Global Warming Puppet Tries To Discredit Skeptics & Fails MISERABLY!

With the precise predictability of an atomic clock, climate change deniers break out like a bad rash with irrational exuberance each time we see a snow flake…With the regularity of a finely tuned pendulum, as soon as the temperature hits freezing this annoying species of fowl cries out with indignation that global warming must be a farce…After all, how could the world be warming if freezing temperatures are gripping most of the nation?” – Jeff Schweitzer

Oy. Let me announce right off the bat that I am neither a climatologist, nor do I have a degree in anything that would give me an expertise on climate. However, unlike Schweitzer, who is a biologist, I posses something called basic logical intelligence. This oft overlooked intelligence is all too uncommon in the ranks of the liberal elite, but it is something that I have found to be very valuable.

Schweitzer has written this article with the intent of making anthropogenic global warming deniers like myself look like hayseed rubes. He writes with a biting sarcasm that is honestly rather sophomoric. That aside, the odds try to make several points that I’d love to address.

First, Schweitzer says:

Climate describes atmospheric behavior averaged over long time periods of decades and centuries across large geographic areas…The distinction between weather and climate becomes critical in understanding global warming…So stop already with the embarrassing nonsense that climate change can’t be real because it is cold outside. Nobody ever said climate change meant the end of winter. Grow up.”

Basically, Schweitzer is saying that because it’s cold, it doesn’t mean that global warming is a hoax. Hello, double standard. It’s interesting that unusually cold temperatures don’t disprove global warming, but unusually high temperatures are an indicator of global warming. According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s official website (a government funded, liberal beast), “As the Earth warms up, heat waves are becoming more common in some places, including the United States. Heat waves happen when a region experiences very high temperatures for several days and nights.”

So, heat waves, in which the temp is unusually hot for a week or so are proof of global warming, but unusual cold snaps are not proof of the opposite? Sure.

Second, Schweitzer says:

Another favorite foul fowl from deniers is the old canard that global warming is nothing but a sign of natural variation in climate. That claim is fascinating on two levels. First, the idea implies that scientists themselves never thought of the idea that the earth’s climate varied over the past 4 billion years. Hmmm. If they had only known, this one misunderstanding would have been cleared up. Second, and this one is steeped in irony, the deniers only know of such natural variation from the field of climatology and from climatologists. So deniers believe climatologists when they say there has been natural variation, while suggesting that those scientists actually never thought of such variation!

First, let’s address the notion that it is inconsistent to believe climatologists in one regard, but then not in another. That’s not hypocritical or bizarre. It’s been proven, with empirical evidence, that there is natural climate variation. The evidence for “climate change,” on the other hand, has more holes that a piece of Swiss cheese. For example, the belief that the temperatures have risen over the last 20 years is patently false.


Global temperatures are essentially the same today as they were in 1995, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were merely 360 ppm. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 10 percent between 1995 and 2012, yet global temperatures did not rise at all…From the mid-1940s through the mid-1970s, global temperatures endured a 30-year decline even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose nearly 10 percent…”

With those two examples, the belief that carbon emissions are a main cause of global warming is smashed. So, it’s not impossible to believe that which is evident, and not believe that which has no supporting evidence, regardless of the source.

Now, it’s not as if I believe that climatologists have never considered the possibility that natural variations cause climate change. That’s insane. What isn’t insane is considering the possibility that those scientists are biased. It is entirely possible–and really, very plausible—that many mainstream scientists ignore what doesn’t get them funding. Global warming skeptics don’t get funding.

Schweitzer concludes with this gem: “…cold snap does not indicate warming is a liberal plot; only that weather and climate are not equivalent – and that averages and trends are not determined by single datum points.”

His whole contention throughout his piece is that one cold winter does not a trend make. However, as I mentioned before, every time it gets a little hot, climate changers yak about global warming.

Additionally, 20 years of nearly stalled temperatures, despite massive increases in carbon emissions is more than a single point of datum. His entire attitude is incorrect, and intellectually dishonest. Propaganda. End of story.