According Time magazine's very latest wisdom, the epochal blizzards that have hit the Northeast this winter are a likely consequence of global warming.

Really? As I write these words, blizzard number two rages unabated outside, with bitter cold (12 degrees at last check) combining with wind and heavy snow to deposit (so far) at least nine inches of new white stuff on top of the nearly two feet visited on my zip code by last weekend's blast. And these figures, coming from west-central Pennsylvania, are benign in comparison to the two to three feet of snow visited on portions of Maryland and the Philadelphia and D.C. metropolitan areas last weekend. At the moment, we in the Alleghenies are cut off (by interstate highway closures and general paralysis) from points east, but all indications are that this blizzard is striking already hard-pressed Philadelphia and Washington with strength comparable to the first blizzard. The First Great Blizzard of 2010 set all kinds of snowfall records, including in the D.C. area; one can only wonder what the record books will tell us about the second.

And it hasn't just been the snow. In the wake of the first great storm, temperatures plunged into the single digits for several nights in a row, ascending (in the bright sun) into the upper teens or low twenties by day. In short, if this is global warming, I'd hate to see what global cooling might entail!

Yet Time hasn't missed a beat in its latest contribution to what must be regarded as one of the most persistent mistaken orthodoxies in the history of science and politics. "There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm," writes Time's Bryan Walsh — even as the snow continues to fall. "As the meteorologist Jeff Masters points out in his excellent blog at Weather Underground, the two major storms that hit Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C., this winter — in December and during the first weekend of February — are already among the 10 heaviest snowfalls those cities have ever recorded. The chance of that happening in the same winter is incredibly unlikely."

Oh, so? What if the climate were in a cooling cycle? Or were the people who experienced the Little Ice Age a few hundred years ago (or the Big Ice Age a few millennia back, for that matter!) merely being vexed by persistent flurries? What, in point of fact, produced those massive glaciers that overwhelmed the northern portions of what is now the continental United States and all of Canada, if not snow, and lots of it? While it is true that warmer temperatures can produce heavier snow — as anyone who lives within range of lake-effect snow, which mostly falls before the Great Lakes freeze over or become too cold to generate the condensation responsible for heavy snow, can attest — we have been seeing both heavier snow and colder temperatures, both in the United States and in Europe, and not merely this winter, but for a number of winters running.

Ah, but weather and climate are two different things, insist the global warming gurus. "It's a mistake to use any one storm — or even a season's worth of storms — to disprove climate change (or to prove it; some environmentalists have wrongly tied the lack of snow in Vancouver, the site of the Winter Olympic Games, which begin this month, to global warming)," Walsh reminds his readers, in that infuriating way that global warming pseudoscience has of avoiding falsifiability. "Weather is what will happen next weekend; climate is what will happen over the next decades and centuries."

In other words, weather really isn't a reliable indicator of long-term climate trends — but that isn't going to stop Walsh and his ilk from making sweeping predictions and (which is much more important) insisting upon sweeping policy changes just in case they turn out to be right one of these millennia.

In one positive development, meanwhile, the Federal Government has been shut down the entire week, and is likely to be shuttered at least one more day as D.C. struggles to remove more snow than it has ever received in a single week in its entire history.

President Obama, probably dismayed by the capacity of Mother Nature to hold even the apparatus of the state in abeyance, called the storms "Snowmageddon." In a similar vein, the ancient Norse — drawing, perhaps, on some racial memory of climate change in the prehistoric past — insisted in their eschatology that the end of the world (Ragnarok, marked by warring among gods and men and great natural disasters) would be preceded by three great winters or "fimbulwinters." The attribution of such forces of nature to divine wrath, while not scientific, at least has an internal logic that the doctrine of global warming — driven more by ideology than by level-headed science — lacks absolutely.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (18)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

CommieBlaster said:

Global Warming Debunked FLASH!! This Brand New Video Blows a Huge Gaping Hole in Obama's Cap and Tax Scheme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVm5-6H_sH4

February 10, 2010 | url

You're missing the point, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Chris K said:

JohnNelson take your own advice. John, You imply that someone else is taking a "micro view". The point made in the article is not that weather proves or disproves global warming, but that the warmers us weather as proof often, and then claim it can't be done during cool weather events. That is all. If you look at the data, it is conclusive that the earth is warming but also does not support that CO2 is the cause. So, if you are going to advise others to see clearly, stop spouting what you call facts which are obviously derived by those that look at only the microscopic view which fits their preconcieved notions. If your were more honest, then maybe your opinion would be respected. Otherwise your just another noise maker.

February 10, 2010

Bonnie said:

Record year for global warming? Jan. 12, 1888 - Dakota and Montana territories, Minn., Nebr., Kans., and Tex.: "Schoolchildren's Blizzard" resulted in 235 deaths, many of which were children on their way home from school. March 11–14, 1888 - East Coast: "Blizzard of 1888" resulted in 400 deaths and as much as 5 ft of snow. Damage was estimated at $20 million. Is there indeed climate change? Yes indeed! Climate has been in a state of flux during all of recorded history (and before). There are warm periods followed by cool periods. There are dry periods followed by wet periods. There are glaciers where there were once forests, and forests where there were once glaciers. There are lakes were there was once dry land, and dry land where there were once lakes. There are mountains where there were once plains, and plains where there were once mountains. It is a living earth.

February 10, 2010

Bonnie is right, it is a living earth, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Vern Holford said:

The real point The main point is people trying to scam their way to wealth and power(algore) by scaring everyone with unproven claims that they are causing climate change. That is a crime and should be condemned. Preacher Al is not mistaken he is pushing a hoax and making himself boat loads of money out of it.

February 10, 2010

SamH said:

Yes, EVERYTHING is a sign of global warming/climate change How convenient that whatever the immediate weather is, it supports global warming (oh, excuse me, climate change). If temperatures are high, it's evidence it's global warming. If there are droughts, it's global warming. If there's more rain, it's global warming. If there's less rain, it's global warming. If it's cloudier, it's global warming. If it's less cloudy, it's global warming. If there's more sleet, it's a sign there's global warming. If there's less sleet, it's global warming. If there's more or less hail - global warming. And now if there's more or less snow, either way it's a result of global warming. And all of this is a result of human-caused global warming/climate change, of course. Uh, yeah.

February 10, 2010

johninmpls said:

... Why must global climate change be a bad thing? Embrace it!

February 10, 2010

Batjak456 said:

... A 100% disabled U.S. Air Force vet here... Folks...this is an easy one. This issue is about credibility, not "quoted" facts and figures, as some would have you believe (or buy into). During the course and privilege of serving my country, I garnered fourteen ribbons, six bronze oak leaf clusters, two bronze star devices and, of course, my wings. Enough about all that. I only mention it in hopes of establishing a bit of credibility (there's that word again) with you, other concerned peoples of this planet. Wanna hear 'an inconvenient truth'? But first... ANY understanding of the stupidity of 'global warming'...er, 'climate change', (and now this, as of November 26) 'global warming pollution' or whatever the hell these schysters and con artists are callin' 'it' now, MUST begin and end with Al Gore. By The Content Of His Character... When Al Gore was sent to Vietnam, in his own words he said he went "so that some other 'Son of Tennessee' wouldn't have to go." After he realized that some people actually believed his line of crap, he knew he was onto something. That's when myself and a whooooole lot of other disgusted folks figured out just what kind of 'man' he really is. Listen up. I'm tellin' you, when you deal with this clown, you'd better keep your head on a swivel. By The Content Of His Character... By The Content Of His Character... By The Content Of His Character... Yeah, yeah, I know. It sounds like an ad hominem. But, HE SAID IT!

February 10, 2010

Flu-Bird said:

TIME poppycock So according to TIME the blizzards are a consiquence of GLOBAL WARMING what kind of idiotic blabber is this anyway? This is just more proof that TIME is 1% truth and 99% bull kaka

February 10, 2010

Lee Gonzales said:

... John Nelson posits with: "Humans have affected the environment in many ways, and climate change is occurring at a more rapid rate as a result." To begin with a premise that isn't proven (that mankind is influencing the climate), and therefore it is up to man to do something about it, could lead to some serious consequences in 1) our ability to make a living 2) maintain our standard of living. 3) prevent the government from dictating to us how we should live out our lives It has not been proven that man is influencing the climate. Even AGW were true it still does not mean that the rising of Co2 levels (caused by man or nature) is a bad thing.It could very well lead to more crops and a richer world! However, what is a bad thing is that if you turn over the golden keys of capitalism to the government, the government will continue to demand more of your money and more of your freedom even if Frosty the Snowman refuses to melt in the middle of July in the year 2020. The "warmists," have have put all of their chips on the line that Co2 is the leading driver of climate. Why blame Co2? 1)It is produced mostly by nature and man's contribution of it is tiny by comparison. 2)Why if the climate is not driven by Co2? climate scientists with their ice core samples say the evidence does not point to Co2. I'll give the link but you probaqbly won't examine it. Nevertheless here it is:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU&feature=related The press has rigged the wheel of misfortune to stop on AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). Regardless of the amount of snowfall that could bury a glacier, the MSM feed their fans the one-sided snowjob. That begs the question as to why the MSM has rigged the game. Maybe Al Gore could tell you in a moment of candor at a cocktail party, or you could read history.It's full of BSers who come up with cons to take your property.

February 11, 2010

ChrisM said:

... Did any of you bright young people look into the cause of the blizzards? The east coast is not experiencing a record cold snap. It's experiencing record snowfalls. Not temperature: humidity. Traveling water. The water is likely from the latest El Nino cycle, which is indeed a trend, and one that deserves study. It also points to warming. Whether it's caused by humans or not I can imagine being up for debate. But the blindness in some of the above comments, not to mention the author's sly dig that there may be a cooling trend, is astounding. Be on whatever side you like, but this conspiracy theorizing and anti-scientism is sickening. Natural forces don't care about your political leanings. Believe it or not, this is a larger problem than the climate. A population of people who are so childishly self-indulgent and thoughtless is hell-bound for disaster; we'll be too busy pointing fingers to pay attention when there really is a problem. .. /rant

February 11, 2010

Zooze said:

What about Dr. Grey? In 2006, Dr. William Grey, the guy who introduced climate modeling and is a AGW skeptic (not a denier) predicited that we would enter into a global cooling phase starting in the 2009/2010 transition. In Dr. Grey's career he made some of the most accurate long range hurrican and weather predictions ever (he retired a few years ago). His position on AGW is that we of course have an effect on global climate, but the present global warming hysteria is just that--fear mongering hype. Check out Wikipeda for a list of distinguished and accomplished scientists that do not support AWG. Do some homework, Don't just join the sheep.

February 11, 2010

Jim said:

Questioning I have always wondered why no one ever publicly challenges the validity of a global average temperature. An example.. A man put one hand in water that is 0 degrees C, he puts another hand in water that is 74 degrees C, on average he is 34 degrees C(98.6 F). The average in no way describes the state of the person. A person with hands in water like that is miserable. The average is a meaning less number. With that said, what meaning does an average global temp have...maybe non at all. ...I hope I did my math right.

February 11, 2010

Trevor M said:

TRUTHINESS AND THE AGW MOVEMENT Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not wild claims without foundations. Not imaginary projections. The anthropogenic global warming movement is floundering because it is not based on logical arguments and good science. It is based on "truthiness". This truthiness foundation has now been exposed. 1) If it were real science, it would be transparent (unlike the IPPC). 2) Real science doesn't involve mysterious disappearing data. We're all just supposed to take their word that the dog ate the homework. 3) Real science doesn't hinge on a propriety computer modeling program that nobody else has access to and can test and experiment with. I read that now, suddenly, they're going to let outsiders use their program, test it, and subject themselves to actual peer review. 4) Real science can be replicated by other people. See points 2 and 3 above. 5) Real science involves research and facts, rather than opinions and truthiness. See points 2, 3, 4 above. 6) Real science can be used to accurately predict things. Absolutely NOTHING has ever been predicted with any accuracy by the AGW proponents. Period. 7) There is no final authority body in science which you can’t challenge. Maybe, just maybe, that's finally sinking in. Is it? The "science" of the man-made global warming movement fails on every point above, all required by the way every other science works. COMPARE THIS WITH REAL SCIENCE. LIKE, SAY, EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE. IT MEETS ALL THE ABOVE SCIENTIFIC CRITERIA IN SPADES.

February 11, 2010

Trevor M said:

TRUTHINESS AND THE AGW MOVEMENT part 2 What we've seen out of these people is NOT science by any acceptable standard. Nor are their arguments logical. They've built a mountain out of logical fallacies like Appealing to Authority and Confusing Causation with Correlation, while trying everything they can to block and ridicule healthy skepticism and the normal process of peer review and the way in which science works. And then there’s that massive transfer of wealth in tax dollars with no certainty that anything real is being accomplished or can be proven to be accomplished. Truthiness is not good enough to support this kind of expenditure. Just like truthiness wasn't good enough to start the Iraq war, for example. The AGW movement have built what resembles a religion more than anything else. It is based on faith. And that is why it has crumbled when the facts are simply brought out of the closet. No insult to people of religious faith intended -- unless you've confused your faith with science.

February 11, 2010

Henrietta Bowman said:

Cyclical Weather Weather is -- and always has been -- cyclical. There are many factors involved such as sunspots,etc; but anthropological centrism ranks pretty darned low on the scale of importance. As for Carbon Dioxide (CO2), there could be no life on earth without it. Plants actually thrive with higher CO2 levels. "Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, odorless non-flammable gas and is the most prominent Greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. It is recycled through the atmosphere by the process photosynthesis, which makes human life possible. Photosynthesis is the process of green plants and other organisms transforming light energy into chemical energy. Light Energy is trapped and used to convert carbon dioxide, water, and other minerals into oxygen and energy rich organic compounds." --Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 25 The Chicken Little EcoNut crowd would do well to take a remedial Science 101 refresher course before screaming the sky is falling and having a panic attack.

February 11, 2010

L Tecolote said:

... Those who would be king have always had a hard time convincing their prospective subjects to give up and take orders. It's not in the nature of Man to want to be ruled -- especially by other mere humans. So they've worked for centuries, perfecting a rap that would get people to let them be boss. "The dictatorship of the proletariat" didn't work out too well. So if the prospect of being "scientifically managed" didn't tempt you "human resources", maybe a little "scientific" scare story will ... hmm? The entire point of all the lying BS -- "Global Cooling" back in the '70s, and then, when that didn't catch on due to the earth's failure to cooperate, "Global Warming," beginning in the '90s, and now that the cantankerous planet refuses to heat up on cue, "Global Climate Change", hedging the bet with weasel words -- the entire point has always been to somehow mousetrap the uSA and the few other nations that still have a modicum of prosperity (because they still retain a little liberty) into surrendering the remaining scraps of liberty, on the grounds that the freedom to live the life we can pay for is somehow "killing Mother Nature," and threatening to flood the world. If you point out to those power-lusting commies, that living a decently human style of life (modifying your environment instead of trying to adapt to it like wild animals) depends on keeping the liberty they have been trying to pry away from you, with all their variations on the collectivist theme, they have finally conjured up a scientific-sounding comeback: "Your d**nable prosperity (consumption of energy) causes all the harsh weather, and things won't get better until you surrender the liberty that makes it possible." They promise not to pull too hard on your chains.

February 11, 2010 | url