# "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:** 8
**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 16, 2011, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/141 "2011-01-16T05:43:48Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > \we were all gonna die because of a hole in the ozone. > > But you know what, though? They all claimed science was on their side. :D\ Science was indeed on the side of the hole in the ozone problem - the science was right, it was listened to, and the correct actions were taken to alleviate the problem. The ozone layer problem is not an example of science leading us astray - it’s an excellent example of us doing the right thing in time, because science told us what was going on. ---
**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 16, 2011, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/142 "2011-01-16T05:57:41Z")
And \*\*Starving \*\*once again shows not only how inept he is at finding citations, what he ignores is that I do use citations as a test to see if the opponent at least understand and is capable of identifying the best evidence to demonstrate a point. In this case he is choosing to avoid looking for them demonstrating to all **that he is not even wrong**. > **[Climate Change Deniers are “Not Even Wrong”](https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/climate-change-deniers-are-not-even-wrong/)** > > BPSDB Not even wrong … refers to any statement, argument or explanation that is so at odds with reality that it is considered uncorrectable. 2 + 2 = 4  … is correct 2 + 2 = 5 … is… > [@](#): > > Not even wrong … refers to any statement, argument or explanation that is so at odds with reality that it is considered uncorrectable. > > 2 + 2 = 4 … is correct > > 2 + 2 = 5 … is wrong > > 2 + 2 = ‘§’ … did not understand the question > > (2 + 2)/ zebra \* Fugue = “global cooling” … is not even wrong > > Climate change Deniers are often (usually?) “not even wrong“ > [@](#): > > “not even wrong” source > > As with the 1970s Ice Age 9 Myth, the Deniers mistake popular media stories as being credible sources for scientific information. Presumably they also believe in the Goat Woman, that Elvis is alive, and that aliens regularly abduct people. Actually they consider the media reliable only when the media confirm the Denier myths. When they don’t, the media is dismissed as being a liberal pawn. > > The numerous problems with the popular media as a source might be summed up as “inconsistency”(ie uneven coverage, not representative) across many dimensions. Some examples: > > As noted above, media coverage is related to geography. The media will report one traffic death in their own town, but it takes 3 or 4 dead to get coverage 100 km away, and at least a bus load of dead if it is 1o00 km away or more. > > The popular media do not cover the Earth evenly. Again as per above, there are a lot of media in North America and Europe, not so many in Africa, none in Antarctica. > > Whether a “weather” story gets covered or not depends on the news cycle. If it is a slow day they will report an unusual frost in someone’s backyard. If something significant has happened in the world of politics or entertainment, then the weather may not get mentioned at all. > > There is also the political bias of media outlets. Some media chains have a deliberate policy of distorting facts and lying to the public as part of their anti-science agenda. Fox News would be one glaring example, but others would include the Telegraph, the National Post, The Australian, The Washington Post, etc. > > Nor is the popular media very reliable with respect to accuracy. As per the 1970s Ice Age Myth and “Imminent Ice Age” myth, the media themselves inflate or even create a story because it is more sensational. > > While the media can be accurate and factual, it is not necessarily so. Many of the stories about climate that appear in the biased media are exaggerations, or even complete fabrications. > > Which is not to say that the media is not a reliable source some of the time. Just that when what the media claims contradict the scientific realities, then it is reality that is correct, not the media fiction (another concept that seems to baffle Deniers like PopTech and Omnilogos). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2011, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/143 "2011-01-16T20:29:50Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Here’s the thing - maybe there’s global warming and maybe there isn’t. Maybe it’s part of the normal cycle of nature through the ages, or maybe it isn’t. If global warming actually does exist and it’s man-made, maybe we can come up with a way to reverse or minimize it or maybe we can’t. And if we can, maybe the rest of the world will join in or maybe whatever we do - even if effective - won’t make any difference anyway because everyone else finds the process too expensive, politically difficult, or they just don’t give a shit and have much more immediate problems to contend with. > > So there’s way too many maybe’s involved for me to even begin to think about getting behind governmental action (i.e., more beaurocracy, more government control over our lives, and wasteful and restrictive interference with business) to try to deal with it. [Yeah, funny how that works . . .](http://gocomics.typepad.com/tomthedancingbugblog/2009/10/hollingsworth-hound.html) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2011, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/144 "2011-01-16T20:30:57Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > There’s a difference between ‘the left’ and ‘most scientists’. You need to learn how to make that distinction. No, that would be you. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2011, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/145 "2011-01-16T21:10:56Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No, that would be you. I love the idea of a conspiracy-of-all-scientists to enrich certain members of the left though. It has a very nice [Illuminatus-like flavor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Illuminatus!_Trilogy) to it! I wonder what Al Gore offered the scientists in return? ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2011, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/146 "2011-01-17T02:40:20Z")
But basically, we can all agree that just because it’s snowing in winter doesn’t mean there isn’t global warming, right? 😃 ---
**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 17, 2011, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/147 "2011-01-17T03:39:45Z")
My favorite science reporter just came with a new report on the latest denialists and alarmists attempts to mislead people regarding the recent winter snow: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nJuAslQPaY&feature=player\_embedded#](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nJuAslQPaY&feature=player_embedded#)! As usual, the popular press gets it wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Nadir](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nadir/32/7302_2.png) [@Nadir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nadir)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2011, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/148 "2011-01-17T04:03:19Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > But basically, we can all agree that just because it’s snowing in winter doesn’t mean there isn’t global warming, right? 😃 I resolve to be just generally disagreeable and not agree with anybody about aything anymore. :mad: That way I’m pretty much guaranteed to be right about half the time. ---
**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 17, 2011, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/149 "2011-01-17T04:03:32Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > But basically, we can all agree that just because it’s snowing in winter doesn’t mean there isn’t global warming, right? 😃 Prior to this thread I’ve never heard of anyone claiming that snow in winter disproves global warming. Usually it’s snowfall or extremely cold temperatures in unlikely places that lead people to make snide or dismissive comments 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 17, 2011, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/150 "2011-01-17T04:44:17Z")
It is not that it was only on the internet, but those making snide or dismissive comments about it are on national radio and tv: [http://mediamatters.org/blog/201101110048](http://mediamatters.org/blog/201101110048) > [@](#): > > Fox Nation Falsely Suggests January Snow Disproves Global Warming [http://mediamatters.org/research/201012130014](http://mediamatters.org/research/201012130014) > [@](#): > > Right-Wing Media Cite December Snowstorm To Mock Global Warming > > Beck Calls Snowstorm That Caused Stadium Roof Collapse “Proof That Global Warming Is Happening.” On the December 13 edition of his radio show, Glenn Beck discussed a recent snowstorm that caused the roof of Minneapolis’ Metrodome to collapse and stated that it was “proof that global warming is happening.” [Premiere Radio Networks’ The Glenn Beck Program, 12/13/10] > > Fox Nation: “Paging Gore…Metrodome Collapses Under Snow Storm.” On December 12, Fox Nation linked to a story about the roof of the Minnesota Vikings’ football stadium collapsing with the headline, “Paging Gore…Metrodome Collapses Under Snow Storm.” From Fox Nation: > Fox Nation global warming > > Hoft On Snowstorm, Cold Temperatures: “It Must Be Global Warming.” In a December 12 Gateway Pundit post, Jim Hoft wrote that “[s]now, ice and record cold temperatures are blasting the US this weekend” and stated, “It must be global warming”: > > ``` > Record cold temperatures are sweeping the the [sic] southern US as a from [sic] Southern Florida to Snow [sic], ice and record cold temperatures are blasting the US this weekend. Temperatures in Florida are 20 degrees below average in Florida. It must be global warming. [Gateway Pundit, 12/12/10] > > ``` And just in case there are some denier readers of below average intelligence over here :), the FOX commentators and reporters used sarcasm, that has to be mentioned as deniers do demonstrate having trouble following. ---
**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 17, 2011, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/151 "2011-01-17T05:22:59Z")
And as the Science Reporter in the video link always says, check the sources where the denier or alarmist website, media report or magazine article is getting their information from. On a quick search the top relevant sites that are claiming that “It’s cold, so there’s no global warming bit” are several of the usual denier suspects: Michelle Malkin National Review Newsbusters myteapartychronicle Yeah, it looks like the walls of the right wing echo chamber alright. And just like the science reporter on the past link recommends; I looked, for example, at the source Michelle Malakin uses: a TIME article that finally does show that the reporter did his homework and made the proper point that a cold winter is no reason to dismiss global warming. So why is the right using an article that actually says the opposite of what they are insinuating or saying? Easy, after years of seeing how they operate one can conclude that many right wing sources already “know” that scientists are wrong, lie or are criminals (based on the past “reports” the right wing media made about the issue recently and their viewers or readers continue to believe). Therefore, no matter if the science stubbornly continues to tell them otherwise, the right wing sources already know the “truth” and the latest science reports are just mentioned to be instantly dismissed as examples of the “mad scientists in league with Al Gore”. ---
**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 17, 2011, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/152 "2011-01-17T12:55:46Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Therefore, no matter if the science stubbornly continues to tell them otherwise, the right wing sources already know the “truth” and the latest science reports are just mentioned to be instantly dismissed as examples of the “mad scientists in league with Al Gore”. And if the science stubbornly continues to tell your side – year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year – that _“it stayed about the same, and near as we can tell it actually got a little colder”_, the latest science reports are just mentioned to be instantly dismissed; warmists already know the “truth” no matter whether global temperatures level off or dwindle away. Good heavens, man; is this the approach you use in _ **any other context?** _ Imagine you met a hundred-pound woman on New Year’s Eve in '98, and she told you her resolution will be to stop the weight-gain trend she figures she’s in for – and imagine you run into her on New Year’s Eve in '99, and ask how it went. _“Well,”_ she replies, _“I didn’t gain any weight, and near as I can tell I lost some. Called in the UN’s top scientists to confirm it, even – but one year isn’t a trend.”_ And you run into her again on New Year’s Eve in '00. _“Still haven’t gained any weight since I made that resolution,”_ she says. _“Still down in the ol’ double digits, as far as the UN’s top scientists can tell. But two years don’t make a trend.”_ And so '01 comes around – and '02, and '03, and '04 – and the scientists keep telling her she hasn’t gained any weight; she’s apparently lost some, even; but still she keeps on. _“Three years? Not a trend. Four years? Not a trend. Five years? Not a trend. Six years? Not a trend.”_ You keep asking each time New Year’s rolls around, and she keeps giving you the same answer: the UN’s top scientists keep telling her she hasn’t cracked a hundred pounds, but she keeps explaining that six years ain’t a trend and seven years ain’t a trend and eight years ain’t a trend and nine years ain’t a trend. _“A decade ain’t a trend,”_ she eventually explains, as the scientists keep telling her she’s long since plateaued or even gotten a bit lighter; she replies, in time, that _“eleven years ain’t a trend either,”_ because strikingly similar results of course roll in again. (Of course, if she ever goes a tenth of a pound _ **over** _ a hundred, she’ll pounce on those results like a spaniel on a downed sparrow. But until that day arrives – if it ever does – she just keeps dismissing the latest reports, and railing against those who ignore the alleged evidence.) What would you tell her if she now insists on regulating your life to mitigate the weight-gain trend in question? (And, if it helps, imagine she occasionally switches the terms from “weight-gain trend” to, er, “weight-change trend” – for reasons that elude you, since “plateaued” of course cuts against “weight-change” the same way it cuts against “weight-gain”.) ---
**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 17, 2011, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/153 "2011-01-17T13:11:09Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > And if the science stubbornly continues to tell your side – year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year – that _“it stayed about the same, and near as we can tell it actually got a little colder”_, the latest science reports are just mentioned to be instantly dismissed; warmists already know the “truth” no matter whether global temperatures level off or dwindle away. > > Good heavens, man; is this the approach you use in _ **any other context?** _ Imagine you met a hundred-pound woman on New Year’s Eve in '98, and she told you her resolution will be to stop the weight-gain trend she figures she’s in for – and imagine you run into her on New Year’s Eve in '99, and ask how it went. _“Well,”_ she replies, _“I didn’t gain any weight, and near as I can tell I lost some. Called in the UN’s top scientists to confirm it, even – but one year isn’t a trend.”_ > > And you run into her again on New Year’s Eve in '00. _“Still haven’t gained any weight since I made that resolution,”_ she says. _“Still down in the ol’ double digits, as far as the UN’s top scientists can tell. But two years don’t make a trend.”_ > > And so '01 comes around – and '02, and '03, and '04 – and the scientists keep telling her she hasn’t gained any weight; she’s apparently lost some, even; but still she keeps on. _“Three years? Not a trend. Four years? Not a trend. Five years? Not a trend. Six years? Not a trend.”_ You keep asking each time New Year’s rolls around, and she keeps giving you the same answer: the UN’s top scientists keep telling her she hasn’t cracked a hundred pounds, but she keeps explaining that six years ain’t a trend and seven years ain’t a trend and eight years ain’t a trend and nine years ain’t a trend. _“A decade ain’t a trend,”_ she eventually explains, as the scientists keep telling her she’s long since plateaued or even gotten a bit lighter; she replies, in time, that _“eleven years ain’t a trend either,”_ because strikingly similar results of course roll in again. > > (Of course, if she ever goes a tenth of a pound _ **over** _ a hundred, she’ll pounce on those results like a spaniel on a downed sparrow. But until that day arrives – if it ever does – she just keeps dismissing the latest reports, and railing against those who ignore the alleged evidence.) > > What would you tell her if she now insists on regulating your life to mitigate the weight-gain trend in question? (And, if it helps, imagine she occasionally switches the terms from “weight-gain trend” to, er, “weight-change trend” – for reasons that elude you, since “plateaued” of course cuts against “weight-change” the same way it cuts against “weight-gain”.) If I read that post right, you seem to not understand what the evidence for warming is actually showing. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2011, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/154 "2011-01-17T15:09:18Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > And if the science stubbornly continues to tell your side – year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year – that _“it stayed about the same, and near as we can tell it actually got a little colder”_, the latest science reports are just mentioned to be instantly dismissed; warmists already know the “truth” no matter whether global temperatures level off or dwindle away. This is a whoosh, right? Gotta be. No Doper is idiotic enough to use the word “warmists” in earnest. ---
**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 17, 2011, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/155 "2011-01-17T17:14:25Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Good heavens, man; is this the approach you use in _ **any other context?** _ Imagine you met a hundred-pound woman on New Year’s Eve in '98, and she told you her resolution will be to stop the weight-gain trend she figures she’s in for – and imagine you run into her on New Year’s Eve in '99, and ask how it went. _“Well,”_ she replies, _“I didn’t gain any weight, and near as I can tell I lost some. Called in the UN’s top scientists to confirm it, even – but one year isn’t a trend.”_ :sigh: This was explained before, you are indeed cherry picking a specific year to begin taking the “weight” into account, this is by now a very old climate denier tactic that has been discredited and debunked many times before. > **[potholer54](https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/36/_PWDFzWt-Ag)** > > The purpose of this channel is to correct false scientific information on the internet. I am a former science journalist and geologist (see the "Who I am" video or channel trailer). > > Feel free to post. The only rules are : > > DON'T... > 1)... > [@](#): > > In this video I go to the source, and find out why the tabloid press got things so wrong. I have to correct part of the video where I gave an example of what an 80% statistical significance would mean (for the statisticians out there, this is a p-value of 20%). I said this would mean 80% confidence that global warming was a real, underlying trend, and not the result of background fluctuations. > While some statisticians accepted this as a broad explanation for the layperson, others felt it deviated too far from the precise meaning, which is this: =If global warming was not happening, there is only a 20% chance we would see this result.= A 90% statistical significance (if that’s what Jones achieved) of the 1995-2009 temperature data would mean If global warming was not happening, there is only a 10% chance we would see this result. If we use your example and take it to the times scientists began to notice that human CO2 and other gases accumulation were beginning to overwhelm the natural forcings, then that woman in the 70’s would had been anorexic, so lets assume she was also 100 pounds then, now lets move to the 2010’s, she has reached now 125 pounds and the doctors tell her that if she continues with her increased unhealthy diet she will reach 135 pounds in 10 years. The doctors would have to contain their laughter if she insisted that she was losing weight because she just increased a few pounds from 1998 to 2010, tap dancing around the issue that doctors (for this example we assume a very short person) told her that it was unhealthy to reach 118 in the first place. And what if doctors know that she will retire soon and then her unhealthy food intake will remain the same or \*\*increase \*\*when natural forcings (in this case less exercise=more weight) will increase the weight even more? Because that is what the scientists see and people like you continue to ignore: the fact that this, still warmer than before, 10 year period of [“apparent”](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm) no increase in warming is now happening when several important natural forcings are low, like solar activity or Milankovitch earth cycles. The most likely forcing to increase soon is the solar activity, and unless you can put a stomach vise on that person :), the increase of the natural forcing will be added to the still present and increasing unnatural one. ---
**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 18, 2011, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/156 "2011-01-18T02:54:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > :sigh: > > This was explained before, you are indeed cherry picking a specific year to begin taking the “weight” into account, this is by now a very old climate denier tactic that has been discredited and debunked many times before. Of _ **course** _ I’m cherry-picking a specific year! If I were arguing that the trend of having a President named “Roosevelt” was long since over, I’d say we haven’t had one since '45; I wouldn’t say _“since '35”_ or _“since '55”_, because it’s only all been downhill since '45. If I were arguing that any trend of holding the Olympics in Germany long since ended, I’d say it hasn’t happened since '72; I wouldn’t say _“since '62”_ or _“since '82”_, since it only ended in '72. > [@](#): > > If we use your example and take it to the times scientists began to notice that human CO2 and other gases accumulation were beginning to overwhelm the natural forcings, then that woman in the 70’s would had been anorexic, so lets assume she was also 100 pounds then, now lets move to the 2010’s, she has reached now 125 pounds and the doctors tell her that if she continues with her increased unhealthy diet she will reach 135 pounds in 10 years. 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?) > [@](#): > > what the scientists see and people like you continue to ignore: the fact that this, still warmer than before, 10 year period of [“apparent”](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm) no increase in warming is now happening when several important natural forcings are low, like solar activity or Milankovitch earth cycles. 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? > [@](#): > > The doctors would have to contain their laughter if she insisted that she was losing weight because she just increased a few pounds from 1998 to 2010, But would they have to contain their laughter if she _ **decreased** _ from 1998 to 2010? ---
**Author:** ![Nadir](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nadir/32/7302_2.png) [@Nadir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nadir)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2011, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/157 "2011-01-18T03:10:18Z")
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, and even in the face of damning evidence to the contrary, will continue to rationalize a position not supported by the facts. ---
**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 18, 2011, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/158 "2011-01-18T04:33:58Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > 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? > > But would they have to contain their laughter if she _ **decreased** _ from 1998 to 2010? She didn’t, check the scientific papers. And the prediction was adapting your silly gaining weight example, no real temperature estimates were mentioned, try to keep up. And climate researchers like Latif warned about your misunderstanding, to no avail.. > **[greenman3610](https://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/19/khikoh3sJg8)** > > Knocking down the nonsense of Climate denial. So ignorance or malice to ignore that variation does happen and can be misrepresented as no warming? ---
**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 18, 2011, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/159 "2011-01-18T04:35:05Z")
> [@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, and even in the face of damning evidence to the contrary, will continue to rationalize a position not supported by the facts. CITE? The reality is that you have not presented any. Just misrepresentations and misleading information, the citation you gave was a sorry one. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2011, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/160 "2011-01-18T04:52:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > CITE? Dude’s a troll. They don’t supply cites. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421.md?page=9)