Very cool May here. I have a call into Al Gore asking for an explanation.

Lovely weather indeed.

Patty must be relieved that the 10 year long ice age is over.

Where on earth did that sardine photo come from!?
The sea must be freezing.

And how can it be the hottest May when we are barely half way through it so far? What happens if snow falls for the remainder of the month?

It's a bum rap I tell you....

Oh, won't someone think of the children and save us from this dreadful global warming.

It's great weather, at last! The barbecue's been out of the shed.

May 1989 was a cracker too, I recall. Fine and sunny all the way up to around 22nd or 23rd. The ferocious storm which finished the hot spell came without any muggy build-up whatsoever; a sheer black line of cloud just swept in against a clear blue sky, and the heavens raged.

(Of course, two hot weeks, or even a month, or even a year by itself, shouldn't be looked upon as strong evidence either for or against GW. Last summer was just about the coolest, wettest I can ever remember).

Hot weather proves MMGW. Cold weather proves MMGW too. And wet and cold weather conclusively proves MMGW.

Big Al put out his chest and said that the Burmese cyclone proved MMGW beyond the shadow of a doubt.

The big Florida hurricanes of two years ago proved MMGW, and the lack of Florida hurricanes this year proves the case completely.

Everything proves MMGW, and nothing can disprove it!

Phantom: your 7:11 -- hahahaha! (only I do believe that there are those among us who will agree with your comment and will find nothing funny or wrong about it.)

Tom Tyler -

I know that Friday 26th May 1989 was very warm and sticky.

That was the day the Arsenal won 2-0 at Anfield, clinching the Championship with a last minute goal from Michael Thomas.

That's how I know.

Phantom,

"Big Al put out his chest and said that the Burmese cyclone proved MMGW beyond the shadow of a doubt."

Actually he said the opposite. He said that it couldn't be linked to MMGW (as no single weather event can be).

Time for you to review where you get your information perhaps.

Bernard,

"Where on earth did that sardine photo come from!?"

They're not sardines, silly. They're densely packed thick humans busy helping to improve the gene pool by dying of skin cancer. Hopefully there'll be some habitable parts of the planet left when they leave it.

But 1972 eh?

A retrospective study of the number of patients with non-melanoma skin cancer treated over a 22-year period at King's College Hospital was carried out. There was a threefold rise in the number of patients with basal cell carcinoma and a 10-fold rise in the number of patients with squamous cell carcinoma from 1970 to 1992.

This study demonstrates a marked increase in the number of patients with non-melanoma skin cancers presenting to the Department of Dermatology and reflects a national trend which underlines the need for skin cancer services to be prepared for a growing workload in this area.

But that was then and this is now.

ScienceDaily (Nov. 15, 2007) — It is estimated that more than 1 million new cases of skin cancer will be diagnosed in the United States in 2007. While most skin cancers have excellent cure rates if detected and treated early, dermatologists stress that prevention is still the best medicine. In fact, dermatologists are hopeful that the recent introduction of a new law aimed at warning Americans about the risks of indoor tanning devices and new sunscreen regulations could prevent skin cancer in future generations and reduce the estimated $1.5 billion annual financial toll associated with treating non-melanoma skin cancers alone.

“Exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light, whether natural sunlight or artificial light used in indoor tanning, is a carcinogen that studies have shown directly increases a person’s risk of developing skin cancer,” said Dr. Sandra Read [instructor of dermatology at Georgetown University School of Medicine in Washington, D.C.]. “We’re seeing an increase in skin cancers across all age groups, and the National Cancer Institute reports that melanoma is the second most common skin cancer in younger women aged 20-29.

Isn't there another animal that heads for the sea en masse to do itself in? I believe it's called the "lemming."

Frank

I was using hyperbole, but Big Al said something pretty damned close:

"And as we’re talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated,” Gore said. “And last year a catastrophic storm last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China – and we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming."

He was clearly attempting to convince the audience that the Burma cyclone was part of a series of events ( Burma/Bangladesh/China ) caused ( excuse me, "might be associated" ) with MMGW.

In any case, it look like – no matter what happens in the States next November – the US is at last going to adopt a serious policy on global warming.

Phantom,

"I was using hyperbole, but Big Al said something pretty damned close:"

Right, because ' any individual storm can’t be linked singularly to global warming" is very close to 'this storm was caused by global warming' (where 'very close' is defined as 'exact opposite of').

Also, in the last fragment ('we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming'), he was actually talking about the melt in the arctic over the last 20 years. The context that makes that clear has been snipped by the wingnuts.

But then such out-and-out dishonesty from the denialists is by now routine and no longer surprising. It should be clear to anyone by now that all they have is lies.

Phantom, towards the end of this there is a transcript.

I will look for the entire text or a clip of the entire Gore interview. I don't know who to believe now.

Frank: The denialists - as you so respectfully label those with whom you disagree (sarc.) -take issue with the methodology of the proponents of MMGW - you can't just change the goal posts to obtain your desired results. Well, you can...but you can't call it science.

Back to the photo: where's Waldo? (hint: next to the lady in the black bikini top!)

Hey Pete, It's warm & sunny here too, I love the heat. Worked on my tan yesterday!

Will listen to this when I get home

If I think Gore was misquoted or quoted out of context, will say so loud and clear.

Patty,

"The denialists - as you so respectfully label those with whom you disagree "

No I don't call those with whom I disagree denialists. I call those in denial denialists, or sometimes 'sceptics'.

I don't confuse them with real sceptics because when presented with evidence for MMGW, or even simply GW, - a.k.a. reality - they are more like solipsists than sceptics. And when presented with blatant falsehoods - a.k.a. denialist propaganda - they are credulous and don't examine it critically at all. All their 'scepticism' is one-way traffic.

you can't just change the goal posts to obtain your desired results.

LOL! Remind us Patty, didn't you do a few posts in the winter along the lines that extreme cold weather events in the states proved that AGW was a crock?

Now you want to deny (that word again!) that extreme hot weather events are in line with the AGW theory.

Never mind moving the goalposts, you want to have your cake and eat it!

The photo looks like the BNP's beach resort, except none of them would dare tan.

The beach looks way too crowded for my tastes.

Mahons, you're right, they're all white! That looks so odd, I've never seen a beach that pale.

Peter: Global Warming advocates told me that the winter of 2008 would be unseasonably warm. Surprise! It was unseasonably cold.

My conclusion: Global Warming advocates do not know what they're talking about. Their science is crap.

Now... Global Warming advocates (you) say that unseasonably warm May weather proves Global Warming.

What is this? an examination "do over?"

Did the climate measurements, models, assumptions, anything change?

Warm weather in May means only one thing -- grab a swimsuit and go outside for some fun.

Patty,

" Global Warming advocates told me that the winter of 2008 would be unseasonably warm"

They were right. Globally Winter 2008 was the 16th warmest on record according to NCDC.

Frank: I guess you could be right --if you redefine "global," carefully select your measurements and then reformulate your models with assumptions which are more favorable to the desired outcome.

You ever heard the expression "numbers don't lie, but liars use numbers?"

Patty,

None of which has happened and so your fact-free position is reduced to a barking conspiracy theory. Not only must most scientists globally be in on it - which is why we see all those grad students driving those fancy cars - but birds, butterflies and vegetation have also been tricked into moving their habitats, and the arctic icecap has been suckered into melting along with most glaciers around the world. Quite what is in it for them is unclear.

This despite the fact that the side that is most blatantly, easily and repeatedly exposed as ignorant and/or liars is your own side. Not uncoincidentally yours is also the side with no solution at all to the problem beyond a few half hearted appeals to the free market fairy .

Noel?

Patty

You've been claiming that "global tempertatures" have been falling since 1998. So your position is that those global temperatures are right, but the ones that Frank quotes about the winter of 2008 are fradulent, cooked up by AGW con-artists, as indeed are any other temperature-sets that tend to support AGW.

You really are a conspiracy-nut on this, no question.

Daphne,

What a strange comment of yours about all those white bodies lying in the sun.
If you've ever been to Africa/Asia, you will notice that no-one lies in the sun; they all sit in the shade.
White people 'instinctively' like to lie in the sun because the body needs the vitamin D, esp. after the northern winter when the body is short of the stuff.

For black people, lying in the sun is pointless, as their skin is a barrier to ultra-violet light and they get no 'restorative' feeling from it, except the heat. They have to get their vitamin D by other means, ie. some foods, which is why such a high proportion of coloured people in the northern hemisphere suffer from Vitamin D deficiency.

Frank and Peter: Was there a debate between the AGW denialists and the AGW faithful that I missed? Didn't think so....

I don't think it's a conspiracy -- as in organized, meetings at night, secret handshakes etc. But there has been some radical environmentalist railroading, empowered by a liberal media, and craven political set, a pro-Kyoto treaty UN, and a whole lot of people anxious to see the 1st world taken down a peg or two.

That the scientific community is privy to grants and awards for agreeing with the AGW catechism and "punished" for denialist behavior only has added to the confusion.

Thank goodness Joe Public seems to have caught on and is starting to say "enough."

"appeals to the free market fairy ."

Mahons? Colm? Noel?

Bernard,

"White people 'instinctively' like to lie in the sun."

Speak for yourself—I'm assuming you're white. Neither I nor Mrs Dawkins ever, ever lies in the sun. We avoid even walking in it on hot days, here and abroad. When we eat al fresco it's under foliage or in artificial shade, unlike the daft buggers one sees sweltering unprotected beneath a hot sun, frequently drinking lager. No wonder the rest of the world laughs at them.

Patty: I have never known a free market fairy, unless you refer to the sales of Richard Simmons' exercise videos.

If I could make a friendly suggestion (you are free to ignore it), try debating the GW issue without resorting to obviously impossible to maintain claims that may play well on unchallenged rightwing sites, but that give an unfortunate impression of yourself.

Bernard, I meant that I never see anyplace exclusively white, especially the beaches.

Frank, others

While doing some chores around the house tonight, I listened to all of the Al Gore interview on NPR radio . And I replayed, several times, the segment in which he speaks of the cyclones in Burma, Bangladesh, and China.( which is about 28 minutes in )

Especially when heard in context, I think that there is no doubt but that he is very intentionally linking Global Warming with the large cyclones discussed. Though he does give the obligatory statement beforehand that GW can't be linked to one storm, he immediately and with some emotion speaks of the Burma cyclone, and its projected death toll, and the other Asian cyclones recently seen.

Doesn't make him a bad guy, or wrong on the facts, but that is exactly what he says. After he discusses the three Asian cyclones, he then goes back to the melting of ice cap, which is part of the GW theory, but--I don't think that he was in any way misquoted or quoted out of context.

Please listen to the entire interview, or the portion after 28 minutes, if you would.

And by the way, lefties and righties, Global Warming Fans and Global Warming Debunkers : you all may want to listen to that interview with an open mind too. Gore is a pretty smart guy, and we all should listen to him.

NPR's Terry Gross clearly agrees with everything he says ten times over, but that's NPR for you.

Mahons: "If I could make a friendly suggestion (you are free to ignore it), try debating the GW issue without resorting to obviously impossible to maintain claims that may play well on unchallenged rightwing sites, but that give an unfortunate impression of yourself."

People in glass houses should not throw stones. Please keep your "friendly suggestions" to yourself in the future. :)

Patty

Here is a link that I've posted before. It gives equal space to both sides of the debate, in terms of the science.

From your responses to AGW debates here, it seems like you haven't checked it out (I know Troll hasn't) but I post it again in hope.

You have a point that there is a political axe in this for some on the left. That does not mean that the AGW theory is wrong in scientific terms.

Peter: For you, because you asked so nicely, I clicked your link. And that has to be one of the most complete compilation of articles and arguments, on both sides of the issue, that I've seen. There's enough info. there to keep a person busy for days. (It seems more political than scientific, though, but no matter.)

I don't think that there is any sense in continuing the debate between you and I regarding AGW, however, because regarding the predicted warming of the globe, I don't believe that scientists can predict the climate 10 years, 20, years, etc. if they can't even predict the climate 1 year out. I know you think differently.

So, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Peter,

"You've been claiming that "global tempertatures" have been falling since 1998. So your position is that those global temperatures are right, but the ones that Frank quotes about the winter of 2008 are fradulent, cooked up by AGW con-artists, as indeed are any other temperature-sets that tend to support AGW.

You really are a conspiracy-nut on this, no question."

Right Peter. Not only that, but whenever some short term noise appears that is going in the wrong direction for MMGW (which will always be the case), the denialists are all over it. Somehow we are expected to believe that the scientists are fiddling the temperature sets but occasionally forget to do so - for example for the last 10 years, or in wagga wagga for a particular month.

Phantom,

"Though he does give the obligatory statement beforehand that GW can't be linked to one storm"

He doesn't if all you read is the wingnut sites. Funnily enough that is a statement they omit...and they also omit the context about the arctic. In context his presentation of the issue is accurate. I would only fault him for not stating the uncertainty that exists more clearly.

Now look at the other side of the aisle. Their response is rock solid certain, namely that there is no link between hurricanes and GW, that nothing can be predicted, all the changes are natural, and even that it is cooling! Why have the 'sceptics' got nothing to say about that?

Patty,

" if they can't even predict the climate 1 year out"

It is pretty incoherent to talk about 'predicting climate' 1 year out. It is like talking about the return on a 30 year investment 1 year out, or the average life expectancy in a population of one. 1 year out is weather, not climate.

And of course climate is very predictable so far, and it doesn't take a scientist to do it. Millions of joe soaps manage even regional predictions of climate every time they book a sun or a ski holiday, and whole industries depend on this predictability. When you stop being able to predict the climate, that's when you'll know MMGW is really in business.

Dawkins.

I quite agree, as would Noel Coward and his 'mad dogs and Englishmen who go out in the mid-day sun'.

I work outside all year and have no need to lie in the sun, but most people work/live in cages these days, and go mad when they see the sun.

Brighton beach! Yay. It's always heaving.

Best time on that beach was about 5 years ago - impromptu party started by Fatboy Slim. One million people thereabouts all dancing around on those pebbles.

It's the heart of Liberal land in the south. So if it's too white that will be why - most of that lot are students at the popular Uni there anyway.

Yup rich liberals pay lip service to multi culturalism and ensure they never get to live their dream by buying up period properties in cute little places like Brighton or Hampstead - giving the working classes the middle finger. Then act all aghast when the working classes vote BNP. Shock horror!

Frank: "It is pretty incoherent to talk about 'predicting climate' 1 year out. It is like talking about the return on a 30 year investment 1 year out, or the average life expectancy in a population of one. 1 year out is weather, not climate."

If a climate model is not accurate in the short-term, it will not be accurate in the long-term. There are too many variables to predict future global climate. And scientists don't know enough.

I know you don't agree, but you'll just have to agree to disagree.

Patty,

"If a climate model is not accurate in the short-term, it will not be accurate in the long-term."

Let's test that logic. The winter climate in the canary islands is typically drier, sunnier, and warmer than that of the UK and Ireland in winter. However if a climate model is not accurate in the short-term (if the canary islands has a single overcast or rainy day in winter), then the model will not be accurate in the long term (the canary islands should forget about tourism). So how come there are still people from Ireland and Britain booking winter holidays in the canaries?

Similarly how come nobody can predict the outcome of a single fair coin toss but they can predict the average outcome of 1000 of them? How come I can't predict if you will die tomorrow but I can predict that you will be dead by 2190?

The answer is that many models are not accurate in the short term but they are accurate in the long term.

Frank: "Similarly how come nobody can predict the outcome of a single fair coin toss but they can predict the average outcome of 1000 of them?:

You are confusing statistical probabilities (where predictions are always premised on "all things being equal") with climate change (where it's a given that all things are not only unidentified but in flux)

In other words, you cannot equate a coin toss with a global weather pattern.

Patty,

"In other words, you cannot equate a coin toss with a global weather pattern."

I didn't. Global weather patterns are much more predictable than a coin toss.

"climate change (where it's a given that all things are not only unidentified but in flux)"

Oh really? If you wanted to go skiing, would you head for a ski resort or would you just stick a pin in a map? If you went to a ski resort, would you pack a summer dress, just in case? After all the climate is so unpredictable, who can tell if there will be snow or a balmy breeze anywhere. Indeed why not stay home.

Hell, who can even tell if summer will usually be warmer than winter! The earth is hurtling through space! Too many variables! Everything is in flux!

Really, the climate is so random that it's a miracle that people make a living selling winter coats.

Patty,

"I don't mean to pressure you with the obvious but the unusually cold winter this last year took many by surprise."

The 16th warmest winter on record? Is that the 'unusually cold' winter you are referring to?

Anyway I see you are struggling with the word 'pattern' and think it refers to a single event. No wonder you're confused about this whole topic.

Frank: I don't mean to pressure you with the obvious but the unusually cold winter this last year took many by surprise.

But enough said. This topic is worn out.

Patty,

No, don't stop! This thread is terribly entertaining.

But not to worry, the selfsame topic will be discussed again in a day or so.