Drudge, Fox News again suggest a few days of cold weather trump climate change science
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Following the Drudge Report's lead, Fox News hosts Neil Cavuto, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity each suggested that, in Cavuto's words, a "massive snowstorm," which recently hit the East Coast, calls into question the scientific consensus on "global warming." However, climate scientists reject the notion that short-term changes in weather provide any evidence for or against the existence of climate change.
Echoing a Drudge Report headline from the previous day that read, " 'Largest public protest of global warming' ever in USA faces DC March snowstorm!" Fox News hosts Neil Cavuto, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity each suggested on March 2 that, in Cavuto's words, a "massive snowstorm," which recently hit the East Coast, calls into question the scientific consensus on "global warming." However, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, climate scientists reject the notion that short-term changes in weather provide any evidence for or against the existence of climate change, and scientists have concluded unequivocably that the earth is warming.
Hannity, in particular, speculated that the snowstorm may be a message from "the big guy up there" to clean energy activists protesting at a coal-fired power plant in Washington, D.C. Referring to the March 2 protest, Hannity stated:
HANNITY: All right, take a look at the protesters carrying forth the legacy of Gandhi and Martin Luther King -- shivering in the snow as they protest the Earth's rising temperature as a foot of snow falls. Now, maybe it's just a coincidence that nearly every global warming protest occurs on the exact same day that we have a major snowstorm, or maybe the big guy up there is trying to send a message to these people. We report; we'll let you decide.
Hannity also hosted former McCain campaign adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer and college football analyst Lou Holtz, who each also suggested that spells of cold weather prove that global climate change is not occurring.
Similarly, Cavuto stated, "As a massive snowstorm wreaks havoc up and down the East Coast, what better time to hold a global warming protest?" Discussing the topic with Steven Biel, Greenpeace global warming campaign director, Cavuto also said, " If it's warm, it's global warming. If it's cold, it's global warming. I can't win with you guys." During the segment, Beil noted that "[s]cientists have never predicted that global warming would mean that there's no more snow." Beck also suggested on his show that short-term weather is relevant to climate change, saying, "[B]y the way, if you're in the New York area -- well, if you're in half the country -- they got a snowstorm. Aren't you sick of this global warming thing?"
On March 2, 2008, The New York Times reported that climate scientists reject the notion that conclusions about global warming can be drawn from short-term weather conditions:
Many scientists also say that the cool spell in no way undermines the enormous body of evidence pointing to a warming world with disrupted weather patterns, less ice and rising seas should heat-trapping greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and forests continue to accumulate in the air.
''The current downturn is not very unusual,'' said Carl Mears, a scientist at Remote Sensing Systems, a private research group in Santa Rosa, Calif., that has been using satellite data to track global temperature and whose findings have been held out as reliable by a variety of climate experts. He pointed to similar drops in 1988, 1991-92, and 1998, but with a long-term warming trend clear nonetheless.
[...]
Michael E. Schlesinger, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, said that any focus on the last few months or years as evidence undermining the established theory that accumulating greenhouse gases are making the world warmer was, at best, a waste of time and, at worst, a harmful distraction.
Discerning a human influence on climate, he said, ''involves finding a signal in a noisy background.'' He added, ''The only way to do this within our noisy climate system is to average over a sufficient number of years that the noise is greatly diminished, thereby revealing the signal. This means that one cannot look at any single year and know whether what one is seeing is the signal or the noise or both the signal and the noise.''
[...]
Some scientists who strongly disagree with each other on the extent of warming coming in this century, and on what to do about it, agreed that it was important not to be tempted to overinterpret short-term swings in climate, either hot or cold.
Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist and commentator with the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, has long chided environmentalists and the media for overstating connections between extreme weather and human-caused warming. (He is on the program at the skeptics' conference.)
But Dr. Michaels said that those now trumpeting global cooling should beware of doing the same thing, saying that the ''predictable distortion'' of extreme weather ''goes in both directions.''
Gavin A. Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan who has spoken out about the need to reduce greenhouse gases, disagrees with Dr. Michaels on many issues, but concurred on this point.
''When I get called by CNN to comment on a big summer storm or a drought or something, I give the same answer I give a guy who asks about a blizzard,'' Dr. Schmidt said. ''It's all in the long-term trends. Weather isn't going to go away because of climate change. There is this desire to explain everything that we see in terms of something you think you understand, whether that's the next ice age coming or global warming.''
As Media Matters has noted, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2007 "Synthesis Report" concluded that "[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level" and that "[m]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [defined in the report as a ">90%" probability] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [human-caused] GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations."
Fox News hosts Megyn Kelly and Brit Hume previously echoed The Drudge Report in suggesting that winter storms cast doubt on global climate change. Fox News' Trace Gallagher and Brian Wilson also cited the "irony" of snowfall in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere in the United States on the day Al Gore testified on global warming before a Senate committee, while Bill Hemmer said the weather on the day of Gore's testimony was "making for an inconvenient forecast."
From the March 2 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: As a massive snowstorm wreaks havoc up and down the East Coast, what better time to hold a global warming protest?
[...]
CAVUTO: All right, back to all this snow pounding the East Coast. Is this any time to hold a global warming protest? My next guest says there's no better time, because this is global warming. Steven Biel is with Greenpeace and, Steve, last time we were on, I was just saying how you guys like to have it both ways. If it's warm, it's global warming. If it's cold, it's global warming. I can't win with you guys.
BIEL: Well, today turned out to be a pretty nice day actually. The sun came out and there's, right now, over 3,000 people in Washington, D.C., risking arrest in the largest action of civil disobedience, non-violent civil disobedience, against global warming in U.S. history and it's inspiring. It really is. It's --
CAVUTO: But did you time it with a blizzard?
BIEL: We ordered up the weather, just like that. No, we -- not -- no, we didn't.
CAVUTO: OK. You know the reason why -- this confuses me, because these climatic changes we have going on, maybe that's what they are -- climatic changes. They have nothing with global warming, per se, and that maybe what's happening is just something that is -- that shifts and now, given the severity of this particular winter for a lot of folks -- in Mississippi, they're looking at a half a foot of snow; they don't even know what that is -- that maybe it's nothing more than that. No sinister cabal to destroy the Earth by corporate America, just the Earth going through a funk, and now, it's cold again.
BIEL: Well, you'd be hard-pressed to find a climate scientist or a physicist who agrees with that.
CAVUTO: Actually, no. Actually, I've had dozens on this show, but that not withstanding, what is it where in an argument, when I -- I wasn't talking to you per se, Steven, but one of your counterparts, who said, I think, last year, "Neil" -- it was a fairly, you know, mixed winter at the time -- "get ready for warmer and warmer winters; get ready for Florida to be, if you've got coastal property, for it to soon be underwater."
BIEL: Right.
CAVUTO: "Get ready to just wear your Bermuda shorts throughout the winter," which is not objectionable if it's a fashion statement, but my point is that, that didn't happen. There was a lot of shoveling going on. And people from Mississippi to Alabama to Georgia, all the way up to Maine, are probably seeing this global warming protest and saying, "What?"
BIEL: Well, temperatures are on average getting warmer. Scientists have never predicted that global warming would mean that there's no more snow. In fact --
CAVUTO: But, wait a minute. This winter, at this point, is 1.7 degrees cooler than last winter at this time. I don't know how they calculate that, but that's the latest info I have.
BIEL: On average, worldwide temperatures are increasing. Ten of the warmest years on record are all in the last 20 years.
CAVUTO: But I just told you -- I just told you this winter is almost 2 degrees colder worldwide than last winter, at this time. So, are we going collectively for a year? Are you going to tell me that being colder is just like being warmer? What?
BIEL: Well, I don't think scientists would say that that particular data point that you're singling out from all the broader temperature trends worldwide accurately leads to a conclusion that global warming doesn't exist.
From the March 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: All right, if there's a terrible snowstorm happening, a protest about global warming is going on somewhere, and today is no different. Now with snowstorms causing problems all over the East Coast, the organization Capitol Climate Action revved up to stage an act of mass civil disobedience at a coal fire power plant in Washington. Now, it's all happening and Susan Sarandon was there, and she billed it this way.
SUSAN SARANDON (actress) [video clip]: Gandhi, Martin Luther King -- they were willing to stand up for what's right, even if it meant peacefully breaking the law. Civil disobedience can overcome great challenges and global warming is the greatest challenge of our time. On March 2nd, thousands will come together in Washington, D.C., for a historic protest on the climate crisis. Many will continue our tradition of peaceful civil disobedience. The American people will take a stand at Congress' own coal-fired power plant -- the glaring symbol of coal's hold over our government.
HANNITY: All right, take a look at the protesters carrying forth the legacy of Gandhi and Martin Luther King -- shivering in the snow as they protest the Earth's rising temperature as a foot of snow falls. Now, maybe it's just a coincidence that nearly every global warming protest occurs on the exact same day that we have a major snowstorm, or maybe the big guy up there is trying to send a message to these people. We report; we'll let you decide.
[...]
HANNITY: The environmental nut cases: first of all, they have a great idea. They don't like the idea of soft toilet tissue, 'cause it hurts the virgin forest. But that's number one; number two: Every time they have a global warming summit or -- it snows.
PFOTENHAUER: It snows. Right.
HANNITY: You like that coach? It cracks me up.
HOLTZ: I knew where you were going. I'll tell you what. Hey, I'm just walking over here; I don't have a coat. I'm freezing, eight inches of snow, and I said, thank God for global warming. I'd have really been cold.
HANNITY: Now it's the new ice age. Yeah, exactly.
PFOTENHAUER: You're right. You're exactly right.
HOLTZ: Am I lucky?
PFOTENHAUER: Well, you know, it's hilarious, 'cause when you talk to the scientists, they said "you could make the case just as much for global cooling," and then, you know, that they're -- that this stuff is just run amuck. But I'll tell you what: With Carol Browner in that White House, buckle up.
HANNITY: And Doug, by the way, Nancy Pelosi couldn't make it 'cause of the snow.
PFOTENHAUER: 'Cause of the snow.
DOUGLAS SCHOEN (Democratic strategist): I guess what I would say is I think there's global warming, but I worry about cap and trade as being a tax on --
HANNITY: That's a big issue.
SCHOEN: -- carbon, which is going to retard our economy.
HANNITY: You know what? You're too reasonable a Democrat. I --
PFOTENHAUER: Yeah. They're going to bail out the auto -- they're going to bail out the auto --
SCHOEN: A centrist Democrat who wants to find --
PFOTENHAUER: -- industry, and then hit them with cap and trade.
From the March 2 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: Two of the world's most credible scientists that disagree with Al Gore on global warming -- and by the way, if you're in the New York area -- well, if you're in half the country -- they got a snowstorm. Aren't you sick of this global warming thing?
Anyway, they're on tomorrow's radio program and in my free email newsletter. You don't want to miss these guys. You can sign up and find out all the information at GlennBeck.com. And don't forget, set your Tivos and DVRs to watch the show all week and make sure you tell your friends, 5 o'clock Eastern time, set your Tivos. This is the place to be.
It's chilly where I am this morning. I would like to apologize to Rush Limbaugh for believing in global warming. Rush is a great leader... ;>)
I would like to see these guys show up at a NASA Atmospheric Sciences meeting and give a speech on what their ( Drudge, etc ) research indicates and then open the floor for questions. i would give a paycheck to see that.
I think you owe Rush an apology for those remarks... ;>)
"I think you owe Rush an apology for those remarks... ;>)"
Since I have said mean and disparging remarks (justifiably so) about Rush in the past... Ok..... if you think I need to apologize for it...
Here goes... only... I'll give a typical rightwing apology that Rush will understand...
Rush,
I'm sorry that you may have been offended or hurt by my mean and diparging remarks about you.
Will that do Irony? ;>)
Offer to wash Rush's car just to be on the safe side... ;>)
Also, you forgot to tell him he's a great leader... ;>)
Sure, I'll wash his car. Right after I finish drinking 10 gallons of water, that is.
I still don't get how this fat guy on oxycontin becomes the leader of the republican party ? i can understand palin and her looks, but Rush ???? wanting an american president to fail ?
If you think about it, rush really does represent the rightwing republicans. Flaunting his illegal cuban cigars is his way of saying the government can't tell him to do anything, and rightwingers who want to pick and choose which laws they plan to follow just eat it up. If only they had more money they could be just like that.
well, not the young republicans i had debates with in high school. I remember they were truly fiscal conservatives and we had things in common like family values really did exist. i have seen this "blindly follow the leader mentality on the histopry channell with Hitler's followers in the 30's and their " Germany over all ' chants. rush didn' create this. GW Bush did and rush saw the opportunity. it would be interesting to see how hannity fits into this.
As for the using all this video of snow falling in the east in March as proof that the climate is not out of sorts...
Only brainless twits would fall for it! Anyone that does, should have their sanity checked.
Have you noticed that the Global Warming deniers cry Global Warming only when there's snow on the ground?
And have you noticed that the Global Warming preventers cry Global Warming only during a heat wave?
It's a pretty simple concept, once you learn conservative physics: When it's cold, it's proof that global warming is a hoax. When the stock market goes down, it's proof that America has no confidence in Obama. When there's a hurricane, it's because God hates homos. And when the volcano blows, it's because we forgot to sacrifice a virgin last month.
Perfect definition of conservative physics, neon! Well said.
I hope you don't mind that I quoted you on my site ( http://mariopiperni.com )
Well, we cried a lot after Hurricane Katrina...but I'm sure the growing increase in intensity and severity of hurricanes in the Gulf Of Mexico which many attribute to atmospheric warming didn't cross our minds at the moment as we were too busy trying to put our lives back together.
While I believe the politically active environmentalists have noble intensions, I think they’re absolute idiots when it comes to scheduling protests, conferences or testimony about the cause of global climate change.
If they were smart, they would hibernate during the winter and then get active during the dog days summer when heat waves are most prevalent. Not so they themselves can cite the current weather as evidence, but to get all these dip***ts in the “liberal media” to shut the hell up and stop reducing the debate to useless layman idiocy.
I for one am looking forward to their follow up reports that excessive global warming and climate change are in fact occurring when northeast temps reach 50° in a few days.
Who said God does not have a sense of humor, nothing better then a global warming march in the Snow.
Yea, and the projected inundation of coastal regions by rising seas is pretty hilarious, too. Must be that Old Testament God...
Well, for starters why don't you see the recent (2009) EPA report entitled: "Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region” which states:
Recent U.S. and international assessments of climate change show that
global average sea level rose approximately 1.7 millimeters per year through the twentieth century, after aperiod of little change during the previous two thousand years. (page 20)
See: http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap4-1/sap4-1-final-report-all.pdf
Written by Christopher Monckton The truth: Ever since the TOPEX/JASON sea-level monitoring satellites began transmitting data in 1993, they have shown sea level as rising at a near-linear rate equivalent to 1 ft/century, compared with the 8 in/century previously estimated for the 20th century by the use of tide-gages. However, it is thought likely that the apparent increase in the rate of sea-level rise is chiefly an artifact of the change in mensuration from tide-gages to satellites in 1993. Furthermore, in response to the very sharp global cooling of the last few years, the rate of increase in sea level appears to have slowed somewhat, though it is not yet clear whether the trend will continue, and no data from the JASON satellite has been published since the late summer of 2008. In 2007 the UN reduced its high-end estimate of sea-level rise from 3 ft to less than 2 ft over the 21st century. The mean rate of sea-level rise over the past 10,000 years has been 4 ft/ century, though The Times was very careful not to provide this perspective in its article.
So says a guy who has nothing more than a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism.
Lord Christopher Monckton
Chief Policy Advisor
Science and Public Policy Institute
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.com/expert.cfm?expertId=349
>>Chief Policy Advisor
>>Science and Public Policy Institute
That doesn't disprove the above statement, that Moncton is not a scientist.
Of course, to be fair, many non-scientists have advanced science, so you don't have to have a degree in science to make a good argument.
However, what you do have to have, is a good argument; Moncton does not. Moncton's work is so ridiculous, I thought it was a spoof at first. As someone already stated, Moncton does not have any peer reviewed articles published. What he argues is not science.
So says a guy who has nothing more than a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism.
And since you all just Love Al Gore, his science degree is in what again? He just got up in front of a projector with some false data and you all think he is the leader of the Global Warming Army. So again, your point? http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.104
Gore is the messenger. His message is the overwhelming consensus of actual scientists who study the matter.
My point is that I am not going to debate global warming and climate change with you. That debate ended years ago and the deniers lost.
>>And since you all just Love Al Gore, his science degree is in what again?
But Gore is using peer reviewed science; your sources are not. Until you can cite actual science that backs up your position, you have no arguement.
Your ink, by the way, is just more hot air.
Gore is a messager, nothing more or less.
Oooooh. a lord of all things! Heck, Paul McCartney is a lord. Elton John is a lord. But I can bet you will dismiss them with equal disdain should you find them on the opposite side of any subject you hold dear.
>>Oooooh. a lord of all things!
Oh, f*** you, Snoopy! If Lord Voldemort were here, would you still be so contempuous? He was evil and powerful and super cool, so there!
I'll see your Voldemort and raise you two Baggins'.
Actually I think Paul and Elton are Knights...
I might be wrong though.
LOL... And exactly how many peer reviewed papers on climate change has Christopher Monckton published? Exactly none... Monckton is a right wing, religious gadfly. Monckton is an alleged journalist...not a scientist.
Guys, quite frankly, you have only succeeded in adding validity to mark's post. It does no good to attack the messenger simply because you can't argue with the message. Nor does it make any sense to personally attack mark after he puts forth documentation which supports his argument (which by the way is a demand made very often around here) So what happens when mark supports his argument? He is attacked personally and then the person who wrote the information he used is attacked personally. I'm sure that we would all agree that there is plenty of evidence to support anthropogenic caused warming of the earth. I have always believed it is a combination of natural and man. As I am sure that persons who are informed on this subject could provide a rationale rebuttal of marks argument. Why don't you try that instead of dumbing down the thread with sophomoric argumentation.
Anyway, your response to mark only served to make you look foolish. It appears you are simply unable to respond with evidence of your own to refute mark's argument. Stop with the personal attacks, especially if you are unable to adequately debate a point.
So, if we link or paste the peer reviewed papers on climate change we win?
what you were supposed to do is be like mark, claim the source is biased, and then call him names like stupid or idiot for falling for that biased source hook, line and sinker.
So how many peer reviewed papers has Christopher Monckton published on global warming? I posted a very recent EPA report. The other poster attempts to rebut with a quote from a gadfly with no scientific credentials. On its face I find his rebuttal lacking in credibility.
>>t does no good to attack the messenger simply because you can't argue with the message.
Please try reading the response more carefully, Chris. Irony is not attacking Moncton personally (for the most part). He is pointing out that Moncton has non peer reviewed work published. In other words, he has absolutely no argument at all.
There are plenty of good reasons to dismiss Moncton, but if we were required to refute each bogus claim made by Moncton, we would be here all night. The starting point for a debate on science are real facts and real arguments, which means they should appear or be supported by peer reviewed literature. To debate bogus science with real science just validates the deniers propaganda.
"Monckton is a right wing, religious gadfly. Monckton is an alleged journalist"
If that is not a personal attack then I sure would like to know what constitutes one. I also disagree with your contention that I am requiring you to refute each bogus claim by Moncton. As far as I know there is only one mentioned in this thread.
Read my response more carefully sir, I merely pointed out that mark made an argument using information from Moncton. Instead of addressing the specific point at hand, personal attacks were lobbed at both mark and Moncton. Now, that tells me that those who are using the personal attacks are simply incapable of refuting that specific claim. Now, where is the science which refutes the specific argument from mark? BTW, I ain't buying that Moncton's science is bogus just because you say so.
If there is a scientific rebuttal to Moncton's claim then it certainly is worthy of utilizing it. To indicate that one should not rebut bogus science with real science defies logic. Are you saying that all science which disputes global warming is bogus and all science which confirms it is real? Look, I know for a fact that you are very knowledgable about Global Warming. Hopefully you can address Moncton's claim without the insults.
I understand where you're coming from about trying to stay civil. However, I think questioning someone's credibility is relevant, especially when dealing with matters of science. If Monckton got his information from a credible source, then that source could be cited. Surely there's something out there to bolster his point, if it has any validity.
"BTW, I ain't buying that Moncton's science is bogus just because you say so."
Isn't that exactly the same principle that people are applying to Mark? They're not buying that Monckton's science is legitimate just because Mark says so.
I would like to know what data you have that shows that the coastal regions are rising over the last 100 years.
Yeah... I bet you would. Too bad it doesn't exsist. You see if the COSTAL REGIONS were rising, that would mean the sea level is falling, meaning that the glacial ice is expanding, and that you are not full of $#!t.
OTH - the SEA LEVEL in the coastal regions IS rising (thus the ice is melting and you ARE full of $#!t) and there's plenty of data available, links to which have already been provided.
So his statement was a mear thought. Since there is not data, then he is only guessing?
His statement was a summation of the vast majority of peer-reviewed science. Come up with your own peer-reviewed sources that support your claim, and a genuine discussion could take place.
Or mid-70s in Denver.
So, Denver has never been in the mid 70's before? This is a new? I would like to see the data over the last 100 yrs showing Denver has never been in the 70's the first week of March.
You know what is new? Tornadoes in February.
SO since you did not answer the first question, I will ask you this then. So Denver has never had a Tornado in February before? Please show the data.
OK smart guy, I'm sure it's been 70+ degrees in Denver in early March sometime in recorded history. So what? It proves nothing (except that you're an idiot to use that as some sort of twisted empirical "proof" of whatever you're trying to defend). It's not global warming. It's global CLIMATE CHANGE.
Proves your "Or mid-70's in Denver' to be wrong. Wow you called me a Idiot, your the first of the day to call me a name, congrats. I know it hurts to be wrong. I think it is funny how you all have gone from GW to Climate Change. What happen to your tag line Global Warming? There is no Climate Change that is man made, yes there will be changes, always will be but not from man.
Wow you called me a Idiot
No, your arguments are idiotic and you are an idiot to believe the idiot global warming/climate change deniers and their idiocy.
There is no Climate Change that is man made
Said with your idiotic head planted firmly in the sand of Grand Idiot Island.
Mark,
How do you rationally refute the IPCC's findings that anthopogenic activity is causing the earth to warm? I mean, really, all but a few now understand that the earth is getting warmer. That isnt the debate anymore. The debate is what is causing this. I have always believed that natural causes have certainly contributed to this issue. I am also under the impression that man has contributed as well. I base these beliefs on the mountains of evidence. I''m asking you, what evidence do you have which allows you to confidently state that "There is no Climate Change that is man made" Isn't it logical to understand that when billions upon billions of tons of CO2 is released into our atmosphere and when we are burning the rain forests and other forests across the earth it must have a detrimental climate effect? I simply believe that there have been way too many studies which prove this. How many do you know of which refute it?
Yes... um... well... very nice approach.
Yes....um....well....I guess I could have rudely dismissed him, but I'd rather have an adult conversation.
Chris, No, “not all but a few understand”, there are just as many scientist that will tell you that the earth is not getting warmer, but simply going through a cycle of cooling after a trend of heating. You say “you are under the impression that man has contribute”, but as there is no proof that man has caused this change only guesses. Scientist has been able to pull ice cores that have shown both warming cooling trends over the decades, (http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l3_savonlinna.php) even when man was not in the industrial age. So, what we are learning is that yes we should be good stewards of out plant, but that we are not to be the blame. Why do you think we need to eliminate all of CO2 people forgot that Carbon dioxide is used by plants during otosynthesis. (http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N9/EDIT.php) We all have beliefs, but what we are learning is that there is no proof but ideas that need to be researched, but lets not punish what we can not prove. Some states at looking at charging a CO2 tax, why? Not for research, but because simply for a money grab.
>>Chris, No, “not all but a few understand”, there are just as many scientist that will tell you that the earth is not getting warmer, but simply going through a cycle of cooling after a trend of heating.
You are simply making things up.
link
There is no science that backs up your bogus statemnt. The article you link to are not peer reviewed. They are not science.
When you have some science to back up your position, let me know. Otherwise, you are just blowing hot air.
>>How do you rationally refute the IPCC's findings that anthopogenic activity is causing the earth to warm?
You see what happens when you try this tac of argument with a denier, Chris? Up above you chastised us for not trying to answer in a rational way. Well, you did answer in a rational way, and of course, predictably, Mark answered with a bogus piece of science. If you answer that piece of bogus science, Mark will simply link to another one. There are probaby thousands of bogus science article that try to refute gobal warming. If we tried to answer each one, we could spend a week debating and still not be done. But the denier wins, because he *seems* to be putting fourth good arguments.
Unless the deniers can come up wtih good science--peer reviewed articles--then we shoud not vaidate their arguments.
Funny what I show is your information is bogus and the information I find is correct. Funny, I have said over and over again, GW is not a proven fact but a mere idea. Just as many scientist say it is not happening that say it is. This means it is not a fact, but still hypnosis. (Hypnosis is a mental state (state theory) or set of attitudes (nonstate theory) usually induced by a procedure known as a hypnotic induction, which is commonly composed of a series of preliminary instructions and suggestions.)
>>Funny what I show is your information is bogus and the information I find is correct.
Yes, because my information is from *peer reviewed articles.* Your's is not.
Global warming is not a hypothesis. It is a proven theory.
Time to put up or shut up, Mark. You want to make statements that are not correct, show us the science! Because our side has at least 621 pieces of data to back up your argument; your side has 0.
Correction:
>>Your's is not.
Should be "Your information is not."
A completely false statment. The vast majority of scientists believe that man is exacerbating the normal fluctuations in global climate due to his actions. Period.
>>A completely false statment. The vast majority of scientists believe that man is exacerbating the normal fluctuations in global climate due to his actions. Period.
Yes, but Mark will come back with a bogus petition citing all sorts of scientists. A better forumla is: most climatoogists do beieve in global warming. But the best formula (because there are some good climatologists who doubt) is that *all* the science backs up global warming. A scientific argument is solved by facts, not by scientists themselves. (For exampe, Mendel, a pionoeer in gentics, was a monk.)
GW is not a proven fact but a mere idea...
I agree with you, bush was nothing more than a rightwing idea.
But the point remains that it certainly does not bolster your argument to ingore marks points and rebut them with insults. Seems to me that in the broader context of this discussion, any rational observer would conclude mark is wrong. It is my bleief that they certainly wouldn't come to that conlcusion because of the sophomoric insults hurled his way, but rather because of objectively looking at the arguments posed. The abundance of evidence is on our side here, but just because mark continues to deny this doesn't give one a license to let the debate spiral downward into an elementary insult contest.
Tornadoes are the most widely feared and publicized natural hazards in Colorado. During 1996, a total of 96 tornadoes occurred in Colorado, heightening concerns that these powerful phenomenons may be increasing to cataclysmic frequencies. The metro area, in particular, serves as a site for the development of severe thunderstorms. Due to the "Denver Cyclone" effect, severe spring weather is a major concern for Denver. These storms create cloud to ground lightning strikes, heavy rain with flooding potential, severe hail, and tornadoes. On June 15, 1988, a group of tornadoes passed over the metro area. Two areas of the city suffered heavy damage due to tornado touch downs. On June 2, 1993, an F-1 rated tornado struck Denver. According to the National Weather Service, there have been 11 tornado touch downs in Denver between 1950 and 1989. The Fujita scale rates intensity of tornadoes with F0 for weak storms with wind rotation below 73 mph, and F5 for violent storms with rotation speeds of 261 to 318 mph. Fortunately, the tornadoes in the Denver area are usually rated F0 to F1 (with rotation speeds of 73 to 112 mph). While the tornadoes that occur in Denver are relatively weak compared to those in the Mid-West, the potential for injury, loss of life and property damage remains high. Most injuries that occur in these events are the result of flying debris, especially broken glass. The tornado threat is with us every spring, and is extremely high during the months of May, June and July. The intensity of these events and the potential for damages and injury should not be underestimated.
PLAGIARIZED
Stolen word for word from http://www.denvergov.org/tabid/391429/Default.aspx?
Worrie, Just showing that Fog is wrong. SO again attack the messager not the message. Much like MMFA tries to go out and find data, I do the same. You have a problem with this? FYI, common knowledge data as well.
I do have a problem with this. We're hear discussing and debating, most of us in our own words. Everyone knows that in order to be taken seriously, you've got to do your own work.
You've never argued in your own words, you've lifted most of your rebuttals word for word and it's not only obvious, but it's immoral.
Worrier, every time I bring a statement that is not backed up, I hear you want proof, so why give a statement when I can just give you proof. Debate and own words, most of you debates are simple, call the person who has a different opinion of yours some name and say their ideas only come from talk radio. Who cares about name calling cause it common with you and many other here and it does not bug me, but my information come from researching data on line and showing a different direction. Why work hard when one can work smart. I can find websites and data to back up my information. The information on Tornados matter of fact did not come from the website you quote, but from the weather channels information about Denver weather. Just proving again, that the information I found is widely used by many. So I guess they also plagiarized.
Could you please explain why finding information is - immoral, not moral ; broadly : conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles (webster)
Worrier, I have many times give you my own words, but they are only words. I come here not to just put out words, but to show that many of the arguments here are not as simple as you think. Much like the debate of Global Warming or Climate Change. Many think it is a proven fact, when in it is not.
You don't have any proof because all of your sources are not peer-reviewed science. This is the big problem the deniers have. It's like intelligent design. It wants to be taken seriously as science but doesn't meet the requirements of such. You are playing in an arena you can't win in. The facts are not on your side.
>>This is the big problem the deniers have. It's like intelligent design. It wants to be taken seriously as science but doesn't meet the requirements of such.
Yes, exactly so.
No, I'm right. Oklahoma had tornadoes in February. That's a rare occurence. Your "evidence" showed Denver's tornadoes in June.
Now before you get your panties in a bunch, I know there have been February tornadoes before. But what if we're going down a path of environmental destruction? What's wrong with doing something about it? What if you're the guy that chops down the last tree on Easter Island?
Fog, simple "what if's” Just like me say What IF we are going into a global cooling. What If you are wrong about global warming and all this so called changes we are making is cooling down the earth, and cause vegetation to die. Again, "what if's". Fog, if your on the island when he does, just plant one behind him. It is what I would do!
Why are you not against the ruining of God's Creation (i.e. the planet)?
I never said I was, I have said over and over I agree we need to take care of the planet, but what I do not want is a tax saying I have too, plus the tax is not for the planet, but for greedy polaticians. I think we need to recycle, reduce fossile fuels, but we can do it with out taxes.
What's are "out taxes"? Is that like the so-called "fair tax"?
What if gravity actually doesn't exist?
All science is refutable. Some lends itself to direct support by concrete evidence. Others require a consensus based on trends and models. The whole, "we don't know for 100% sure" argument is a canard. There is no such thing as 100% in science and never can be.
You're nabbing the plagiarists pretty steady there, W-King. The funniest part is that they'll risk what little credibility they may have had stealing something that doesn't support their argument at all. You'd think if the dishonesty wasn't an issue, and the standards are that low, they could find something to help them.
That's sooooo true, Col. For instance, picture a dollar bill. Now picture a Jr. Breakfast Burrito in its place. Pretty sweet, huh? Well, that’s exactly what’ll happen when you order off our new Everyday Value Menu. You’ll get a variety of great SONIC® food, like a Jr. Deluxe Burger, Chicken Strip Sandwich, Jr. Breakfast Burrito, Jr. Candy Sundae*, Jr. FRITOS® Chili Cheese Wrap, small famous Slush, small Tots, small Fries, Vanilla Cone, fresh Banana and small Soft Drink—for just $1** each (plus tax) all day, every day. So stop imagining you’re getting a great deal, and drive in for the real thing.
You make good points, Victor, but that brings up further questions. Do the sticks pull out without taking the block of glue with them? I insert my 1/4" thickness oak sticks into the pot and try to ensure that they are in a bent position inside the glue as it is hardening. I always wait until the next day to remove the hardened glue, but the window of opportunity to remove the heating up glue only lasts for a minute or so and if I do not pull on the sticks at that precise time then I have to wait another day to try again.
A couple of years ago I was visited by a snake oil/glue salesman who tried to peddle a gallon of stuff that was guaranteed to remove all glue residue from the pot. He wanted over 75 dollars a gallon and I told him to get the hell out of my shop after I sniffed the potion and thought it smelled too much like kerosene. I am not foolish enough to pour any type of petroleum liquid into my glue pot.
That's just off the top of my head. Feel free to disagree.
I give up, you win.... this time.
I know you've mentioned thta you were having problems posting pictures so I thought i'd give it a try.
Here's a few images of what my glue station looked like when I first got it into the shop.
The first image is the glue pot and station with the pot lid on and looking just like when it arrived. Notice the gray plug at the lower right of this image. This is the plug that must be left connected when the pot is removed and set on a work bench, if you want to be able to work the normal heating features of the edgebander, there isn't much cable to get you very far away from the bander, but it is doable.
The second image is nothing more than the first image with the yellow lid removed from the main pot. What I didn't realize at first was that there is a second pot (reservoir) just ahead of this pot, which is covered by the large steel plate above the glue pot.
The third image is with this large steel plate removed and both covers removed from the front and rear glue reservoirs. I have already cleaned the main pot of most of the glue, though some cleaning wax still remains and as I found out, will require a great deal more detailed cleaning. The rear (smaller) glue reservoir has just had its top removed and you can see that it is thoroughly fouled with carbonized glue and looks to me like the cover has never been removed from this part of the glue station in the life of this edgebander. This gives you a look at what a mess this glue station was in, but much of the mess is still hidden inside the glue roller housing and within the passages. Below the pots, there are jointed steel shafts and rollers and surfaces that are covered with nasty burned on glue from what appears years of neglect!
http://www.woodweb.com/knowledge_base_images/zp/cleaning_glue_out_of_edgebander.jpg
Oops, I inadvertently left off the link to my source. But I notice you were unable to refute any of my points, WK. I find your Ad Homminumm attacks childish, thanks for proving my point.
;0)
I'll show you where you can stick your glue pot lid!
Friedberg - What do you think was causing the global warming back in 1901, what too many buffalos were passing gas? Denver has officially broken the high temperature record for today, March 2nd. At 1:52pm the thermometer at Denver International Airport reached 73 degrees, besting the old record of 72 degrees set way back in 1901.
You just gave an example of the effect of global climate change - more severe highs and lows, more severe storms, etc.
Gee, I wonder why so many hurricanes in the Gulf Coast region (where I live) have increased in size and intensity in recent years. Hmmmm...I guess I shouldn't believe those pointy-head scientists who tell us that the Gulf Of Mexico and the atmosphere above it are increasing in temperature and that hurricanes feed off of that warmth. Nah...who believes in science anyway? It's probably God punishing us for wet T-shirt contests.
Oh oh, no you didn't! Don't you know that two years ago we didn't have as many hurricanes as scientists predicted? Why, that's proof positive to marky and phil that global warming isn't happening! See, all the proof they need is that one prediction out of 10's of thousands is off to say "see, I told ya so!".
Snoopy, what about the Hurrican that wiped out Galveston in 1901 I think? I wonder how big it was, oh wait that is right we did not have radar back then so we will never know. Hurricans have been around a long time, it is we have better science to track and measure them.
It wasn't an unusual hurricane. The problem was that Galveston was so low.
Do you have any other specious analogies to support your denial? It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Mark,
I just remarked on the temperature. We both know that random days of weather doesn't prove anything just like your snow comment.
Then do not put it out there as proof.
He didn't. You did.
Exactly.
" I would like to see the data over the last 100 yrs showing Denver has never been in the 70's the first week of March."
You can't google? Anyway, here's a fun relevant fact for you, not that it proves anything about climate change:
Denver Post, March 2, 2009:
"A record-high temperature of 74 was set at 3:08 p.m. today, surpassing the old record of 72 set in 1901."
Bear in mind that this is the record high temperature for only March 2nd, but it does exceed your 100-year threshold.
Your so smart, I already said this.
"Your so smart"
Um... yeah.
Its been over 100 years since Denver was this hot in March. The previous high was in 1901:
http://www.examiner.com/x-219-Denver-Weather-Examiner~y2009m3d2-Denver-officially-breaks-high-temperature-record-for-March-2nd
Ask and ye shall receive. Other records for March 3 were set 88 years ago. Its the hottest its been here in a long, long time. Not saying it proves or disproves anything, but Georgia being cold was proof for you, so why not Colorado being hot?
Your God ate your homework.
I think if an all-powerful being had a sense of humor, He would probably be able to construct a joke that played to a little more lucid audience than the one who can't distinguish between climate and weather.
I'm glad the wingnuts keep using this, it's on the historical record along with the rest of their confusion.Their ancestors mocked the round Earth theory by chuckling that their field seemed pretty flat, and nobody they know had fallen off.
If I remember my history correctly, it was the so-called scholars of C. Columbus day that said the world was flat. Much like today, it seems to be the Scholars saying there is global warming. Much like the scholars of C.Columbas day, they will understand soon they are wrong and GW is a myth.
Hey Mark,
You might want to re-read your history books. Scholars as far back as 600 b.c. have known the the earth was round.
Only the uneducated people of the time thought the earth was flat.
Now that is a true analogy of the current Global Climate situation.
I think Mark may be getting his history lessons from the nice men on the am radio who hate education. Science is almost always wrong, and most of the facts uncovered throughout history have been due to the hard work of court jesters and other entertainers taking the exact opposite position of scholars.
Actually there were scholars who pushed the flat earth policy. Not that it means much, because during the middle ages many of the scholars also happened to belong to the church. They just strove to validate what the church voiced as gospel.
Funny. Those same people seem to still be given a dispropornate voice in modern scientific "debates." (Evolution, for example?)
Your logic is impeccable. But, in case you cared:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
Typical con niwit with his "academics [scholars] have a liberal bias" nonsense.
Well, if ignorance didn't have its corresponding conservative bias, the republicans wouldn't hold but maybe 10 seats in the Senate.
Do the idiotic followers of these people have any notion that if we waited unitl an entire year went by, without snow, ANYWHERE, to acknowledge the reality of global warming, and start to do something about it, not only would it be WAAAY too loate at that point, but we likely would have already lost most of ourt coastal cities and be in full-fledged, year round, red-alert disaster mode?
Wow. Those evil lilberals who want to AVOID that. Don't listen to them, those evil liberal SCIENTISTS, no matter what you do!
Yeah, but to take measures to guard against what could be a hoax would cost industry millions of dollars and that would result in ECONOMIC CRISIS! OH NOES!!!1!!!
Yeah. Wouldn;t want to have a recession, I guess we should vote republican. LOL
OTH - why do these idiots (Gore, etc...) keep scheduleing conferecnes, protest, etc... on GW IN THE WINTER?! Not exactly a good PR strategy to stand in a foot of snow holding a sign protesting GW!!! Don't get me wrong - I'm on the side of SCIENCE in all things, and I fully support what they're doing - but they do LOOK really stupid when this kind of stuff happens. And it just gives more red meat to Fox and their fellow deniers when a GW conference is cancelled because of snow. For christ's sake: STOP HOLDING THESE THINGS IN JANUARY & FEBRUARY!!! Can't they wait until APRIL or something? Two months won't kill us. (But giving all this grist for the propaganda mill just might!)
Yes, because "South Park" is science. It's obvious that everything you need to know you learned from Cartman.
Why don't you Google something to prove yourself wrong and save us the trouble of convincing you? Oh, and nice projection of the word "wingnut." You're easy to refute.
Here are the answers to your inane questions: No, and no. By the way, questions usually end with question marks. That's why they are called "question marks."
And really, sit down with a grammar text. "All of the things you liberals have been preaching have yet came to fruition." is classic ignorance. Maybe you can "argue" some more when your mommy leaves the house and you can steal time on her computer again.
>>And hasn't the temp. actually been falling over the past few years to wipe out much of the rise we had in the 20th century. All of the things you liberals have been preaching have yet came to fruition.
The temperature has not been faling over the past few years. I don't know where you are getting your data. And no scientist predicted that the North Pole would be ice free in a few years. So maybe instead of ranting, you might try to actually educate yourself.
Your the one spouting invective. We're citing PEER REVIEWED, PUBLISHED RESEARCH... something your side does not have one. single. sheet. of. So stick that in your Google and search it.
Is this the kind of peer review you speak of little buddy?
I put a link to the whole article also.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3
In August 2007, a comprehensive survey of peer-reviewed scientific literature from 2004-2007 revealed "Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory."
"Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers 'implicit' endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no 'consensus,'" according to an August 29, 2007 article in Daily Tech.
In addition, a September 26, 2007 report from the international group Institute of Physics' finds no "consensus" on global warming. Here is an excerpt: "As world leaders gathered in New York for a high-level UN meeting on climate change, a new report by some of the world's most renowned scientists urges policymakers to keep their eyes on the "science grapevine", arguing that their understanding of global warming is still far from complete." The Institute of Physics is also urging world leaders "to remain alert to the latest scientific thought on climate change
yes but Jesus lived north of the equator so that's all that counts...
don't you read your bible!
Which one, the old testament where god is vengeful and rightwingers secretly love as they claim it was written by jews and infidels, or the new testament where jesus gave better definition to god's words and the rest was written by men who tried to use christianity as a means to meld several pagan practices together under one roof (and rightwingers secretly denounce because they hate any practice not explicitely supported by the old testament)?
I recall learning about the 4 seasons and weather changes in elementary school. Cavuto must have been home-schooled in a warm-climate state.
I wonder if the three dunder heads would still be saying the same thing if they had their lucrative contracts canceled and all of their ill gotten gains taken away?
Sean could be a televangelist, Glenn could be a game show host and Neil could a carnival ride attendant.
Bill O'Reilly could be a movie/music critic. (I'd see anything he didn't like!)
Rush could be a food/restaurant critic. (And write the occasional article for Cigar mag's.)".....again suggest a "few days" of cold weather trump climate change science......"
A few days????
Dam...We've had 2 years of record snow. The Ski Areas in NH are some happy campers and say keep it up.
Why you Global Warmers want to make it even colder?
Because we know the difference between "weather' and "climate."
>>Because we know the difference between "weather' and "climate."
Bingo. That is the only way to answer such stupidity.
Dude, it's GLOBAL warming. related to THE GLOBE.
It's not "SkiareasinNewHampshirean warming" that we're talking about.
Why don't you go find out if there were record HOT temperatures in Jamaica or the Saharan desert?
FNC Staff:
As the U.S. experiences continued harsh winter weather, far too many people in the news media engage in irresponsible reporting and commentary when they suggest that the vicissitudes of winter weather cast doubt on human caused climate change.
Derisive and sarcastic remarks about winter storms and global warming really only reveal one’s ignorance on the issues and a lack of understanding about the elementary distinction between climate and weather.
I find it inexcusable when media pundits dismiss decades of peer-reviewed research and consensus with misleading “talking points” from industry front groups and lobbyists. The opinions of the dominant majority of the world's scientific establishment are marginalized with straw man arguments.
It is news media’s responsibility to guard the public from misinformation. I hope you will endeavor to report with accuracy and integrity on climate issues.
Regards,
Optimisic about this email having any effect...
Regardless of what you think about global warming, it was hilariously ironic to see those global warming protesters freezing in the bitter cold. God does have a sense of humor.
>>God does have a sense of humor.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Yea, like when he creates hurricanes and other events that killl thousands of innocent people. What a joker!
Or when the first explorers settting out to prove the world was round went over a waterfall , hilarious to those who were comfortable with their flat earth maps.
>>God does....evidently liberals don't. BTW, you should change your name to "mantyhose" instead of funnymanpants. I think your mantyhose are in a bunch.
Really? That is your argument?
>>Ha ha ha ha ha! Yea, like when he creates hurricanes and other events that killl thousands of innocent people. What a joker!
That was YOURS? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Oops. I hope snoopy didn't confuse that with one of those N jokes.
>>That was YOURS?
Yes, that was mine. The ago old question of how can God be good, onimpotent, and omniscent has baffled philosophers for quite some time. Even Plantiger admits that contradiction is the best argument against God. So I think I raised a good point.
You said I should change my name to mantyhose. That was your attempt at some type of rebutttal.
Don't even try it. I started this with a post that I thought it was funny (ironic even) that people were protesting global warming in the bitter cold. You chose to focus your sarcastic rebutal post on my side comment that God has a sense of humor. I don't remember this article being about Theology. Maybe you are the one who should stick to the point. So, I responded with my own sarcastic argument about your mantyhose being in a bunch. You were looking for an argument and you got one. Don't start trowing around accusations of me being a troll when you started the whole argument with an irrelevent rebutal to my post.
>>Don't even try it.
Sorry, but I will try it. You were being snarky, so I responded in kind. The only way you could think it funny that it is bitter cold and people protested global warming is if you didn't understand the difference between weather and climate, which you apparenty don't.
I thought the douche bag filter was up and running?
How'd JPEagle get through?
Tip your waiters and try the meatloaf.
Do you have anything to add to the item my MMFA or global warming, or are you just a troll?
See my other post Mr. Theology professor. You expect me not to respond when I get called a douche bag? Funny, you didn't ostracize WK for his post that had nothing to do with global warming.
>>See my other post Mr. Theology professor. You expect me not to respond when I get called a douche bag?
Yes. If you want to try to substitute sarcasm for reason, then expect this kind of response. I see you have a lot of vitriol for liberals, so I don't think you were just trying to make a joke.
And now who doesn't have a sense of humor?
You should have thought that it might turn around and bite you before you insulted Funnyman with your attempt at humor.
No bite marks here. Weak, irrelevant rebutals from sad liberals don't leave much of a mark.
...but the vast majority of the responses do leave a mark. Too bad you're too ignorant to know when you've been slain.
You can't get blood from a stone, and you can't give someone a head-wound if they've got rocks for brains.
Global climate change and warming are real. Anyone who has looked at the data from credible scientific research cannot but help to say that the numbers don't lie. What's really sad about this whole subject is the false and misleading statements made by those with a narrow agenda of lets keep things the way they were. That is, supporting fossil fuels no matter what the cost. Destroying the environment in the name of jobs doesn't ring true - in fact its counterproductive. We're at the tipping point between trying to stabilize the climate and continuing down the same old path which is destabilizing it more with each passing day we fail to act. We must lower the amount of carbon emissions being released into the atmosphere. If we don't, continued warming will unleash even more carbon currently stored in permafrost and methane hydrates on the sea floor. The oceans are warming also. The polar regions are warming at even a greater rate than the temperate zones which is melting the glaciers and ice caps at an ever increasing rate. How much longer will we continue to dink around with misleading and false reports contesting the reality of global warming? Our children and future generations will suffer the consequences of our folly and egos run a muck. Shameful...
I imagine the deniers on here read your well contructed post with index fingers in their ears while chanting, "I can't hear you!". No amount of well-reasoned and scientifically-supported prose will dissuade them from their backwards beliefs.
Well...here in Colorado it is like the Winter That Didn't Happen. I don't ever remember there being such little snow and high temperatures. Here in Denver it's been in the 60's and 70's all winter! It is 76 degrees today! Usually by the first week in March we are weeks into a stretch of icy sidewalks and lingering snow drifts everywhere. This year...practically nothing. Today would be a good day for shorts and sandals. And it's been like this all winter!
February and March are usually the best months for skiing...but right now it looks like it's June up there.
"This just in: We have reports of a winter snowstorm. Clearly, pollution isn't a bad thing after all."
Isn't it supposed to snow in the winter time? Is this news? Do these people really think that climate change must be B.S. just because it is still snowing in the winter time? Wow.
Go back to bed America. There is no need to demand that your corporate overlords act responsibly: it is still snowing in the winter time in New York.
"-- they got a snowstorm. Aren't you sick of this global warming thing?"
Yup, one snowstorm in Winter disproves the sum total of world wide scientific consensus.