Weather versus Climate

Have you noticed that when it’s extremely cold (as it is today, Dec 22nd); when road and rail and air transport are disrupted; when Eurostar trains encounter “fluffy snow” and are immobilised for many hours in the Channel Tunnel, then that’s just weather?
 
But when it’s warm, that’s Climate Change.  Hmmmmm.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Weather versus Climate

  1. Phil Burrows says:

    Well done in successfully destroying a straw man of your own creation.

    Wikipedia defines a straw man argument as being:

    “An informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.”

    I can’t remember any scientists saying that any single warm day was caused by global warming. It would be just as ridiculous to say that global warming isn’t happening just because of a cold day in one small part of the world.

  2. Thanks Phil (by the way, you’re getting a bit boring and repetitive). I remember every weather event being described by the media as “further evidence of global warming”. Indeed I remember some papers even insisting that the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami was caused by climate change — although of course tsunamis are caused by undersea earthquakes and tectonic plate movement, and have nothing to do with climate whatsoever.

    • Phil Burrows says:

      Repetitive? Please show me where. Boring? Is that because you like your views to go unchallenged?
      P.S. If you are so certain of the media bias, then please show me the examples you have recounted ‘from memory’.

  3. John Bull says:

    I don’t find Phil’s comments boring or repetitive, in fact they are extremely welcome. Why is it that climate skeptics have a habit of either patronizing or insulting those who disagree with their views rather than arguing the science? Honestly, the idea that climate scientists have got together, concocted a world socialist revolution (what is it about climate scientists that makes them lefties?) through the vehicle of an invented scientific phenomenon, (which somehow escapes the scrutiny of the entire scientific peer reviewed system, repeatedly), then somehow convince previous recalcitrant governments of all persuasions to attempt the enacting of politically costly and controversial laws to ward off the imagined threat from their entirely fictive phenomenon. Stop me if I am wrong, but this is what you are alleging Roger is it not? This is absolutely mental!

    • Grant Perkins says:

      John Bull:”(which somehow escapes the scrutiny of the entire scientific peer reviewed system, repeatedly),”

      Well John Bull it would be interesting to know what you think the peer review system consists of and what primacy it therefore implies for any papers that ‘pass’.

      Once past the general concept of your explanation please explain how it might apply in the rarefied atmosphere of ‘climate science’ where, it seems, few are deemed to have the appropriate track record to qualify as reviewers. This is less likely to be the case in most of the rest of ‘science’.

      Most of ‘climate science’ seems to depend on an in depth knowledge of climatology, dendrochronology/ice core interpretatation/and similar and statistics.

      How many recognised scientists have this combination of of accrued knowledge at the highest level and are able to form a pool of reviewers that can provide a balanced review of any papers that might be presented to them?

  4. Ash Kirk says:

    I find them reptitive. Someone on this blog already suggested if he wants his own platform he should set up his own blog. The constant posting of link after link and comment after comment with no reponse from anyone borders on the obsessive.

    • Phil Burrows says:

      Thanks Ash,
      Hopefully I am now more focussed in my responses, I agree with you that I have posted too many responses to some articles in the past.
      I am considering setting up my own blog. A lot of my posts have had responses to them. Can you point any out to me?

  5. When it used to be called global warming I agree with your comment Roger, but now it’s called climate change I’m actually surprised this ‘unseasonal’ cold winter weather hasn’t been put down to man as well.

    It was regarding the flooding in Cumbria here, here, and here,

    The term climate change is so useful; any strange unusual weather patterns can always be used to justify the theory.

    • Philip Burrows says:

      Could you stay on topic? We were not discussing the floods, we were discussing scientists blaming single warm days or events on climate change.
      Even if the topic was on the floods, you should have read the articles you referenced. They all say that there is uncertainty in the science that links individual events to the global warming trend.

      • It was on topic – weather vs climate change is the title, unless of course you’re suggesting that flooding isn’t the result of a weather event.

        I was actually concurring with Roger’s earlier comment:

        I remember every weather event being described by the media as “further evidence of global warming”. Indeed I remember some papers even insisting that the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami was caused by climate change

        Maybe you should have read my comment better

      • Philip Burrows says:

        I thought Roger was discussing the current weather and climate, but we will agree to disagree on that topic.
        You didn’t answer the other point though.

  6. I am amused at the frequency with which alarmists refer to “peer review”. Apparently they have not noticed the admissions in the CRU e-mails of the way in which alarmist scientists set out deliberately to corrupt the peer-review process.

    John Bull challenges the idea that scientists might collude to protect the current paradigm against challenges. Yet the history of science is full of such examples. In 1500 the scientific community believed the world was flat, and sceptics were burned at the stake. In 1850, most scientists accepted a broadly Creationist model for the origin of life — until Darwin came along with his heretical views.

    • Philip Burrows says:

      Very unhelpful Roger, you have said peer review isn’t very good, but you haven’t come up with anything better.
      Here is a great article that discusses precisely these points

      • Philip Burrows says:

        Yet again Roger, you deftly seem to have avoided answering any of my points or those put forward in my references.
        It feels like you should change your ‘straight talking’ catchphrase to ‘avoiding the point in whatever wobbly way possible’.

    • John Bull says:

      The fact that they discussed its corruption is proof that peer review works.

      • John Bull: If they had discussed it publicly with a view to doing it better, that might have been proof that peer review works. But they colluded secretly (as they thought) to subvert the peer review process and to ensure that only their own cronies were involved. And you say this proves that peer review works?!

      • John Bull says:

        My point is that they wouldn’t have had to subvert a process that didn’t work, the fact that they attempted to do just this shows the process to be a sound one. Peer review is flawed in the sense that it it can be manipulated by scientists who fabricate or significantly adjust their data, but then what review process isn’t vulnerable to this sort of thing? Have you an alternative? I take it your doubting the peer review system precludes you from accepting any scientific theories subject to the process?

  7. Richard Hyslop says:

    Here is a link to a list of peer-reviewed papers skeptical of “man made” global warming:

    http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

    This is a very small list, I know of another scientist who has compiled a list of 400 such papers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s