As Kate rightly points out, there is always climate change. At the moment the evidence indicates there has been no net global warming since the late 90s. But that little fact has no impact on the global warming faithful. They continue to point to the “scientific consensus,” completely ignoring the fact that science has never been conducted by consensus.

Jenn and the rest of use here at FHK know full well the difference between climate change and weather. We also recognize the difference between science and politics. You, apparently, do not. If you did you’d recognize that there are a lot of climate scientists who do not believe we are experiencing global warming. There are plenty more who think there may be some global warming but that it is completely beyond human control. But that doesn’t have any impact on people like you. Al Gore, no scientist, is your expert and he can do or say no wrong.

So AM and all the little global warming minions will continue to spout their propaganda. Meanwhile, the rest of the world will continue noticing that the evidence simply doesn’t support their consensus.

Of course there’s climate change. It’s been changing constantly for eons. Jiminy Crickets.

Climate change is not he same as the state of the weather outside your window.

You are making the same forehead-slapping mistake that Pat Robertson did when he “converted” to “belief” in global warming during a heat wave.

Your post here reflects an all-too-common misunderstanding of what global warming is; an egregious error that is the result of a kind of pernicious solipsism: “if I don’t see it, then it aint’ happenin.’”

Reading this post, and others like it, shows a kind of ignorance comparable to a Creationist saying, “If evolution is true, ‘den why are ‘der still monkeys?”

The fact that the content and ignorant back-patting, righteous swagger of this post does not embarrass you shows the poverty of your understanding. I mean, the claim of this post is considered antiquated and obsolete even by most current global warming denialists. If there is a way to make yourself an embarrassment and laughingstock even among those of whom you’d consider your allies, well, congratulations.

Now, I’m by no means a specialist, scientist, or an expert on these things, but allow me explain, in simple words:

Again, “climate change” is not the same as weather. Climate change is differences in average temperature, rainfall, seasonal weather patterns, etc. An unusually cold day during the summer, or a warm day during the winter, is not evidence for or against climate change, but merely ever-changing dynamics of a regional, seasonal weather system. Global warming causes climate change; this is a slow, gradual change that occurs over larger periods of time than what a week of blizzard, or a heat wave, will evince. Thousands of years of averages are compared to past decades of C02 levels, precipitations levels, 02 levels, etc., and not to a period of icemelt a few weeks ago. The fact that the weatherman’s predictions are off has absolutely no bearing on the truth or falsity of climate change. Thinking that it does is a complete non sequitur.

Seasons have regular ebbs and flows of high and low temperature. Concerning these frequencies, climate change—spurred by global warming, can actually lead to deeper troughs and wider wavelengths on graphs showing seasonal climate activity. In the future, a long period of very cold and snowy winters can actually be the result of global climate change. Global warming does not mean “everything is hot all the time” and, when it is cold, proves to be contrary evidence. I hear this nonsense all the time: “It is cold during winter! Haha! Beat that, global-warmin’-lovin’ libruls!”

From the US Geological Survey: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/leads.asp?ID=1613:

…[W]eather and climate are not the same. Weather is the state of the atmosphere (i.e. temperature, precipitation, wind) for a particular time and place. Climate is the average weather conditions for a place over a longer period of time.”

This caricatured, straw-man version of what you think “global warming” amounts to should elicit a deep and abiding shame; especially since you are posting on this blog; published and condoned by you. For your sake, I’m glad you intellectually flagellate and humiliate yourself behind the privacy of the web, and not on a soapbox in public somewhere. With the amount of information on this topic that is available, one would have to actively work to be as ignorant on the issues as you are; a feat not easily accomplished, believe me. Again, a confederation of dunces would quickly crown you as their king.

Though I’m wasting my time here (I know you won’t visit or read the content on any of these links), I’ve taken the time to post a few links to some (prima facie) non-partisan websites concerning climate change and global warming. I implore you: for a few minutes, turn off Rush Limbaugh, stop reading Kent Hovind, and please try do a little homework before embarrassing yourself and parading your sophistic nonsense on the net. (By all means, I’ll defend your right to do it—the more you post, the better I look).

“Fourth Report of The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change:”
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm

“NOAA on Global Warming: Frequently Asked Questions”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

“Common Misconceptions about Abrupt Climate Change” http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10149

“NASA Worldbook: “Global Warming”
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

Probably more appropriate: “EPA Climate Change Website for Kids”
http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/index.html

Bad Statistical Reasoning about Weather and Climate
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/02/bad_statistical_reasoning_abou.php#more

I’ve been reading this for a quite a while now, and this post truly reflects one of the apices of your self-congratulatory, dogmatic parades of ignorance. It is rather masochistic that I keep reading it; it was a choice between gouging my eyes out, or responding (I just had to this time).

Knowing how denialists handle dissention, I’m pretty sure this will just be deleted from comments section, or in some way be denied from ever being shown. This whole blog is a testament to a handsome talent cultivated in insulating and immunizing oneself to other views (dogmatists are good at this). Will “daring” you to post it unaltered guarantee that it will show up in the comments? I know many conservatives invest a lot into elaborate façades of masculinity; will avoiding the label of “coward” guarantee that it will be posted unaltered on your website? (Heck, I’d be even more surprised if you read this far!)

Best,

AM