« When all else fails, crack down on the law-abiding folks | Main | Snatching Defeat From the Jaws of Victory- Democrat Style »

Did I Miss Something?

Am I the only one who missed something in the news today? Last week when it was reported that we had the warmest Jan. is history (or some such) the media ran the obligatory "Global Warming is here and we're all going to die" stories.

But just a few days later when mother nature demostrates the law of averages applies to weather too, I can't find a single report saying that the record snowfall was evidence against global warming.

Why?

If record warmth is anecdotal evidence of a global trend then why isn't record cold? Of course the media is reporting the news and not making the news right?


Comments (26)

Um Paul, are you just now s... (Below threshold)
yetanotherjohn:

Um Paul, are you just now seeing a bias in the main stream media? The more interesting case is to assume their is a bias and find the cases when a bias doesn't show.

"How can you tell when the MSM is showing a bias? Their lips are moving."

It's the Old Guy Memory Ine... (Below threshold)

It's the Old Guy Memory Inertia effect.

Anything in the current world that's even vaguely different from how people remember it is a certain sign of things going to hell in a handbasket.

The handbaskets aren't as good as they used to make, either.

They are trying to find a w... (Below threshold)
Sarge:

They are trying to find a way to blame Bush for Global Warming in the same sentenence with "more than 2 feet of snow carpeted NYs Central Park."

Hmmm, you're saying record ... (Below threshold)
Denny Crane:

Hmmm, you're saying record snowfall is somehow evidence of a temperature trend? It seems to me the New York temps were fairly typical, but the preciptiation was out of control. Am I wrong?

By the way, I don't recall anyone claiming record warmth is anecdotal evidence of a global trend.

If there was a global warmi... (Below threshold)

If there was a global warming report related to the snow, it would claim that the snow was CASUSED by global warming.

Pookie, We had exc... (Below threshold)
JohnAnnArbor:

Pookie,

We had exceptionally cold winters in the late 1970s and early 1980s. At the time, we were warned by scientists, through the media, of an impending ice age. Really.

So pardon us for being skeptical.

A 'warm winter' is a tre... (Below threshold)
Paul Zrimsek:

A 'warm winter' is a trend over a relatively long period, and generally it is noted that this is the last in a series of warm winters.

Not in the Northeast, it isn't.

When I left the house this ... (Below threshold)
MikeB:

When I left the house this morning at 5am, the temperature was 24 degrees F. As of the post some 8 hours later, it's now 44 degrees F. That's 20 degrees in 8 hours or 3.0 degrees F / hour. If the earth continues to warm at this rate, it will be 188 degrees F by this time Wednesday.

Global warming is the same 'logic' but (mis)applied on a different scale.

- MikeB

>By the way, I don't recall... (Below threshold)
Joe:

>By the way, I don't recall anyone claiming record warmth is anecdotal evidence of a global trend.

Huh? Did you just get here from mars?

Hmmm."Screw the gr... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

"Screw the grandkids, I want it warmer now!" = Drew Carey.

Says it all really. :)

Apparently so, Joe. I don'... (Below threshold)
Denny Crane:

Apparently so, Joe. I don't recall the spikes or records being touted as evidence. It's the gradual trend toward warmer averages that concern people.

> I don't recall the spikes... (Below threshold) Denny, Paul's point was sim... (Below threshold)
Earl:

Denny, Paul's point was simply that some in the media use anecdotal stories of record heat to provide evidence of global warming. In my opinion, he's totally right, and it's a ridiculous overreaction by the MSM.

Of course, as the above comments show, many GW skeptics take what they hear from the MSM and think that's the only evidence for GW, and that the media is accurately reporting what the scientists are saying. Of course that's totally wrong.

Well, the science is cle... (Below threshold)
docjim505:

Well, the science is clear. This month, a study published in the journal Nature by a renowned MIT climatologist linked the increasing prevalence of destructive hurricanes to human-induced global warming.

Now we are all learning what it's like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged. Our destructive addiction has given us a catastrophic war in the Middle East and--now--Katrina is giving our nation a glimpse of the climate chaos we are bequeathing our children.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. The Huffington Post: "For They That Sow the Wind Shall Reap the Whirlwind". 8-29-05.

As Hurricane Isabel bears down on the East Coast, environmentalists in Washington, D.C., are linking the caprice of Mother Nature to global warming.

"Weather-related disasters are occurring with ever-greater intensity and frequency around the world," stated a press release from the environmental group Worldwatch Institute on Wednesday.

Citing "clear connections" that global warming and Hurricane Isabel are inter-related, Worldwatch stated, "Heat in the atmosphere is the fuel that leads to stormy weather, and meteorological studies indicate that rising temperatures will tend to increase the frequency and intensity of extreme storms, particularly the violent thunderstorms that occur in some parts of the world."

Marc Morano, CNS News: Environmentalists Blame East Coast Hurricane on 'Global Warming'. 9-18-03

What a waste of money that would be. Show me a grant to disprove plate tectonics, why don't you. Global warming is happening, without any doubt whatsoever. How else would you explain this: January Was America's Warmest on Record?

mantis. Wizbang: "Stand-by for Global Cooling". 2-7-06.

Whenever a heat wave hits inevitably a news outlet will rush to contend it demonstrates dire global warming, and CNN's Lou Dobbs came through on Monday night. He ominously asked: "Record heat and drought in the United States and Europe. New fears tonight that it's all the result of global warming. Is the Earth witnessing a massive environmental change?" In a subsequent story on Lou Dobbs Tonight, reporter Kitty Pilgrim relied on a spokesman from the far-left Union of Concerned Scientists, though she failed to label the group before she warned: "The climate change is not about discomfort, it's deadly." Pilgrim insisted: "Nine of the last ten years have been the warmest years on record." But on Monday's NBC Nightly News, after a man on the street declared that "it seems like each summer is a little warmer than the one before," Carl Quintanilla countered: "Actually, that's not right." He noted that "three of the five warmest summers on record were in the 1930s. Climate experts like Kevin Trenberth say the one-degree increase in temperature this century is no reason to break a sweat."

Media Research Center. Cyberalert: "CNN's Dobbs Warns of Dire Global Warming, But NBC: Hotter in '30s". 7-26-05.

Some of the weather folks c... (Below threshold)

Some of the weather folks claimed that it was global warming's fault - because the North Atlantic waters off the Mid Atlantic Coast were warmer than usual (about 40F), so that fueled the explosive strengthening of the storm - and the record snowfall in Central Park (though it's interesting that thus far Central Park was the only place a record was set) - has regional snow totals. Central Park is only one data point - one that goes back about 150 years which is a blink in the time scales of climatic change.

No word on whether the 1947 blizzard was due to global warming (or the atomic bombs)...

The right's war on science ... (Below threshold)
CorporateLeech:

The right's war on science and education.
Fightin the good fight!
put them darn liberal scientists and elite edumicators in their place!

Ok Paul, Earl, etc. You're... (Below threshold)
Denny Crane:

Ok Paul, Earl, etc. You're right. The media has its head up its ass and they've never known what they're talking about. That's why I don't listen to them.

My comments were a little too loose. Instead of "I don't recall anyone claiming..." I should have said, I don't recall any serious person who has expertise in the science behind global warming claiming..."

What would be interesting i... (Below threshold)
echibby:

What would be interesting if the trends that Paul notes about the mainstream media (overreacting and trying to correlate any extreme weather event to global warming) could be found in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Can anyone cite any papers which claim abnormal seasonal temperatures are proof of global warming? I'd be interested to hear what climatologists and atmospheric scientists have to say in their publications about this.

Denny,I agree. Th... (Below threshold)
docjim505:

Denny,

I agree. The problem is that VERY few people read peer-reviewed journal articles about climatology (or anything else, for that matter). Most people "understand" global warming based on what they hear, see and read in the head-in-ass media, which IMO flogs the issue for partisan purposes.

My feeling is that, if people understood just how uncertain the science behind global warming actually is, they'd give it about as much thought as they do the possibility of a meteor striking the earth and killing all of us.

>What would be interesti... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>What would be interesting if the trends that Paul notes about the mainstream media (overreacting and trying to correlate any extreme weather event to global warming) could be found in peer-reviewed scientific literature.

==============================

DING DING DING echibby gets the prize.

That is the right TYPE of question if not quite the exact question to ask. The question to ask is:

"Is the MSM pushing GW science or science pushing the MSM?"

A few years back (google is your friend) there was a climatologist who tried to get a grant for a study that could seriously call global warming into question. Nobody would fund him. (because they all "knew" GW was true)

He rewrote all his grant proposals to make it sound like he wanted to prove global warming and BOOM the dollars started being approved. (he ended up not doing the study, but went pubic with his experience)

Now- One would think that if we had a working theory, more time would be spent trying to disprove it than prove it. -- That's how science should work.

But in the modern science/media world, any gloom and doom thery gets accpted as reality and we quit looking for the real answers. "Global warming *must* be true, I saw it on T.V."

Once mankind gets to the point we don't question our theories lest we find them lacking, we're no longer practicing science, we're practicing religion.

Paul

I know it's somewhat off to... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

I know it's somewhat off topic, but...

Paul's last comment makes me wonder if any study that 'could seriously call into question' the other great religion of the scientific(sic) left...evolution...could ever get funding either.

I may have to try out that google thing I keep hearing so much about. :-)

Paul, {please note this is ... (Below threshold)
epador:

Paul, {please note this is filed under satire] Really, what kind of idiot decides to live on a planet inhabited by so many crazy lunatics who can't decide if killing themselves or each other is more fun, a planet beset by eons of violent changes in climate, kinetic topographic changes (earthquakes, landslides, volcanoes, tsunamis) and subject to catastrophic random collisions with space debris.

Since the beginning of human consciousness, these same idiots continue to invoke all sorts of explanations, religious and pseudo scientific, to blame these phenomena on anyone and anything imaginable.

Hey you know, I just read over at bullwinkle's that global warming either causes lab rats to smoke or secondary exposure to rats! Who woulda thunk it?!?

Paul's last comment make... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Paul's last comment makes me wonder if any study that 'could seriously call into question' the other great religion of the scientific(sic) left...evolution...could ever get funding either.

Well first of all evolution is not a religion but rather a theory backed up by mountains of empirical evidence, and I have no idea what the scientific(why sic?) "left" is. However, the anti-evolution/creationism folks up in Seattle are very well funded, and have been for years. Of course they have yet to present any evidence or construct a testable theory or hypothesis.

mantis,Allow me to... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

mantis,

Allow me to be more specific. The 'general theory of evolution' (aka, the man came from monkey theory) is a religion.

A religion is (in simple terms and for purposes of this topic) having faith in something you believe to be true, but which you cannot prove through the scientific method.

The general theory of evolution cannot be 'observed' in the scientific method sense, cannot be reproduced, and cannot be proven through experimentation. The only evidence they have are fossil records, which are somewhat like pictures of a point in time. There is no 'video tape' to show movement from one form (monkey) to another (man). In fact, all of the so-called 'missing links' that have been 'discovered' over the years were nothing more than photoshops (to put modern terminology to it)...they were fakes.

In the scientific sense, creationism cannot be 'proven'. That does not mean it is not the truth. I don't need 'sceintific' proof to understand that this universe is far too complex to be an 'accident'.

As I said in my previous comment, this is somewhat off topic. If want to continue this discussion, start a post in the Bomb Squad. I won't continue it here.

Hi Paul-Could you ... (Below threshold)
echibby:

Hi Paul-

Could you provide some links to the story about the climatologist who rewrite grant proposals to get funded? Providing the actual grant proposals would be ideal, as this would allow us to determine if the bias existed, or whether the researcher wrote a poor grant that was denied for methodological flaws, and was funded upon revising (which happens all the time in scientific research).

thanks,
echibby

Sheik,I think I ma... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Sheik,

I think I may write a post on evolution, but it won't be a response to your comment, which is full of misperceptions and mistakes. First, you refer to the "general theory of evolution" as if this was distinct from some other, unnamed evolution. There are not two theories of evolution. You say it's a religion because it cannot be proven throught the scientific method. Nothing is proven using the scientific method, only falsified or supported. The science supports evolution (don't ask for links--see every non-christian university biology department).

You say "cannot be 'observed' in the scientific method sense, cannot be reproduced, and cannot be proven through experimentation" and are wrong on all counts. It can be observed, and has, from Darwin's time to today. It can be reproduced, check out some work in the field of evolutionary development. As for the third, once again, nothing is proven through science. No, there is no videotape, but no one claims monkey turned into man in one step, or at all really.

As for missing links, you don't have a clue.
See here.

Then you go on about science proving things again, and then claim the universe is too complex to be an accident. Evolution makes no claims concerning the origin of the universe, nor does it say that evolution of life on this planet is an "accident".

You're right this is off topic (sorry Paul), but I'm not going to bother to create a new post just to disabuse someone who is entirely unfamilar with evolution and likely science in general of his/her misconceptions.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy