Why do deniers of GW embrace global cooling after an average January, but reject GW after decades of warming?

Question

Is this a double standard?

NOAA data showing an average January WORLDWIDE...

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080214_coolwet.html

NASA global temperature data...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Answer 1

And Doreen don't forget that Northern Hemishpere snow cover anomalies are way above average since the last twenty years.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NH_JAN_S...

.

.

Answer 2

Oh yes it was so warm that in China about 2 million nearly lost there lives by the huge snow they had. The weather is not global.

Answer 3

I remember the days (in the 60s and 70s) when we we being warned about the coming ice age. So don't mind me if I am skeptical when scientists who cannot tell me with certainty, what the local whether will be tomorrow, tell me what the global climate will be in the future.

By the way, we aren't deniers, we are skeptics. Comparing us to holocaust deniers is the tactic of desperate people who know they do not have the evidence.

To answer your question, if we make an observation of cooling, it is just to poke fun and global warming fanatics.

Yes, calling them fanatics is the same kind of tactic, do you like it? If we start talking about facts, stop skewing the evidences, treat each other respectfully as people who all have to live here, maybe we can arrive at an actual consensus, instead of a pretend one.

You mentioned decades of warming. Decades of warming is a tiny and inappropriate sampling from which to draw a long term projection. Consider this though, if not for global warming, we would still be in an ice age. We skeptics are not deniers, we recognize the planet is warming. What the GW crowd has not proven to us, is that it will continue, that it is man induced, and that we can reverse it. For me personally, I am not convinced the trend should be reversed. There are benefits to a warmer planet, not all change is negative. Since the planet was warm in the past, then entered an ice age, then began warming again, then went in to the little ice age, then began warming again, all before civilization could impact the climate, why do you think this is not just natural cycling? Since the polar ice caps on Mars are receding as well, and we have not messed that place up, perhaps it is not so much the CO2 emmissions, methane etc. that are affecting climate, maybe it is something like, oh, I don't know, the Sun?

By the way, if you have noticed, the scientists are  now more and more, studying climate change, not global warming, they are hedging the the bets. My prediction is that you will see (if it has not already begun) global cooling within 20 years, and the GW crowd will probably take credit for it, rather than assume that it is a natural cycle.

Answer 4

From your link http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008...

"In the contiguous United States, the average temperature for January was 30.5°F (-0.8°C), which was 0.3°F (0.2°C) below the 20th century mean of 30.8F (-0.7°C)"

The Chart on your link http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/ shows that 2007 had an average temp 0.6 deg above average.

The temperature difference is then 0.9 degrees, or the ENTIRE increase of global warming over the last 100 years.

Remember that global warming panic is over just a one degree increase in the last 100 years.

That increase is now erased.  The average temperatures are now the same as they were 100 years ago, before the start of the modern industrial revolution!

Thanks for the link showing that global warming is over.

Answer 5

Why do people pretend to know that decades of warming must be caused by humans when clearly they don't?  Warming is generally good.  Cooling is almost certainly very bad.  Why are alarmists consistently afraid of a nice day?  Why do alarmists insist that warming is bad when clearly it is not.  Why do alarmist consistently use the phrase "global warming" when they mean anthropogenic warming.  They seek to blur the issues.  Using imprecise language is a way to distort their evidence.  It is useful for those pushing a political cause.  It has no place in science but I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

Answer 6

Nobody denies that the earth has periods of warming and cooling.  Most scientists these days agree that it's a natural process.

The deniers that climate change is natural seem so uninformed on the facts.  

Would it be so difficult for them to read up on science and quit passing on the political garbage?  No one with an ounce of intelligence still believes humans cause climate warming or cooling.  

Keep up on the science news and you won't appear so ignorant.

Answer 7

You mean like people who assert that Mars is warming, based on a small amount of data over a very short period, but deny the Earth is warming, based on years of data?

Or you mean like the people who try and discredit proxy temperature studies of the recent past (< 1000 years), but claim we know CO2 preceded warming 100,000's years ago (also from proxy temperature studies)?

Or you mean like the people that cherry-pick certain years of temperature data and assert we're now cooling, but ignore every 10, 20, 30, 50, or 100 year trend?

Or you mean like the people that link to (often old and outdated) news articles from reputable sources like NASA, but won't accept actual recent reports from real scientists at NASA?

Yes, it's a double standard.

Edit:

Oh look!  What a surprise!  Jello falls into category 3 of mine listed above ;-)

Edit 2:

barwick - your claim that "Nobody looks at the biggest contributor to the temperature of the earth" demonstrates your own ignorance of climate science.  It has indeed been extensively studied and reported on for many years.  And it's been ruled out as being the primary driver of our current warming trend.  If you read any science journals you'd know that and not make such bogus assertions.

Answer 8

Aren't pretty much all deniers of GW also deniers of GC?  It would be the AGW bandwagon types who would be jumping from wagon to wagon based on the latest magazine article they read.  The deniers would just say it's part of a normal pattern of ups and downs.

Answer 9

It's funny because the surface temperature record is unreliable...until it records a cold spell.  

30 or 100 years of global temperature increases don't mean anything...but a cool month means that global warming has stopped.

Increased extreme weather events like heat waves and droughts don't mean anything...but a couple of locations having record cold days means global warming has stopped.

Global temperature records on Earth are unreliable...but reports of warming on Mars are unquestionably accurate.

Cherrypicking and denial at its finest.

Answer 10

They're grasping for justification: instantly accept whatever seems to support, reject anything that does not.

Answer 11

Correlation does not equal causation.

And I know of no "GW denier" who thinks it's now "global cooling".  What they ARE doing is pointing out the inconsistencies in the global warming claims being made.  Three decades ago we were all going to freeze to death because of CO2, today we're all going to roast to death because of CO2...  

Nobody looks at the biggest contributor to the temperature of the earth, the source of virtually all energy on this planet, the sun.  Have you ever sat outside on a hot summer day, roasting, only to feel refreshed when a lone cloud came by to provide some temporary shade?  Then the cloud goes away and you're cooking again?  If it can have that much effect in such a short time, don't you think if the sun became more (or less) active for a period of a few years, decades, or even centuries, it MIGHT change the average temperature of the earth?

Answer 12

I don't embrace either, since I have been reading the experts on this site I have to chuckle at their arrogance.  No one can predict what will happen in the future and whatever happens we will adapt.  That being said I would rather see a solid debate on how we can get more people to embrace our environment. I do not need political hype or the sky is falling science to encourage me or my family to be respect our envrioment.  The problem with fear tactics, the people using it  ie..Al Gore lose creditablitly and actually hurts the cause.  We need to encourage everyone to take care of our enviroment.