as whether we’re in a period of El Niño or La Niña, volcanic activity, solar variation, or just pure randomness. But predictable as rain, if we have a big hurricane or a heat wave, the global warming side will claim it’s proof of global warming, and if we have a cold snap the anti global warming side will claim it as proof that global warming isn’t happening. Both sides should knock it off. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/11 "2011-01-13T05:10:18Z")
> [@rachelellogram](#): > > The opening line is obviously a bullshit argument. But I think there exists reasonable doubt that GW has primarily anthropogenic causes. The earth has cycled through climate shifts and “ice ages” (which contrary to popular fiction do not actually cause the earth to resemble a ball of goddamn ice) in the past, before our species even existed. And you think scientists have not considered that already? > **[What does past climate change tell us about global warming?](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm)** > > Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past... > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing. > > A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so therefore humans cannot be causing global warming now. Interestingly, the peer-reviewed research into past climate change comes to the opposite conclusion. To understand this, first you have to ask why climate has changed in the past. It doesn’t happen by magic. Climate changes when it’s forced to change. When our planet suffers an energy imbalance and gains or loses heat, global temperature changes. > > There are a number of different forces which can influence the Earth’s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. These effects are referred to as external forcings because by changing the planet’s energy balance, they force climate to change. > > It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can’t cause climate change is like arguing that humans can’t start bushfires because in the past they’ve happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth’s history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate. > [@rachelellogram](#): > > So until AGW has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the majority of the population (alongside other gems such as the sun not going around the earth, and the earth not being flat), you’re not going to get a lot of people to care about it. I wonder who would be making such efforts to mislead the people? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Jamaika\_a\_jamaikaiake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7993a0/32.png) [@Jamaika\_a\_jamaikaiake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jamaika_a_jamaikaiake)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/12 "2011-01-13T05:11:57Z")
> [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](#): > > If they are going to call it “global warming” then a warming trend should emerge. No such warming trend has emerged. > > Now they are backpedaling and saying, “Oh, we meant global climate change.” > > Okay. Why didn’t they state it that way when they proposed the hypothesis? I guess it was because they thought it was going to be warmer, right? And then, when that didn’t happen, they changed the terminology, so that any weird weather qualified as global warming. > > I mean, really. If the whole world gets colder, you can’t really call that “warming” now, can you? But you didn’t answer the OP. Are you arguing in bad faith, or really just this misinformed? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/13 "2011-01-13T05:13:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Winters are bound to take less time, but it is silly from some deniers to say that scientists are saying that winters would disappear, far from it. More heath would increase the water vapor content in the atmosphere, that was predicted and it is happening. (Leading to more intense snow falls and rains.) Thanks – I knew I heard it somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/14 "2011-01-13T05:17:41Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Annual weather changes are dominated by other phenomenon, such as whether we’re in a period of El Niño or La Niña, volcanic activity, solar variation, or just pure randomness. > > But predictable as rain, if we have a big hurricane or a heat wave, the global warming side will claim it’s proof of global warming, and if we have a cold snap the anti global warming side will claim it as proof that global warming isn’t happening. > > Both sides should knock it off. What a nice straw men side that claims it’s proof of global warming. (No one in this thread that is a proponent has said that) The reality is that the anti global warming side is the one that needs to get their shit knock off. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/15 "2011-01-13T05:23:47Z")
> [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](#): > > If they are going to call it “global warming” then a warming trend should emerge. No such warming trend has emerged. > > Now they are backpedaling and saying, “Oh, we meant global climate change.” > > Okay. Why didn’t they state it that way when they proposed the hypothesis? I guess it was because they thought it was going to be warmer, right? And then, when that didn’t happen, they changed the terminology, so that any weird weather qualified as global warming. > > I mean, really. If the whole world gets colder, you can’t really call that “warming” now, can you? There is no dispute that the earth is warming. Even serious global warming skeptics agree that the Earth is warming. The debate is over man’s contribution to warming, not whether it’s occurring at all. That’s another reason why it’s so stupid to claim that a heat wave or an abnormally warm year is proof of global warming, or to claim that an abnormally cold year is proof that warming isn’t happening. That whole dialog misses the entire point of the debate. I’ve spent a long time looking at the global warming debate from a skeptical viewpoint. I would like to believe that the AGW hypothesis is false. But I can’t do that. There’s just too much data supporting it. I’ve looked at all the arguments against, and even though I want to believe them I have to conclude that the preponderance of evidence is, at this time, supportive of the AGW hypothesis. There are many other open questions about global warming when it comes to long term predictions, the proper policy options, and all the rest, but at this time I think anyone who respects science as a tool has to conclude that the AGW proponents have the data on their side. Is it absolutely conclusive? No, but that’s not how science works. You never close the books or declare something proved. Perhaps new discoveries will cause us to re-interpret the data, or over time we will discover feedback mechanisms we didn’t understand that moderate or reverse the warming. But that’s just speculation. Today, the evidence suggests that man-made emissions of CO2 are contributing to the warming of the planet. The exact amount of warming isn’t known, and the error bars are pretty large, but it IS happening. ---
**Author:** ![MysteryFellow63427](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e4f/32.png) [@MysteryFellow63427](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysteryFellow63427)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/16 "2011-01-13T06:00:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What has been uncertain is where exactly on earth the intense effects would affect humans the most. What is unfortunate is that many on the right are ignoring the science and deny that global warming is intensifying natural weather phenomenons. Oh, you mean like [hurricane activity](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/12/global-hurricane-activity-has-decreased-to-the-lowest-level-in-30-years/)? Anyway, weather = climate is stupid, but from what I’ve seen both the believers and the deniers can’t resist sticking in an “I told you so” when extreme heat or cold happens. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/17 "2011-01-13T06:12:25Z")
> [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](#): > > If they are going to call it “global warming” then a warming trend should emerge. No such warming trend has emerged. > > Now they are backpedaling and saying, “Oh, we meant global climate change.” > > Okay. Why didn’t they state it that way when they proposed the hypothesis? I guess it was because they thought it was going to be warmer, right? And then, when that didn’t happen, they changed the terminology, so that any weird weather qualified as global warming. > > I mean, really. If the whole world gets colder, you can’t really call that “warming” now, can you? You seem to be mistaking weather for climate. ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/18 "2011-01-13T06:15:53Z")
In my opinion, judging from their thinly veiled contempt, and personally talking with the people who are spoonfed Fox News and the rightie tightie spin (atomic wedgie)… They point to the cooling as ignorant meteorological misunderstanding of the concept of global warming. No, they do not understand the full syntax of their surroundings… they are easily misled with shortsighted demagogues. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/19 "2011-01-13T06:17:24Z")
Thanks for that post **Sam Stone** - nicely put. I will buy you a beer next time I’m in Calgary. ---
**Author:** ![Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hilarity_n.suze/32/6223_2.png) [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hilarity_N.Suze)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/20 "2011-01-13T06:44:22Z")
All right. Would someone like to explain the difference between weather and climate? Really the thing is that I do understand that when people pave dirt with asphalt and add a lot of cement and cars, it makes that place tend to be hotter than it was before. And I understand that when people move into a desert and plant lawns and install sprinkler systems, and then dam rivers to have enough water for these activities, it makes that place more humid than it was before. And I understand that these things happening can change the climate. But the whole global warming thing has been fraught with people claiming they know the truth, and with people either fudging the data or skewing the interpretation (although I guess skewing the interpretation happens a lot–you see what you’re looking for). I’m not real scientific myself so a lot of the more technical stuff goes over my head, but I’ve read stuff from both sides, and they’re both pretty all or nothing. I’m just pointing out that if one side had called it “global climate change” from the beginning, it would be helpful to people who think it can’t be global warming because it’s cold. But, ultimately, aren’t they talking about the average temperature of the whole world? So if it gets much colder than typical in a lot of places, that is going to bring the average down. They don’t just pick one day and say, “See? It’s hotter today!” [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421.md?page=2)