comment #1

Sergio says ...

What about the west like Colorado and Wyoming and the northern plain states? They're getting blasted by one blizzard after another. It'll take them years to dig out!

comment #2

Edward Havens says ...

Sergio, don't you know... New Yorkers don't know there is anything between Los Angeles and New York City, except for maybe Chicago and Miami.

comment #3

bipedalist says ...

Nothing like preaching to the converted, eh?

comment #4

americanrat says ...

There's nothing like this type of cherry-picked climate info ("No snow this winter!") that does more to discredit global warming alarmists among people like myself that actually know something about science and climate.

Do you know what the record high in NYC this time of year is? The mid to high sixties, recorded in 1966.

The funniest thing? NYC is in a part of the country that gets less snowfall on average than other parts of the country. The fact that there's been no snowfall in NYC counts for exactly diddly squat.

Of course, in areas of the country that have recieved a lot of snowfall, people are clucking about the snowfall being caused by global warming. Again, alarmists cherry pick data to make their case. Science takes a more holistic view. This past year has been the coldest in several years, and that's a fact. While on average the world is experiencing a slight warming trend, there's nothing particularly unusual about this and no evidence humanity has caused any but the slightest amout of this warming. And many reputable climatologists, meteorologists and geologists believe the human caused warming is negligible.

As a rule, don't ask scientists to be movie critics and don't ask movie critics to be scientists.

comment #5

jeffmcm says ...

Why did you pick such an appropriate name for yourself? It kind of blows your cover.

comment #6

ltlewis3 says ...

When I was a kid, the next Ice Age was just years away, now we're likely to be boiling in sea water by decades end. Will you people please make up your mind so I can properly accessorize.

comment #7

T. S. Idiot says ...

NYC got a record 20+ inch snowfall last winter. Apparently, global warming doesn't stop snow, just makes the weather irratic, as witness Denver. As for nothing between NYC and LA, Kansas can go to hell.

comment #8

Mgmax says ...

During the Medieval Warm Period, they made red wine in England.

That's how much weather fluctuates normally over decades and centuries. The idea that you can judge global warming by one anecdotal month is about on par with saying that our use of SUVs is increasing the amount of gravity in the universe and causing cosmic shrinking.

comment #9

Midwest Doug says ...

Right on, Mgmax. Anecdotal evidence proves nothing, or else you have to put up with the insufferable ostriches who like to crow when the temp is 10 degrees below normal.

Very mild winter here in the Midwest, so far.

comment #10

jeffmcm says ...

And _after_ the medieval warm period, when the little ice age began in 1300, it caused economic chaos, poverty, starvation, and millions of deaths. But that's all just par for the course, too, right? Nothing to worry about.

comment #11

SaveFarris says ...

Back in 1300, we didn't have personal space heaters, fiberglass insulation, and multiple 24 hour news outlets giving us continuous weather updates. And that same yearning for technological advancement makes all our yammering about how a few degrees difference in a millenia look mighty silly.

comment #12

jeffmcm says ...

Yeah, and in 1300 most people knew how to grow their own food and make their own clothes, meaning that when societies crumbled, they could take care of themselves. Not so much the case with the average city-or-suburb-dweller today.

comment #13

Mgmax says ...

Yes, Jeffmcm, and another thing that 1300 and the present day have in common is that there arose in the land preachers who insisted the change in the weather was the result of man's sinfulness, and that only by casting away our possessions and all the other vanities of the world could we appease Heaven and be granted nice weather again.

Odds are, it was every bit as true then as it is now.

comment #14

Larry says ...

"Partly because doing so will assuage people's guilt about not really doing anything about an obviously worsening situation, and because giving an award is a lot easier than changing carbon consumption habits."

This is the ugliest part of the discussion--the moral posturing. No matter how solid the evidence for global warming is, that doesn't tell us what's the best solution to the situation.

No one can be sure, in fact, what we should be doing. They don't even know how serious the problem is, or precisely what impact various measures would have. Radically changing carbon consumption could create a worldwide Depression that would dwarf any problems full-on global warming might cause--and even then may not significantly slow down warming. And changes that are less than radical are even less likely to affect warming.

Perhaps the best solution is to live with whatever warming we get, and taking ameliorative measures. Perhaps the best solution is some unforeseen technological answer we'll develop in the future. I don't know. No one does. The trouble is you won't hear Al Gore admit this.

Instead, the global warming scolds, as noted above, have only one setting. Not unlike religious fanatics, they whine and moan about how humanity has fallen short and that we must repent. It may not help, but at least they can feel morally superior.

I'm willing to listen to reasoned arguments about what to do, but it's pretty clear that our current energy consumption habits have made life better for the majority of people on this planet. Before we radically change this, let's make clear it's the right thing to do. Neither Jeremiahs nor Chicken Littles help this discussion move forward rationally.