How Weather Influences Global Warming Opinions

An anonymous reader writes in with this story about how people's belief in climate change shifts with the temperature. "Last week's polar vortex weather event wasn't only hard on fingers, toes and heating bills. It also overpowered the ability of most people to make sound judgments about climate change, in the same way that heat waves do, according to a new study published in the Jan. 11 issue of the journal Nature Climate Change. Researchers have known for some time that the acceptance of climate change depends on the day most people are asked. During unusually hot weather, people tend to accept global warming, and they swing against it during cold events."

Comments

Egocentrism

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all the same

"There's no global warming because I'm cold."
"There's no poverty because I'm rich."
"There's no racism because I'm white."

Re:Egocentrism

[Kythe]

1) There is Islamic terrorism, and U.S. militia terrorism, and atheist terrorism, and Christian terrorism, and others. I know of no one worth listening to who seriously disputes any of these.
2) If you're really sitting around worried about Islamic terrorists hitting your town, you need to get a hobby.

Re:Egocentrism

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm not sexist because I'm female."

Re:Egocentrism

[Teun]

Ah you must be American for you've never heard of guys like Stalin or Mao.

Re:Egocentrism

[TWiTfan]

It would probably help if every time there's a hurricane like Sandy, Katrina, et. al. there wasn't some global warming advocate on TV arguing that this was evidence of global warming. You can't taut every weather event that supports warming as evidence and then turn around and dismiss every weather event that doesn't jibe with the narrative.

Nor do I find the argument that EVERY weather event (extreme, mild, or otherwise) somehow supports warming. You can't just set up a hypothesis and then say that there is no evidence that can ever possibly contradict it. That's religion, not science.

Re:Egocentrism

[haruchai]

  If you're referring to the polar vortex, it actually does "jibe with the narrative" or doesn't contradict it.
And for quite a long time, every time there's been a cold snap, there's someone on Fox News making snide remarks about "we could use some global warming right now".

Re:Egocentrism

[Anonymous Coward]

"There's no God because I haven't seen him"
"There are no unicorns because I haven't ridden one."
"The Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist because no one has ever videotaped it."

It's NOT "all the same." Sometimes the skeptics are right.

Re:Egocentrism

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably believe all this is due to man kind..
You probably think that just because someone owns a business they're rich.
You probably also believe that racism against whites does not exist.

Typical of today's young brainwashed idiots.

Re:Egocentrism

[Anonymous Coward]

The given link doesn't show that Earth First are a) Atheists or b) Terrorists. So in answer to your question, I guess "You" would be the correct response.

Re:Egocentrism

[TWiTfan]

If you're referring to the polar vortex, it actually does "jibe with the narrative"

See the second paragraph. If you're going to claim that *every* extreme weather events supports your warming narrative, you're already on shaky ground. If you combine that with the fact that you refuse to accept mild weather as contradictory evidence, now you're moving into a faith-based, rather than scientific, realm. You've set up a scenario where there is no possible evidence that can ever contradict your hypothesis.

If you're going to cite weather as evidence of global warming, then you have to be willing to accept contradictory weather evidence as well (or at least accept that such evidence COULD exist). Personally, I agree with the GP that citing individual weather events for evidence of global warming is VERY ill-advised and scientifically suspect. But if you *must*, then you can't have it both ways.

Re:Egocentrism

[Charcharodon]

Just as you can say

"There's global warming because it's hot."
"I'm poor because someone else is richer than me."
"I can't be racist because I'm black."

Re:Egocentrism

[jcr]

. I'd say an atheist group out of Wisconsin that regularly tries to use the power of liberal courts by filing what could be financially crippling lawsuits against small communities in the South that they don't agree with could be considered as being a form of terrorism.

Nope. Harassment and malicious litigation aren't terrorism. Nobody's afraid that these people in Wisconsin are going to kill them.

-jcr

Re:Egocentrism

[TWiTfan]

Since you seem to think that these weather extremes are evidence for global warming, is mild weather contradictory evidence (if we have a mild winter or summer, for example)? And if not, then can *any* weather evidence *possibly* ever exist to contradict your argument? If the answer is "No," then that's not science. It's religion.

Re:Egocentrism

[Zedrick]

If you think Stalin or Mao were motivated by atheism, then perhaps you also think that Hitler invaded Poland because he was a vegetarian? Or because he wasn't a buddhist?

Re:Egocentrism

[kilfarsnar]

It's all the same

"There's no global warming because I'm cold." "There's no poverty because I'm rich." "There's no racism because I'm white."

Add to that "there's no Islamic terrorism because they haven't hit my town ... yet!

Actually, they have hit my town. And I still don't think Islamic terrorism is that big a deal in the grand scheme. Scary, yes, but way down on the list of dangers.

Re:Egocentrism

[kilfarsnar]

...and any legal system that allows one to murder people is not really a legal system.

Well, we do have the death penalty.

Re:Egocentrism

[Vanderhoth]

I hate to point it out, because the initial commentor was being a heavy handed idiot, but I think the initial comment meant people don't go around killing others because they're Atheists or in the name of Atheism. If someone just happens to be Atheist while doing something terrible we might as well say they're doing it because the like the color blue. It's not being used as a reason to kill people like Romans feeding Christians to the lions or Christians killing Muslims (crusades) or Muslims blowing up buildings, which I'm not really religion was the reason for that. I think it was more political or ideological.

Re:Egocentrism

[OrugTor]

Stalin was no more guilty of "atheism terrorism" than he was of mustache terrorism.

Re:Egocentrism

[Gripp]

So they started atheist crusades? They sent out inquisitors specifically to root out non-atheists? Is a government limiting religions deemed a threat any different than us rooting out the Taliban or religions we deem "cultist" ? Just because those who are limiting religions happen to be atheist doesn't mean that it's an atheist action. Especially when the same actions are taken regardless of faith across the world and history.
Have there been anti-religious movements? sure; definitely. But pinning anti-religion actions on all of atheism is no different than pinning the acts of Islam on all of theism. You don't see many atheists blaming, say, Catholicism for the actions of the Taliban (outside of the "fedora" make-fun-of-atheists-by-exaggerating-it crowd, that is)... Also, please stop throwing the word "terrorist" around. The people you mention definitely do not qualify as "terrorists." You disagreeing with their actions doesn't meet the definition.

Re:Egocentrism

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm amazed that people modded up this aburd stupidity.

Mao and Stalin were obviously atheist, but to claim that they were fighting to spread atheism is such a complete misrepresentation that it's even hard to reply.

Is by any chance Karl Marx the Prophet of the Church of Atheos?

Mao and Stalin were oppressing their own population. This has nothing to do with the terror tactis used by ETA, Al-Qaeda, IRA, etc.

Study some history, fuckwit.

Re:Egocentrism

[taiwanjohn]

I would say Stalin and Mao were dictators who sometimes used terrorism as a tool. Call it state terrorism.

Obviously the GP is a bit foolish to suggest there are no atheist terrorists. Politics is just as capable of producing terrorists as religion is. But by the same token, there's no more truth to the old chestnut that says atheists are "morally rudderless" and thus more liable to commit atrocities.

Both Stalin and Mao may have been atheists, but they both drew on a vast tradition of superstition among their respective populations. Hitler's armies famously used the slogan "Gott mit uns" ("God with us") on their uniforms, and had a cozy relationship with the Vatican.

OTOH, perhaps the GP was referring to "atheist terrorists" who use terrorist tactics to advance the "cause" of atheism. In that case, I would have to agree with him, at least provisionally. If you can show me evidence of "militant atheists" blowing up buses and planes in the name of atheism, I'll take a look.

Re:Egocentrism

[Chalnoth]

Or it's that you're not understanding the science. Certainly there is no claim whatsoever that global warming causes all weather to become extreme. The claim is rather that the number of extreme events is increased by global warming, and furthermore that some events are so extreme that it is highly unlikely that they would have happened without global warming. Sandy was one of those events. Sandy could have happened without global warming, it's just unlikely (most likely the warmer ocean allowed the hurricane to both travel further north and remain stronger as it traveled).

Re:Egocentrism

[haruchai]

Climate scientists do NOT make those claims and have been explicitly stating that no single weather event can conclusively be linked to AGW.

Also, the "G" in AGW stands for GLOBAL, which seems to be a difficult concept for some North Americans to grasp.

While the polar vortex was wreaking havoc in America, much of Scandinavia was having an unusually warm winter, with flowering plants & bears coming out of hibernation.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/10/polar-vortex-us-mild-weather-scandinavia

So whose narrative does that jibe with?

Re:Egocentrism

[taiwanjohn]

Stalin and Mao did try very hard to eliminate religion in their states.

Yes, but not "for the cause of atheism"... they did so because they couldn't tolerate any "authority" that might oppose their power, whether institutional or individual. In the meantime, they were quite happy to co-opt the superstitious tendencies of their populations to encourage a "cult of personality" -- especially in Mao's case.

Seems like we mostly agree that tyranny is different from terrorism, though they may often use similar methods. I'm sure there are plenty of atheists (or at least "doubters") among the terrorists, and doubtless many religious believers among the tyrants. But the the guys who actually strap on the explosive vests...? I doubt there are many atheists among that lot.

Re:Egocentrism

[laie_techie]

Climate scientists do NOT make those claims and have been explicitly stating that no single weather event can conclusively be linked to AGW.

Also, the "G" in AGW stands for GLOBAL, which seems to be a difficult concept for some North Americans to grasp.

While the polar vortex was wreaking havoc in America, much of Scandinavia was having an unusually warm winter, with flowering plants & bears coming out of hibernation.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/10/polar-vortex-us-mild-weather-scandinavia

So whose narrative does that jibe with?

Global means everywhere. Warm winter in Scandinavia is local; polar vortex in North America is local. GLOBAL warming is a myth. The evidence supports global climate CHANGE; this change is warming in some places and cooling in others.

Re:Egocentrism

[shutdown -p now]

Ah, the old "whites can't suffer racism" canard.

Where, exactly, did GP said that?

Of course there's racism targeted against whites. However, if you are a white in a society dominated by whites, your chances of running into it are much lower than they are for one of the minorities. And there are, indeed, people who claim that there's no racism because they have personally not experienced any.

Sure

[rmdingler]

But only for people who confuse weather with climate.

The very same logic is used to fashion correlation from coincidence the World over.

Re:Sure

[Racemaniac]

isn't it just that people react emotionally to such things? the real discussion is far above the understanding of 99.99(don't know how many more nines until i only keep the real experts)% of the people, so when asked an opinion, they react more emotionally than logically. So on depending on the current weather it's logical those emotions are different.

I also hate discussions about topics like this, because it's just emotional shouting at eachother with facts only used to confirm what you feel is right. Even when people on this site would love to claim how intellectual they are, both sides are more about emotions and personal viewpoints than real science, we might now some good facts, read some interesting articles, but do we really know anything about climate science, all the subtle things, ... everything that can't be easily found in popular science magazines or the few popular arguments from both sides that people keep repeating to prove their own feelings are the best.

Re:Sure

[mrjimorg]

For me, and many other like me, it boils down to this: How accurate is the science on climate change?
If it was accurate then there would have been a consensus predicting these events. Instead what we see is many groups throwing out different predictions, and when everyone is guessing something different there is inevitably some who are right and some who are wrong. However, the fact that there is no consensus means that there isn't accuracy in the field of Climate Change and the fact that the most public predictions have been so diametrically opposite to the results demonstrates a lack of precision. No field of science can or should tolerate inaccuracy and imprecision. Until scientists can agree on models that correctly and reliably predict the effects of carbon on climate, the field of climate change study acts more like a religion in that it asks us for faith instead of facts.
I am willing to accept carbon based climate change and accept the changes required for preventing future damage, but only if it is scientifically proven. This would require models that make precise predictions that are reliably accurate. Instead we have what is like a bunch of people at the roulette table. If one guy gets 2 data points correctly everything thinks he's "on a roll", "can't miss", but if you have enough people all making different guesses, then inevitably one of those people will get 2 data points right. That guy will be just as likely to guess the next number as anyone else. There are so many climate change models out there, some guess well and some do not. Even the ones that do predict well are not consistent, and quite often contain constants that are not understood and certainly weren't predicted. This isn't science - there are no controlled studies, there is only crystal-ball gazing. Until climate science evolves to become more legitimate I am not willing to upend my life to accommodate the perceived changes required to prevent climate change.

Money does not smell

[mi]

Global warming propagandists would take any support — whether it comes from a heatwave-induced swing or real understanding of their theories.

Meanwhile, the inconvenient truth that those theories aren't really explaining the available facts , is explained only by lack of funding and failure to communicate...

They don't understand the difference

[sjbe]

During unusually hot weather, people tend to accept global warming, and they swing against it during cold events."

Of course they do because many people (most maybe) do not understand the difference between climate and weather. They have either a poor understanding or perhaps no concept at all that short term temperature fluctuations are merely data points in a longer term trend. It is just like how people overreact to a few worse than usual days in the stock market even though the long term trend for the overall market for the last 100 years has been upwards.

Weather = what is happening today
Climate = average weather over time

Re:They don't understand the difference

[artson]

Well fuck'em. We spend too much time worrying about what idiots think. It's what happens when you stop graduating STEM students, instead of folks who studied occupational basket weaving.

A bit hypocritical

[sideslash]

I find this ironic since the political AWG alarmism lobby deserves a lot of the blame for this. Remember the use of Hurricane Katrina splashed on Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" movie cover. And pretty much whenever there's a natural disaster you have AGW alarmists (not just trolling internet comments, but also occupying high places in government) stirring the pot some more.

Researchers have known for some time that the acceptance of climate change depends on the day most people are asked.

I don't doubt that this is true. I also don't doubt that the enthusiasm of researchers to jump on bandwagons follows the "weather patterns" of public funding availability. That's how Richard Lindzen of MIT describes it, and it seems to fit.

Re:A bit hypocritical

[itsdapead]

I find this ironic since the political AWG alarmism lobby deserves a lot of the blame for this

and the AWG denial lobby deserves a lot of the blame for the AWG alarmism body.

Unfortunately, when you have a well-funded denial campaign telling people what they want to hear (no problem here, ignore the commie academics, relax and enjoy your SUV) a lobby that doesn't resort to alarmism is a lobby that doesn't get listened to.

A bone fide climatologist would have made a more accurate documentary than Al Gore - which would then have been seen by an audience of, oh dozens of people who watch PBS at midnight.

Or, just wait 50-100 years until there's enough data to decide for sure whether Katrina or the polar vortex were just statistical blips or part of the AGW-predicted increase in extreme weather - if the latter then good luck building a time-machine to go back and fix the problem (hint: don't use the traditional DeLorian because if we go on using oil as if there is an infinite supply then, AGW or not, you won't be able to afford enough gas to get it up to 88 mph, and Mr Fusion is about as technically plausible as the flux capacitor) .

Weather is Not Climate?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet we are to believe things like Katrina and Sandy are evidence FOR Global Warming? Aren't those things just as much "weather" as the national cold streak (which, btw, I've heard Global Warming advocates cite as evidence FOR Global Warming)?

It seems that every "weather" event is trotted out as evidence FOR Global Warming by someone. According to the advocates, there appears to be no piece of evidence that can possibly be used against Global Warming, but it can all be used as evidence it is happening. Actions like this make the whole AGW movement seem more like a religion than science.

Re:Weather is Not Climate?

[tompaulco]

It seems that every "weather" event is trotted out as evidence FOR Global Warming by someone.

Ah, you're finally getting it. Yes, Global Warming is the grand unified theory. EVERYTHING is evidence of it. If something contradicts Global Warming, it is absorbed into the theory and becomes evidence for it. Cooler than normal, warmer than normal, cooling trends, warming trends, more ice, less ice, more significant weather, less significant weather, more rain, less rain, it is all due to Global Warming. It is the scientific equivalent of "God did it". There is literally no way to falsify it.

Re:Smog's wish

[mi]

All those articles really say is that the atmosphere may not be as sensitive to CO2 as previously thought

Yes. And that "only" puts the existing theories — than man's CO2 emissions are responsible for the warming — on their heads.

So, maybe, there is no need to tax/ban certain fuels and activities, after all? And thus no need for further expansion of governments (to enforce the bans) and merging of sovereign governments into an unelected "world-government" body?