this weekend, here in Omaha, it snowed. this is the second time in my lifetime that this has happened before Halloween. the only time before this was in 1996. We didn't have power for a week. oh, and by the way, it's still snowing here. I'm pretty sure Al Gore was wrong.
In this thread I just called bullshit on iceaura's attempt to use a flukey weather event as proof of global warming. Now for the flipside, amark. I am calling bullshit on your use a flukey weather event as proof against global warming. Global warming is about conditions averaged all over the world and averaged over a year or so getting a bit warmer over a period of decades or more. Weather is extremely variable. One individual bit of flukey weather on an individual part of the planet neither proves nor disproves global warming.
I would also like to add that the amount of variability in weather patterns (yearly or decadal, or whatever time frame) will continue to increase with global warming. And spatial variability will also be the norm, as things in one region change from cold to warm, other areas can change from warm to cold. On average, warming is happening. BTW, we can't just put blame on Al Gore, what about the hundred + scientists who provided Al with his information???
As had been pointed out, most global warming models predict an increase in variance as well as an increase in average, meaning that the weather becomes more extreme, this includes record setting cold snaps. The OP was posted as a bare faced assertion, without supporting evidence rather than a question, therefore the thread is moved.
In Britain we have (or had) the North Atlantic drift to keep up cool in the summer and warm in the winter. Global warming is causing that to shut down, so we are getting proportionally hotter summers and colder winters. The point (as also stated above) The change in climate of even a country does not disprove global warming. You must look at global trends. That's why it's called global warming you know.
The overwhelming consensus is that global warming is real. That front has been conceded. The new battle line is whether it is caused by/or made worse by human activity. The evidence there is pretty damning, but there is at least a coherent argument to be made against it.
I have never been able to understand why some people still think that cutting down most of the world's trees and then pumping millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere wouldn't have any impact on climate. Even if it hasn't done anything yet I would think common sense suggests that it will eventually, and so the continuation of current trends is a bad idea long term either way. It's like hooking up a hose to your car exhaust, pumping it in the window, and then being surprised when you gas yourself to death.
