Last week I blamed the fact that 49 states have snow on the ground on Global Warming. When I did it, I had tongue firmly implanted in cheek. And of course I got the customary lecture on how "weather is not climate," a lecture which is given only to those who cite cold weather as possible evidence against Global Warming and not to those who use warm weather events as evidence for it.
In other words, Warmers already have the advantage that they can consider all warm weather events as evidence for their theory and can dismiss all cold weather events as irrelevant to it. But it gets better (or worse, depending on whether you share their ideology): Warmers not only have the debate set up so that the only evidence admitted can be confirming evidence, they have it set up so that disconfirming evidence can be considered confirming evidence.
Check this out, from NPR today:
So in other words, not only are cold weather events not evidence against Global Warming, but they are actually evidence for it! The evidence must be forced into the Procrustean bed of the theory, whether it actually fits or not.
For scientists who study the climate, it's all a bit much. They're trying to dig out.
Most don't see a contradiction between a warming world and lots of snow. That includes Kevin Trenberth, a prominent climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.
"The fact that the oceans are warmer now than they were, say, 30 years ago means there's about on average 4 percent more water vapor lurking around over the oceans than there was, say, in the 1970s," he says.
Warmer water means more water vapor rises up into the air, and what goes up must come down.
"So one of the consequences of a warming ocean near a coastline like the East Coast and Washington, D.C., for instance, is that you can get dumped on with more snow partly as a consequence of global warming," he says.
You gotta hand it to these people: they know how to frame a debate.