Global warmmongers never lack for flexibility. As Zombie sums it up their position: “Hot we win, cold you lose.”
Want to know why global warming alarmists and climate scientists in general have lost credibility with the American public? Consider a new study released today â€” and the unintentionally hilarious weasel words of its author â€” as Exhibit A.
As reported in the San Francisco Chronicle today, a meteorologist did a 30-year survey of temperature and precipitation data for most of the largest cities up and down the state of California. Conclusion? In 75% of the sites, the weather has grown colder and rainier than it used to be:
(To see the complete illustration from which this graphic was excerpted, see the SF Chronicleâ€˜s version here.)
Of course, this â€œinconvenient truthâ€ was not what either the studyâ€™s author nor the Chronicleâ€˜s reporter wanted to see, so the spin cycle goes into overdrive right from the headline, which manages to use the word â€œwarmerâ€ first despite there being only two warmer cities in the entire study: â€œCA climate: inland warmer; coast cooler and wetter.â€ Uh-huh. But thatâ€™s just the aperitif. How does the author, a meteorologist named Jan Null who also happens to be on the global warming bandwagon, explain away the trend he uncovered? Behold:
The data may appear to bolster the arguments of global warming skeptics, but Null said the findings actually fit in with the predictions of scientists who believe the climate is changing as a result of human-caused carbon emissions.
â€œPeople say, â€˜Wait a minute, what about global warming? Shouldnâ€™t it be warmer?â€™ â€ Null said. â€œWell, if you have more warm days in the Central Valley, you are going to have a stronger sea breeze so you will cool off the coastal areas. That certainly does not contradict any of the models about global warming. This is what is to be expected.â€
They always say that: Whenever evidence of cooling is found in the data, it somehow magically becomes confirming proof of global warming, because cooling is â€œexpectedâ€ in the forecasts. Of course, whenever localized warming trends are found, those too are cited as evidence of global warming.