I’m being repressed…

… a bit.

Interesting turn of events for me this morning, and a couple of firsts, one of which was a lot more disappointing than the other.

I won’t go into the background of my skepticism on the certainty and consensus expressed on the general subject of Catastrophic Global Warming / Climate Change / Climate Disruption – whatever the Nom du jour for this particular meme is – except to say I’m horrified at the degree of uncertainty that actually exists, and the way that uncertainty is not given a voice. Perhaps more on another occasion.

But {@glinner} – someone who I continue to admire for the way he’s raised the profile of {many worth causes} – retweeted a link to an article concerning the {“Strongest storm ever recorded in the Midwest…”}.

I follow and read the link, and I notice that it’s partly couched in what has become the standard terms of “Denialism”, a term I find offensive and usually indicative of a certain mindset. I question this, and there’s a brief unedifying exchange and some pretty low key / quality insults that nobody comes away from covered in glory.

Note, I’m not suggesting these terms are endorsed by him in any way – it was a straightforward RT – but wanted to get some idea if this was a concern. We aren’t looking at a {James Cameron} moment, or {anything remotely like it}.

So that’s number one. And although disappointing, I’d still encourage anyone to follow and RT @glinner as they see fit. I wasn’t blocked, or barracked, and he certainly won’t stop me laughing at him.

Secondly, I read the article and comments in some detail, and decided to respond. The basis of the response is that individual events are weather, not climate, only the trend of events can be an indicator.

I respond to John Mason’s comments at #41 with the following:


“*If* that trend…” – indeed.

It’s a good point, and one that more than one skeptical blog has also made on more than one occasion, so lots of common ground.

So where is the trend? Over what timescale? What is the source of raw data? How was it processed?

Without this information – if that trend currently does not exist – a single event remains a single event, as informative (or uninformative) as a particularly cold snap.

This is held in moderation for a few hours – with that message – and then just elided from the stream of comments.

Now I thought it was polite and on-topic. But maybe not on message.

And incidentally, the fact of the matter is, you can’t sensibly claim it’s becoming a trend – this is meaningless.

  • Either there is a trend or there isn’t
  • If there is, you need to quantify it
  • Then you need to show some correlation between that trend and some other increase / decrease / change that you ultimately assign to human activity
  • Then you need to demonstrate causation
  • Then you need to work out if the degree of influence is significant over other influences
  • Then you decide if there is any mitigation that can be sensibly achieved.

Everything else is balls.