It's Hot! But Fox Only Talks About Global Warming When It's Snowing

[GoodGame]

In all honesty, debating global warming during a freak snow storm is no more giving statistical evidence than debating global warming during the hottest time of the year. It's PT Barnum-stuff if you don't go over the whole body of evidence in a thorough manner.

 

[Truthy]

Maybe Rush Limbaugh is their source. He's seems to be pretty knowledgable in the field of meteorology.

They’re playing games with us on this heat wave, again. Even Drudge, drudge getting sucked in here. Gonna be a 116 in Washington. No, it’s not. It’s going to be a 100, maybe 99. The heat index, manufactured by the government, they tell you what it feels like when you add the humidity in there. 116 - When’s the last time the heat index was reported as an actual temperature? It hasn’t been. But it looks like they’re trying to get away with doing that now.

 

[BasketCase]

Oh come on. You know "global warming" never fell out of use.

My two coppers: I always just called it global warming. I figure the coining of the term "climate change" was most likely an effort by global warming alarmists to stay relevant as their case collapsed around their ears. But the words "global warming" work just as well, because that's the thing that the alarmists are worried about (nobody fears global cooling--they should, but they don't)

 

[Defiant47]

The case never collapsed around their ears. The gullible right-wing population's perceptions of it did. Nobody fears global cooling because we are experiencing global warming.

 

[North King]

My two coppers: I always just called it global warming. I figure the coining of the term "climate change" was most likely an effort by global warming alarmists to stay relevant as their case collapsed around their ears. But the words "global warming" work just as well, because that's the thing that the alarmists are worried about (nobody fears global cooling--they should, but they don't)

When did their case collapse around their ears?

Hint: it never did.

Plz do not hijack the discourse by fabricating events.

kthx

 

[MobBoss]

/meh. Fwiw, where I live we have had record low temps this year.

 

[BasketCase]

When did their case collapse around their ears?

Over the course of the last decade or so. Previous predictions failed to pan out. NASA discovered they screwed up their temperature data. ClimateGate. And, finally, the following:

The case never collapsed around their ears. The gullible right-wing population's perceptions of it did.

Whenever anybody refers to one's opponents as gullible wingnuts, their case is forfeit. If global warming/climate change is real, it can be proved without the use of the above language. If the proof fails to convince people, it must be assumed there could be a problem with the proof rather than with the people.

 

[Ajidica]

/meh. Fwiw, where I live we have had record low temps this year.

As ocean currents get messed up from rising temperatures, weather gets more wacky.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

/meh. Fwiw, where I live we have had record low temps this year.

That is because climate isn't some kind of a simple system where a rise in temperature applies to the whole world. Global warming / climate change increases the frequency of extreme weather phenomena, such as record low temps in some areas and record high temps elsewhere.

 

[BasketCase]

Wrong. A thicker layer of greenhouse gases insulates against such changes (weather will be warmer and calmer). Violent weather is usually caused by freaky interactions between warm and cold air. Most of the time you need both.

 

[GamezRule]

Wrong. A thicker layer of greenhouse gases insulates against such changes (weather will be warmer and calmer). Violent weather is usually caused by freaky interactions between warm and cold air. Most of the time you need both.

 

[BasketCase]

Your claim that I missed the point, missed the point.

Global warming / climate change increases the frequency of extreme weather phenomena

I got Hitti's point fair and square. I just disagree with it.

Warmer climate = more rain, fewer tornadoes, and fewer hurricanes (though possibly stronger hurricanes). Colder climate = more snowstorms, fewer tornadoes, fewer hurricanes (though possibly weaker hurricanes). Something's going to go wrong with the climate no matter what. The reason we humans get all worked up over global change--errr, climate warming-- is that we always find that one thing that's wrong, and worry about that.

 

[Dale]

Last northern winter saw the second strongest La Nina. The effect on North America is lots of snow, then heat during summer. This is natural caused. Same as the effect of a strong La Nina on Australia is lots of rain during our summer, and a mild winter.

I wish people would research natural cycles before blaming every little change on "global warming". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Niña

"Oh no, I got a kidney stone! It must be AGW!"

 

[Defiant47]

Whenever anybody refers to one's opponents as gullible wingnuts, their case is forfeit. If global warming/climate change is real, it can be proved without the use of the above language. If the proof fails to convince people, it must be assumed there could be a problem with the proof rather than with the people.

The left-wing and scientists who are saying global warming is real are a bunch of gullible nuts.

Hurray! The issue of global warming is back on the table. Or, rather, any opposition to it is forfeit.

Obviously my comments were made because the proof is evident. The majority of the scientific community has shown climate change occurring (and thus believes in it), so what's the problem?

 

[North King]

Wrong. A thicker layer of greenhouse gases insulates against such changes (weather will be warmer and calmer). Violent weather is usually caused by freaky interactions between warm and cold air. Most of the time you need both.

Oh good lord, there's so much wrong with this statement.

First off, when GLOBAL temperatures are rising, a whole lot of stuff is destabilized. You get melting ice, which goes into ocean water and screws up the currents, leaving some areas that depended on warm currents much, much colder, you get certain areas desertifying and certain areas getting a lot wetter, etc., etc. Thus, a global rise in temperature can mean local variability in temperature when the earth is still in a transitional state between the current mildly cool state and the future very warm state.

And... what? Freaky interactions between warm and cold air? No. No, no, no, no, no. It's freaky interactions between areas of contrasting temperature that cause certain types of storms, and warm against warmer air is as much a contrast as warm against cold. Greenhouse gasses do not smooth out temperature gradients. They warm the planet up.

Moreover, warmer global temperatures mean cyclones tend to be a whole hell of a lot more powerful, since they're fed by warm temperatures in general.

So, wrong, very wrong, and somehow you mistook a comment about climate being thrown out of whack to be a comment about weather being thrown out of whack. The two are very different.

 

[emzie]

Over the course of the last decade or so. Previous predictions failed to pan out. NASA discovered they screwed up their temperature data. ClimateGate. And, finally, the following:


Whenever anybody refers to one's opponents as gullible wingnuts, their case is forfeit. If global warming/climate change is real, it can be proved without the use of the above language. If the proof fails to convince people, it must be assumed there could be a problem with the proof rather than with the people.

The issue is your, and the layman's, standard of "proof" isn't scientific in any way.

 

[Midgard Eagle]

With the level this has been debated at in the media and forums worldwide, there's a limit to how much respect they can expect to be given.

"They say the world is gradually getting warmer, over the course of decades, but that can't be, because our city has been cold this week!"

or

"Global warming has always existed, so humans can't have anything to do with it!"

or

"Global warming can't be dangerous, it's happened before!"

Sorry, but as long as people keep "debating" this way, we're going to keep calling them out on it. Oh, and:

The left-wing and scientists who are saying global warming is real are a bunch of gullible nuts.

Cause reality is a left-vs-right issue

 

[bestrfcplayer]

A news organization has an agenda?

Say it ain't so!

What else is new for Fox.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Something's going to go wrong with the climate no matter what.

True lets just hope it's not "us" stupidly dumping our feces into our drinking water while ignoring the guys that say its killing us.

 

[Berzerker]

Global warming is better than climate change, the whole point is the world should be warming if we're dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (assuming other variables are "constant"). But climate change? That doesn't say the world should be warming, it says the climate will become increasingly unstable - and I'd like some proof because greenhouses provide climate stability. As air masses become closer wrt to temperature and humidity, storms lose fuel. They need contrast and global warming reduces it... We get to see how storms work every tornado season, dry cool air hitting warm moist air and the atmosphere explodes.


and Fox sucks of course, just propaganda