If you point to unusually cold weather as a sort of counter-evidence to the theory of catastrophic manmade global warming, you get met with jeers from the left who argue that you can’t use “localized” weather patterns to disprove something that they argue is happening globally on average. In other words, “so what if it’s cold in the winter?” But what is it that they do to “prove” global warming is still happening? They point to localized weather patterns.
A recent report released by the United Nations’ World Meteorological Organization (WMO) claimed that there is no global warming hiatus, and things like hot weather and unusually cold weather are “proofs” of manmade global warming. The Daily Caller reported:
“There is no standstill in global warming,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud in a statement. “The warming of our oceans has accelerated, and at lower depths. More than 90 percent of the excess energy trapped by greenhouse gases is stored in the oceans. Levels of these greenhouse gases are at record levels, meaning that our atmosphere and oceans will continue to warm for centuries to come. The laws of physics are non-negotiable.”
According to the WMO, oceanic and atmospheric warming contributed to heat waves across the Southern Hemisphere, droughts in California and Brazil, as well as heavy rain storms and flooding in parts of Africa and Europe.
Oddly enough, warming is also responsible for the “frigid polar air [that] plummeted into parts of Europe and the southeast United States,” and “Antarctic sea ice extent [that] reached a record daily maximum.”
Global warming also meant that “Israel, Jordan, and Syria were struck by unprecedented snowfall,” according to the WMO.
But this is just one division within the UN. The UN’s own “climate change” division, the IPCC, claims that there isn’t enough data to show any kind of upward trend with catastrophic weather patterns. The Daily Caller continued:
The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that there “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.” The IPCC also said current data shows “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century. … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”
“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale,” the IPCC said, adding that “that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends.”
So, which group is right? Maybe that’s the wrong question. Which is the more politically profitable position to hold? The one that elicits this sort of reaction from the masses: “How much money do we throw at you so that you can keep us safe?!”