Natural variability of climate
It is an irony to see the 'warmists' acknowledge the natural variability of climate in their January 6 press release stating that the coldest northern winter in 40 years " does not disprove global warming" because the bitter winter weather is simply a short term "blip" and a manifestation of "the natural variability of climate". Had it been the warmest winter in 40 years they would surely be singing a different tune.
That tune is the one they sang for the 2003 heat wave in Europe and the 2007 summer melt of sea ice in the Arctic Basin; as well as for Hurricane Katrina, Cyclones Sidr and Aila, recent floods and droughts in China, and droughts in southern Africa, and Australia. In all of these cases, short term weather events and the effects of known regional weather patterns were presented not as "blips" nor as "the natural variability of climate" but as effects of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.
In the very same press release they slip back to this old tune and present the deceptive statistic that "2009 will rank among the 10 warmest years since 1880" implying that these data indicate a warming trend even though the cited statistic could be produced by the natural variability of climate without a warming trend. In any case, the issue is not the warming trend itself but whether it represents a natural variation or whether it is caused by fossil fuels.
It appears that the science of global warming depends on the very unscientific notion that data that support the hypothesis are good data and should be retained, while those that do not are blips and outliers which must be discarded. This method of data selection leads to a sense of "overwhelming evidence" to support their cause and the attitude that they already know the answer. That renders research methods into propaganda methods and encourages climate scientists to overlook statistical principles and to use statistics only as a marketing tool.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments