weather isn’t climate, but still, tornadoes and early spring can’t be good

If a weather incident is indicative of larger trends, then do all incidents count, or just the ones that support the global warming thesis? In Denver we had a rotten winter, with the second longest stretch of consectutive days with snow cover (61 days) and have had around 80 inches of snow, with 2 more months where we can still get snow. Is this any more significant than your warm winter, or tornadoes in the south in the spring? Clueless in Denver

I shouldn't have said global warming is still a theory, since it does seem to be going on, but there are still a few people who aren't convinced about how significant a role humans play in warming. Climate varies over longer stretches, so it is not out of the question that this is a natural phenomenon. It was actually warmer in the 1300's than it is now, and much cooler in the 1700's. I think somehow people have gotten the idea that climate is a fixed thing and anything but what we've had the last 100 years will be a disaster. Two items - http://instapundit.com/archives2/002986.php and http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/ Greenland's climate began to change as well; the summers grew shorter and progressively cooler, limiting the time cattle could be kept outdoors and increasing the need for winter fodder. During the worst years, when rains would have been heaviest, the hay crop would barely have been adequate to see the penned animals through the coldest days. Over the decades the drop in temperature seems to have had an effect on the design of the Greenlanders' houses. Originally conceived as single-roomed structures, like the great hall at Brattahlid, they were divided into smaller spaces for warmth, and then into warrens of interconnected chambers, with the cows kept close by so the owners might benefit from the animals' body heat.

Climatologist give human caused global warming a "90%" probability. I doubt many medical experts would give germ theory anything less than a 99.999% probability. I know I may seem to be nit picking but it is just this kind of exageration and anecdotal evidence (like the tornado "evidence") that gives the "see no evil" climate idiots and Michael Crichton a reason to continue the struggle.

Unfortunately I don't have the answer. Climate is complicated by nature and the MTV 30 minute problem solving SCI generation (or any generation for that matter) just doesn't find it interesting. I only know that if we are going to use science in the arguement, then we need to go all the way with it. No number of anecdotes is sufficient in science. But by collecting groups of anecdotes they become useful and are no longer anecdotes. The arguements we use need to be stringent, because if we pepper them with little inconsistancies here and there then the uneducated will say "well, looks like your arguement has as many holes as theirs". And unfortunately the uneducated get just as many votes as everyone else.

It's not a contradiction, but I could have said it better. Cherry picking isolated anecdotes, no matter how many you cite, carries very little weight in science. As long as they are solitary examples (what about Tornados in the last hundred years?) and not well researched (strong Tornados in March are unusual, but are they abnormal?) they are still anecdotes. However, if enough data is collected on the same subject (not Tornados here, warm winter there) and organized it is no longer an anecdote, but a statistic. And as bad a rap as statistics get these days they are quite useful and do hold a place in the Scientific method. What is so insideous about Global Warming is that most of the "dramatic examples" are simply unsupported anecdotes. The weather is one of the most difficult places to find trends and predictable conclusions. About the only dramatic 'fact' people can agree on is the increase in CO2 levels. The one or two degree changes that can be devastating in the long term simply are not that visible in our everyday lives. As I see it, the political implications of global warming just shows how much more precise and careful we have to be with our arguement.

I think it's going to take extreme weather TRENDS to make an impact. Unfortunately by that time it's probably too late. By then the deepwater currents will have shifted. Interestingly, when making the arguement for the greenhouse effect, no one ever seems to mention Venus. Here's a planet hotter than the daylight side of Mercury, and it's all because of CO2. Mabey this is one of those extreme examples you mentioned...

I love it how you have so much intellectual disdain for the people who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming. It seems to me that everybody who believes in the theory is just another sheep who fell for the same lie back in the 70s when the doom and gloomers were running around claiming a new ice age was about to come as a result of human induced pollution or that the world was about to starve due to over-population. Not to mention the fact that here the greenies are telling us to listen to the scientists because if the majority of scientists say something is true, then it must be. However, greenies seemingly have a differing point of view in relation to genetically modified crops which scientist overwhelmingly declare to be safe but greenies hate. The same goes for nuclear power. Amazingly, greenies believe scientists when it comes to 50 year weather forecasts based on some very fancy random number generators, but not when it comes to actual experimentally shown data. Of course I am not saying that scientists are always right, merely that there are many stupid, lying hyprocrites out there. I am pretty confident that were we to hold an IQ test for all the believers in this absurd hypothesis versus those of us non-believers, the results would be heavily skewed - and not in the way you guys are insinuating. Oh and by the way, the germ theory is in fact completely wrong, that is why when you go to a doctor's office and surround yourself with the germs of thousands of previous patients you don't immediately drop dead and why doctor's generally live long and healthy lives. It is also why practically all germs are found in people's bodies all the time but they only supposedly make us sick 0.00001 per cent of the time.

Just for the record, it hit a record high today in Chicago. I think it was around 86F. It'll be in the 80s all weekend. This is freaking Chicago. It's supposed to be at least 10 degrees cooler. Anyway, I think I figured out how to get through to people when they scoff over 1C. Ask 'em if they're body temperature raised one degree how would they feel? Sick, right. How do they think the Earth would feel one degree hotter? Sick. I've recently read Thom Hartmann's book, "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight." It's given me something to think about. The real problem isn't in trying to find alternate energy or greener technology. The real problem is the consumerist, imperialist, might makes right mentality that's plagued Western Civilization since the days of Gilgamesh and the Sumerians. I'm not sure we can change fast enough to help heal the planet. We'll see, though.

"Ask 'em if they're body temperature raised one degree how would they feel? Sick, right. How do they think the Earth would feel one degree hotter? Sick." In point of fact, the Earth probably doesn't feel "sick." Remember, it's been both hotter and cooler on the Earth in many epochs in the past. Part of the problem with these types of arguments is the anthropomorphizing of the Earth as if it had an attitude or feelings, which is, of course, not the case. It is the *human* race whose life will change and the creatures that live on the Earth with us who will suffer -- the Earth will go on adjusting, evolving and changing, without any sort of navel-gazing, or angst.