# "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:** 10
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2011, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/181 "2011-01-18T21:22:41Z")
I think not. ---
**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 19, 2011, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/182 "2011-01-19T00:03:23Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I meant to say “ignorance” as well. After all, I was the one who introduced “nonsense” in rebuttal to **GIGO’s** use of ‘ignorance’ to define uncitable opinion. And what was all that effort for?.. Oh that’s right, for nothing to do with the fact that you are incapable of finding good support for your say so’s regarding AGW. And the sad part is that you are still wrong, I’m for sure ignorant of many things, but once someone posted a link to an specific item to the evidence on the Mumia Yamal case I got better. Sure, I was ignorant on an important item of the case and once I saw the evidence, it changed my mind; in other occasions a gut feeling turned to be 100% correct after later research confirmed it. And yet, in both cases I was ignorantly giving an opinion. In this message board I do think that we are expected to make an effort to support what we say, as the science reporter cited also says: even my opinion is irrelevant, what counts on this issue is the research and the evidence found by experts on the field; and in the era of the internet, trying to convince others that finding cites is impossible, is really silly. The problem here is that you are proud of that ignorance and continue to defend a position that has no support, **if this was an unscientific issue you may had a point** , but in this subject, if you were correct, you should be able to find plenty of evidence to support your position. That we should not forget was that besides ignoring the science already cited we are here dealing with this bit of your silliness: "They [leftists in the 70’s] all claimed science was on their side. There’s a difference between ‘the left’ and ‘most scientists’. You need to learn how to make that distinction." What it was clear by the evidence presented (that would had been impossible to produce according to you) is that popular media, just like today, got the science wrong, and this has nothing to do if they are left or right wing. And no, not all leftists nor scientists claimed an ice age was coming. The majority of the scientists still predicted that global warming was coming, regardless of the cooling that was being observed in the 60’s and 70’s. And even then, if some leftists did warn about global cooling, they were wrong. They should had listened to the scientists, **rightists of today should listen to them**. ---
**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 19, 2011, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/183 "2011-01-19T00:19:51Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > In my opinon specious cite demands are the greatest form of intellectual dishonesty that takes place here. That is only if we were dealing with just an opinion (and this subject it is not just based on opinions) one should still be able to find where the source of that opinion comes from or point at very important people that also support that opinion, so at least we can take it with them and not an anonymous ignoramus on a message board. So what happens if no good expert nor an important person in the field supports even that opinion? Chances are that you are even wrong on pretending that even that opinion has any value. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2011, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/184 "2011-01-19T01:19:30Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And what was all that effort for?.. Oh that’s right, for nothing to do with the fact that you are incapable of finding good support for your say so’s regarding AGW. Well, in the first place, it didn’t have anything to do with GW. It was merely intended to show that calling all uncitable opinion ignorant is, well…ignorant. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > …in the era of the internet, trying to convince others that finding cites is impossible, is really silly. Depends upon the subject. To the best of my recollection I’ve never said that cites can’t be found with regard to GW. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > The problem here is that you are proud of that ignorance and continue to defend a position that has no support… My ‘position’ is skepticism. And I’m not particularly proud of it; it’s just there. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > **if this was an unscientific issue you may had a point** , but in this subject, if you were correct, you should be able to find plenty of evidence to support your position. Again, I have no position. I’m not denying GW, I’m merely skeptical about it. And I have questions about it. Perfectly good questions. But they piss people like you off. If you had answers instead of insults, I’d listen to them. But you ignore them because you don’t have good answers and insist on bringing the discussion back to where you happen to feel most comfortable, which is the science you find conclusive on whether or not it exists. You could liken my position - in the event GW exists as claimed - to that of people caught up in the aftermath of an atomic explosion: it does no good to prove that an explosion has occurred. The questions are what are you gonna do about it, and is that solution both correct and doable. Whenever I ask those questions around here however, I merely get labled a denier and my questions get ignored. And why do they get ignored? Because you not only can’t answer them but you perceive them as a threat to your attempts to get people all whipped up over this issue. I don’t want them getting whipped up, though, because that’s how stupid solutions are born. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > ["What it was clear by the evidence presented (that would had been impossible to produce according to you) is that popular media, just like today, got the science wrong, and this has nothing to do if they are left or right wing. And no, not all leftists nor scientists claimed an ice age was coming. The majority of the scientists still predicted that global warming was coming, regardless of the cooling that was being observed in the 60’s and 70’s. And even then, if some leftists did warn about global cooling, they were wrong. They should had listened to the scientists, **rightists of today should listen to them**. They do. They listen to the ones who say it’s bullshit. 😃 And why do they do that? Because lefties have been predicting one sort of environmental catastrophe after another for the last forty years and they’ve largely turned out to be baseless. And besides, like many of your political persuasion, you are putting idealism ahead of human nature. Busy people trying to raise families and deal with the more immediate problems that life presents while still trying to make the most of their limited leisure time are simply not going to study every scientific claim that comes out on this issue. And they lack the educational background to understand it even if they tried. So all your emphasis on ‘science’ vs. ‘the media’ is for naught. The media is how people are getting their information and it always has been. If the media is largely pro-left and it often can be found promoting leftist predictions that turn out to be false, people are going to start ignoring it. You can only cry “wolf” so many times. So again, I’m not adamantly against the possibility that GW exists, I’m just unconvinced. And until somebody can come up with credible answers to the questions I asked upthread, I’m going to remain skeptical and unenthused about getting government involved in trying to do something about it. ---
**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 19, 2011, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/185 "2011-01-19T01:22:37Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > They do. They listen to the ones who say it’s bullshit. 😃 Who? And as I pointed out before who you are referring too is very important. And for your questions, well the thing is that they were already answered many times before: > **[Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says](https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php)** > > Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science... ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2011, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/186 "2011-01-19T01:29:13Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is only if we were dealing with just an opinion (and this subject it is not just based on opinions) one should still be able to find where the source of that opinion comes from or point at very important people that also support that opinion, so at least we can take it with them and not an anonymous ignoramus on a message board. > > So what happens if no good expert nor an important person in the field supports even that opinion? Chances are that you are even wrong on pretending that even that opinion has any value. Whatever. I’m not gonna waste time arguing over what the meaning of “is” is with you. If a subject is objective and cites can reasonably be expected to exist, then calling for cites is legitimate. If the subject is subjective and cites cannot be reasonably expected to exist, then calling for cites is nothing but an intellectually dishonest attempt at obfuscation. ---
**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 19, 2011, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/187 "2011-01-19T01:36:21Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Whatever. I’m not gonna waste time arguing over what the meaning of “is” is with you. If a subject is objective and cites can reasonably be expected to exist, then calling for cites is legitimate. If the subject is subjective and cites cannot be reasonably expected to exist, then calling for cites is nothing but an intellectually dishonest attempt at obfuscation. Nope, the point is that then I would appreciate and I would attempt to understand how is it that others have the same **opinion** as my opponent has, then others and me can check if the one with the opinion is an expert or it is someone just made of [del]fail[/del] fallacy. ---
**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 19, 2011, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/188 "2011-01-19T01:43:28Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] rightists of today should listen to them. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Starving Artist] They do. They listen to the ones who say it’s bullshit. 😃 And why do they do that? Because lefties have been predicting one sort of environmental catastrophe after another for the last forty years and they’ve largely turned out to be baseless. [/QUOTE] Others already pointed to examples were that is not the case. And as much as you may wish to ignore it, everyone can see that more serious people on the right like **Sam Stone** and the Professor at BYU already accepted the evidence. This issue, as much as many on the right would want it to be, is not a left or right issue. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2011, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/189 "2011-01-19T02:05:11Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I think not. I know. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2011, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/190 "2011-01-19T02:20:27Z")
> [@Nadir](#): > > We must of course at this point recognize that the climate change scientific community and their followers (especially those in the political arena) have likey attained preeminent groupthink status Eh. So has gravity. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2011, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/191 "2011-01-19T02:45:34Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And everyone can see why you want to mislead others by just insisting that we should only concentrate on the last 10 years or so, because it does remove the pesky significant upward trend. I’m not insisting on anything of the sort. I insisted, in fact, on the exact opposite: > [@](#): > > See, now, that’s an interesting prediction. Are you saying, by analogy, that “in ten years” the current temperature will go up that drastically? Or that, “in ten years”, it will go up at all instead of (a) holding steady for a decade, or (b) maybe even dropping a bit? > > Just to make sure we’re on the same page: ten years from now, what hypothetical evidence could pile up to falsify your predictions about global warming? (And: back in '98, what were your side’s falsifiable predictions about global warming in the years and years and years and years and years and years to come?) I’m _ **exactly** _ as interested in what falsifiable predictions you can make about years to come as I am in what falsifiable predictions were made years ago. I’m not the one making those predictions; I’m the one who, ideally, would like to hear those predictions from each person on your side in this thread – and maybe each of you would give a different answer, at that. That’s why I’m puzzled by this: [QUOTE=GIGObuster] When even the few scientists that are beloved by the deniers like Pat Michaels accepts this reality (Of the dumbness of saying that there has been no warming in the last 10 years or so) one then has to notice that guys like you are following the footsteps of creationists, when their points of view have virtually no support in the science community [/QUOTE] . . . because, from my point of view, I’m more analogous to an agnostic – in that, until you and yours offer up falsifiable predictions, you’re the ones who are offering up religion instead of science. You copy-and-pasted the parts of my post that cried out far _ **less** _ for an answer than what I’ll now repeat: _“So who, on your side, was predicting a ‘10-year period of no “apparent” warming’ back when? And, again, what specific falsifiable prediction are you and yours offering up now? Could any plateau or drop over the last decade-plus have caused you even a moment’s concern? Could any plateau or drop over the next decade-plus swing it?”_ Possibly some of the folks in this very thread would say that a ten-year or twelve-year plateau isn’t enough, but twenty or twenty-five years would do it. Possibly some would say that a plateau of _ **any** _ length would be insufficient to falsify their conclusions, but a drop of half a degree each year for the next decade would do – and possibly some would say even a drop of a degree each year for _ **two** _ decades wouldn’t suffice. Possibly each of you has a different criterion in mind; I have no criterion of my own, but simply consider whatever each of you brings up for discussion. That’s why I want to clarify a point regarding the following: [QUOTE=Long Time First Time] 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...e-change\_N.htm](http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science...e-change_N.htm) [/QUOTE] His evidence for the “warming trend” involved surface temperature – and I pegged my hundred-pounder analogy to _ **that** _ criterion. You didn’t rebuke **Long Time First Time** for saying the “warming trend” is a matter of surface temperature; I merely took him seriously, and want to know whether analogizing such temperatures to such weights – in which case she may well have lost weight from '98 to '10 – would be evidence against his position. If you want to swap in a different criterion, then, by all means, do so; I asked repeatedly for whatever falsifiable prediction you’d like to supply, and wholeheartedly do so again now – for you and for anyone on your side. In the _ **absence** _ of that, I see religion instead of science. We’re all familiar with folks who explain away everything: if a patient improves after fervent prayer, it’s the will of God; if her condition worsens, it’s the will of God; no hypothetical evidence can falsify the position; all results are equally evidence, all are irrelevant. What can falsify a position about global warming? At times, the constant drumbeat in the media seems to approach such an omni-explanation. Hotter winters? Global warming. Colder winters with less snow? Global warming. Colder winters with _ **more** _ snow? Global warming. More hurricanes? Global warming. Fewer hurricanes? Global warming. A rise in surface temperature? Global warming. A decline in surface temperature? Global warming. A plateau? Global warming. So give me the alternative: what hypothetical evidence could pile up – in years or decades to come – to falsify predictions? (And, as per the earlier parenthetical: what falsifiable predictions were made back when regarding what’s gone on from '98 to the present? Remember, I’m _ **not** _ the one making falsifiable predictions; I’m the one looking to see whether _ **your** _ side is making falsifiable predictions. I’m not advancing a religious belief; I’m checking to see whether you and yours are.) If twelve years aren’t enough, extend it out as far as you like – and, again, maybe each poster on your side will stipulate to a different time-frame, I don’t know; maybe **Long Time First Time** can be satisfied with a hypothetical surface-temperature decline over the next twenty years, and maybe you’ll hold surface temperature irrelevant while requiring a different criterion over the next forty. _ **I don’t know.** _ Tell me. ---
**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 19, 2011, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/192 "2011-01-19T02:57:40Z")
The longer the wall of text the less likely it is true, specially if there is no citations to show for. And you continue to attempt mislead others, no matter how much you insist on concentrating on the current decade the reality is that scientists do look at a longer picture and they look even before the 70’s to conclude that there is global warming and we are having a controlling part on it after the 70’s. In other threads the prediction issue was already explained, that you show here is not agnosticism, but willful ignorance. > **[Did global warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?](https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm)** > > \2007's dramatic cooling is driven by strong La Nina conditions which historically has caused similar drops in global temperature. It is also exacerbated by unusually low solar activity.\ > [@](#): > > The chart above clearly shows that temperatures have gone up. They are, however, not going up in a steady curve as most people would expect. They are, instead, rising in a stepwise fashion. That means they can remain steady for a few years and, all of a sudden, jump up; then remain steady and soon jump up again. > > When temperatures for the warm El Niño years (Pink lines) during 1980-1995 are compared to 1998-2010, there is a sudden increase of at least 0.2o Centigrade (0.36o Fahrenheit). Temperatures also jumped up by about 0.15oC (0.27oF) between the cool La Niña years (Green lines) of 1979-1989 and those of 1996-2008 (the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 lowered the Earth’s temperatures in the midst of an El Niño cycle). The overall trend from 1979 through November 2010 (Brown line) shows an unmistakable rise. > > While these increases do not sound like much they are more than enough to disrupt weather systems and cause severe damage to crops and human populations. > > In spite of these facts, ‘skeptics’ simply keep changing their dates for ‘Global Cooling’. > **[Are we heading into global cooling?](https://skepticalscience.com/future-global-cooling.htm)** > > Claims have recently surfaced in the blogosphere that an increasing number of scientists are warning of an imminent global cooling, some even going so far as to call it a > **[Phil Jones and the meaning of 'statistically significant warming'](https://skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since-1995.htm)** > > \When you read Phil Jones' actual words, you see he's saying there \is\ a warming trend but it's not statistically significant. He's not talking about whether warming is actually happening. He's discussing our ability to detect that warming... > **[Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm)** > > \Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues... > **[Does record snowfall disprove global warming?](https://skepticalscience.com/Record-snowfall-disproves-global-warming.htm)** > > To claim that record snowfall is inconsistent with a warming world betrays a lack of understanding of the link between global warming and extreme precipitation. Warming causes more moisture in the air which leads to more extreme precipitation events.... ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2011, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/193 "2011-01-19T03:01:13Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The longer the wall of text the less likely it is true, specially if there is no citations to show for. I’m not making a citation in that text because I’m asking for a falsifiable prediction. I’ll now ask, in short text: can you make a falsifiable prediction about global warming? > [@](#): > > And you continue to attempt mislead others, no matter how much you insist on concentrating on the current decade the reality is that scientists do look at a longer picture and they look even before the 70’s to conclude that there is global warming and we are having a controlling part on it after the 70’s. And what, in years to come, could falsify that conclusion? ---
**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 19, 2011, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/194 "2011-01-19T03:08:05Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’m not making a citation in that text because I’m asking for a falsifiable prediction. > > I’ll now ask, in short text: can you make a falsifiable prediction about global warming? Already posted in the last links, one just need to use just a little imagination to come with falsifications, unless you do not have imagination or the will to show all those scientists wrong. The empirical evidence shows that faith has nothing to do with it. I can see you will do the same and demonstrate to all that you learned noting, you will ignore that Latif said that in a global warming world we should not be surprised to see a decade or two of “apparent” global cooling. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > And what, in years to come, could falsify that conclusion? Already mentioned before on past threads, but keep demonstrating to all how useless you are on even remembering things, hardly something to be proud when attempting to convince others. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2011, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/195 "2011-01-19T03:19:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Already posted in the last links, one just need to use just a little imagination to come with falsifications, unless you do not have imagination or the will to show all those scientists wrong. Why use my imagination when you and yours can just tell me? I might get it wrong, and you and yours are right here. > [@](#): > > Already mentioned before on past threads, but keep demonstrating to all how useless you are on even remembering things, hardly something to be proud when attempting to convince others. If you’d read the long wall of text instead of deriding it, you would’ve noticed that I’m interested in seeing whether (a) **Long Time** has a different criterion than you do, and, indeed, whether (b) each of you has a different criterion from all the others. I’m also interested in seeing whether you’ve changed your position. That said, _ **I’m not the one trying to convince others.** _ I’m not interested in _ **making** _ falsifiable predictions about whether the globe will get warmer or colder in years and decades to come; I’m the one interested in seeing _ **whether** _ you and yours make falsifiable predictions – and, again possibly each of you will offer up a different falsifiable prediction. > [@](#): > > you will ignore that Latif said that in a global warming world we should not be surprised to see a decade or two of “apparent” global cooling. Again, I’m happy to rule out a decade or two of “apparent” global cooling as irrelevant – so long as something relevant to a different falsifiable prediction is offered up in its place. **Long Time** , for example, seemed interested in pegging his argument to whether a decade or two of “apparent” global cooling shows up; I’m just as happy to ponder any other criterion instead, but merely removing his without replacing it with something else is – well, religion, not science. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2011, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/196 "2011-01-19T03:23:51Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Others already pointed to examples were that is not the case. They can point to all the examples they want. Isolated exceptions don’t disprove the rule. You should know that. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > And as much as you may wish to ignore it, everyone can see that more serious people on the right like **Sam Stone** and the Professor at BYU already accepted the evidence. Again, this proves nothing. (And besides, I think you’re misrepresenting what **Sam** said. IIRC, he said that the evidence is beginning to cause him to lean toward accepting that GW as fact. I don’t believe he has yet been absolutely convinced.) Everyone comes to believe what they believe on their own timeframe. There may come a time when I’m persuaded of GW, but if and when that time comes it will be because I’ve become convinced of it on my own and not because someone else on the right beat me to it. And besides, people of a like mind politically can still disagree. For example, I disagree with **Sam** when it comes to the legalization of drugs and **Rand Rover** disagrees with me when it comes to social issues. We are not all the same. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > This issue, as much as many on the right would want it to be, is not a left or right issue. Doesn’t this statement pretty much disprove itself? 😃 Now having said that, it depends upon the context. You appear to be hanging your hat on the scientific community when saying that, and I’m not familiar enough with the personal politics of all the scientists around the globe who are promoting or denying the issue to be able to say one way or the other. But when it comes to the public stage, lefties are very much in the majority in promoting the idea and righties are in the majority in opposing it. So in terms of public dialog on global warming, it’s causes, and what should be done about it, it’s very much a left vs. right issue. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2011, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/197 "2011-01-19T03:30:05Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Already posted in the last links, one just need to use just a little imagination to come with falsifications, unless you do not have imagination or the will to show all those scientists wrong. The empirical evidence shows that faith has nothing to do with it. I can see you will do the same and demonstrate to all that you learned noting, you will ignore that Latif said that in a global warming world we should not be surprised to see a decade or two of “apparent” global cooling. > Already mentioned before on past threads, but keep demonstrating to all how useless you are on even remembering things, hardly something to be proud when attempting to convince others. How hard is it to say “25 years of no warming” or something like that? ---
**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 19, 2011, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/198 "2011-01-19T03:36:00Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Again, I’m happy to rule out a decade or two of “apparent” global cooling as irrelevant – so long as something relevant to a different falsifiable prediction is offered up in its place. **Long Time** , for example, seemed interested in pegging his argument to whether a decade or two of “apparent” global cooling shows up; I’m just as happy to ponder any other criterion instead, but merely removing his without replacing it with something else is – well, religion, not science. The deniers have failed to come up with a good alternate theory, that is the reality. On a previous thread \*\*wevets \*\*has no trouble coming with falsifiable items regarding AGW: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11253388&postcount=62](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11253388&postcount=62) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2011, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/199 "2011-01-19T03:44:04Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > On a previous thread \*\*wevets \*\*has no trouble coming with falsifiable items regarding AGW And, as you’ve referenced here, you likewise offered up a useful criterion in another thread, which I of course quoted back then: _“for the purpose of falsifying the theory I would not expect to see increases … The point is that if in the next 10 years the temperatures remain constant or cooling that then the theory will suffer a huge blow … A temperature decrease in the next decade should indeed count against the current theories regarding AGW IMHO.”_ Again, part of the reason why I wanted to see whether you’ve changed your position is that such statements seem to be at odds with what you’ve now posted here: “Latif said that in a global warming world we should not be surprised to see a decade or two of ‘apparent’ global cooling.” ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2011, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/200 "2011-01-19T03:48:15Z")
I’ll wager that for every person I know who doesn’t believe in AGCC who looks at cold weather and says “Global warming? Humbug!”, I also know an uber-environmentalist who looks at a 100 F day and says “Global warming! See? See?” People _in general_ don’t seem to understand climate science very well. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421.md?page=11)