Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
The new Washington
Post Weather website
Jump to CWG's
Latest Full Forecast
Outside now? Radar, temps
and more: Weather Wall
Follow us on Twitter (@capitalweather) and become a fan on Facebook
Posted at 10:40 AM ET, 10/14/2009

Record Cold Exposes Climate Misconceptions

By Andrew Freedman

* Highs in the 40s? Our Full Forecast | October is Great (Usually) *

If record summertime heat waves mean that climate change may already be affecting us, does an early-fall cold snap mean the opposite?

An early surge of record cold and snow that has gripped much of the Rockies and Midwest this past week has led to numerous headlines implying or flat-out stating that concerns about manmade climate change are overblown.

Residents shovel their driveway as unusually early snow falls in Omaha, Neb., Saturday, Oct. 10, 2009. AP Photo/Nati Harnik.

Such stories, whipped up in large part by climate skeptic blogs, have made the elementary climate science mistake of confusing day-to-day weather fluctuations with long-term climate change.

The cold snap has been an impressive one. Consider the recent weather in Denver, Colo., for example. The high temperature only reached 26 degrees Fahrenheit on Saturday, which was a record low maximum temperature for the date, a whopping 43 degrees below average. A new record low was also set for the date, of just 17 degrees, and a trace of snow fell. The postponement of the Colorado Rockies playoff game against the Philadelphia Phillies due to cold and snow made national news during the weekend.

More than a foot of snow fell in parts of neighboring Nebraska. In North Platte, the 13.8-inch snowfall established a new record one- and two-calendar day total for the month. Snow in North Platte is not unheard of in October, but it is rare, particularly for this early in the month. The earliest recorded snowfall in North Platte occurred on Sept. 12, 1989, when a trace was observed.

The Twin Cities also received accumulating snow during the weekend, with 2.5 inches falling at Minneapolist/St. Paul International Airport. According to the National Weather Service, measurable snowfall has occurred in the first half of the month only eight times in the past 60 years.

The coldest conditions were felt in southern Montana and north-central Wyoming, with record lows in the teens and single digits between Oct. 10 and 13. This was the earliest that such low temperatures have been observed in these areas.

The cold-air outbreak inspired the Drudge Report to feature several weather-related headlines this weekend, leading one observer on Twitter to coin a new term -- "Matteorology" -- for the tendency of site founder Matt Drudge to use stories about extreme cold to debunk the evidence for manmade climate change. Climate Depot also jumped on the cold-weather bandwagon, featuring headlines such as "Game postponed: It's way too cold and snowy to play baseball in Denver; 'most frigid postseason game ever,'" and "Spokane: 'Global warming hysteria dying amid record cold, record snowfall, and early frost."

Temperature departures from average during the period Oct. 4-10 shows the outbreak of cold air across the Upper Midwest, Great Plains and parts of the Rocky Mountains. Courtesy NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.

Clearly, just as a record heat wave plays into the hands of advocates for greenhouse-gas emissions reductions, short-term record cold helps those who either don't believe that manmade climate change is occurring or do not consider it a top priority. The problem is, however, that short-term weather fluctuations cannot be conclusively linked to long-term climate change anyway.

The interpretations of the cold snap once again raise an issue previously discussed on this blog: How should reporters cover weather and climate extremes in the context of a changing climate? Should global warming be mentioned in every story about a flood, tornado, hurricane or heat wave? If so, how should journalists cover record cold, since it seems to run counter to the very term "global warming"?

As I've written before and others have advocated, it is important for reporters, when justified by scientific evidence, to put extreme weather and climate events into a climate change context in order to increase public understanding of the issue.

This doesn't mean that reporters should blame every event on climate change, far from it actually. Rather, journalists should mention whether a particular event is consistent or inconsistent with climate science research, or detail how a particular extreme event stacks up against similar events around the globe. The goal is to provide readers with a more complete perspective and enable them to relate what is going on outside their windows to broader changes occurring worldwide.

This includes clearly differentiating between day-to-day weather events, which are random and chaotic, and long-term climate trends.

A complete account of the record cold snap might include references to recent reports on the current El Nino and how that may affect upcoming winter weather across the U.S., as well as details of how the cold weather stacks up against recent global events. For example, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently reported that the year-to-date (Jan.-Sept.) was the 32nd warmest such period in the U.S. based on preliminary data. Globally, the combined land and ocean average temperatures continue to be anomalously warm -- with the fifth warmest January-August on record.

The views expressed here are the author's alone and do not represent any position of the Washington Post, its news staff or the Capital Weather Gang.

By Andrew Freedman  | October 14, 2009; 10:40 AM ET
Categories:  Climate Change, Freedman, Media, News & Notes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Forecast: First the Chill, Then the Chilly Rain
Next: PM Update: Cold Settles In, Rain Begins Arriving


So the young man who has jumped on every single disaster to "highlight" the "effects" of climate change (or as you say in this column, "put extreme weather and climate events into a climate change context") is complaining about other people highlighting the cold weather.

The young man who was quick to exploit the horrible fires and loss of life in Australia (that was inexcusable), and whose column never used the words arson or IOD, is complaining when others talk about a baseball game being canceled due to cold.

You've got gall; I'll give you that.

Mr. Q.

Posted by: Mr_Q | October 14, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Tom8 | October 14, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

The wheels are coming of man-made global warming theory -- as preached by the United Nations. There's been no global warming for a decade, according to the BBC, New York Times and Christian Science Monitor (links follow). The UN's climate scientists are back-pedaling like crazy. One of their own even says we are looking at another decade of cooling.

The simple truth is that America needs our own Climate Truth Commission. Outsourcing climate science to the UN makes no sense. The UN is more concerned about politics and funding than science. Plus, UN forecasts for the last 10 years do not fit what actually happened. The United States needs our own objective, transparent climate commission to think-through global warming.

-- Robert Moen,

Posted by: Rmoen | October 14, 2009 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Gall, yes, very interesting. How would you describe folks like Mr. Drudge who deny Global Warming altogether?

Name-calling aside, the substantive underlying issue: Is Global Warming real? Mr. Freedman is correct in noting that short-term weather events tell us very little about long-term climate change; the evidence is in the average temperatures over a long period of time. These are clearly rising. How do we explain that?

Posted by: thump41 | October 14, 2009 11:48 AM | Report abuse

thump41 wrote, "; the evidence is in the average temperatures over a long period of time. These are clearly rising. How do we explain that?"

You seem to be implying that but for man, temperatures over a long period of time would not increase.

Is that your position? If so, what evidence do you have to support that?

Mr. Q.

Posted by: Mr_Q | October 14, 2009 12:12 PM | Report abuse

One thing sure to warm up our climate: A Bob McDonnell victory in the Virginia gubernatorial election.

McDonnell has signed on to that EVIL scheme to widen I-66, with all its negative implications for Arlington County's superb network of hiking/bike trails. If they go through with that crazy I-66 widening scheme, you might as well kiss the Custis Trail and a huge chunk of the W&OD Trail goodbye. I, for one, regard I-66 as such a negative 20th-century-style highway, and, frankly would like to see it shut down and converted to a bike trail running from Arlington to Front Royal. Cutting down on all those gas-guzzling cars, replacing them with hybrids & mass transit would work wonders for our climate here in Arlington.

Unfortunately, with Bob McDonnell in Richmond, all we'll see is more of this environmental degradation and climatic warming from BOTH grenhouse-gas emission and heat-island enhancing development due to now-obsolete twentieth-century thinking. To make things worse, McDonnell will do all this at the expense of Virginia's schoolchildren.

Posted by: Bombo47jea | October 14, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

It's a good post Andrew. Unfortunately somewhat drowned out by the sensationalist, science-illiterate or just plain denialist-sympathetic media who, in reporting about the "skepticism" getting louder on non-scientist blogs, is giving the public a false impression that there is some kind of softening of the view among mainstream scientists that we are in an overall warming trend, and that we are contributing to it significantly.

Make no mistake: there is no softening of that position amongst the scientific community.

To the irresponsible journalists catering to the denialists among the public: shame on you. You know better than to quote politically-motivated bloggers on a SCIENTIFIC issue as if that is some kind of substantive news.

To the public who is getting understandably confused by these mixed signals you appear to see from the media: take a couple hours in your public library. Skim through some recent issues of Science, Nature, Science News, Scientific American or some other reputable science periodical. You will find little to no reaction amongst them to the short term noise that is causing the industry shills and the science-skeptical knee-jerk conservatives to crow loudly. None.

At that point, you can make your choice. You can go with the scientific community on a scientific question, or you can pick the political moutpiece who best flatters your desires.

Call me a radical, but my money is on the scientists.

Posted by: B2O2 | October 14, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

I forgot to add the main reason I wanted to post in the first place. That is, that extreme weather is right in line with what climatologists have been predicting for years: that as you put more energy into the system (ie, warming the planet), you will see not only an overall increase in the AVERAGE temperature, but also an increase in the VARIANCE of temperature around that average. In other words, the system gets a little "wilder". The result of that is that sometimes you will see unusual swings in the downward direction of temperatures - along with more extreme weather of various kinds - as more energy is put into the system.

So it's ironic to see the mainstream media treat it this way, without mentioning that this is actually not wholly unexpected. It sounds like a CYA copout to the uninitiated, but if you read the literature, it's been there all along.

Posted by: B2O2 | October 14, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

To those who assert that climate scientists are rapidly back peddling or becoming unglued over a slowing of the increase in global average temperatures in the past decade (note that this is different from a decrease in temperature), you may wish to check out this link:

Mr. Q: I never blamed the fires in Australia on climate change. I covered the comments made by Australian commentators and officials, who were making such a link, and noted that increased wildfires and drought are consistent with predictions by Australia's official science agency.

Robert Moen: Do your comments indicate that you don't think that US research institutions that have reported on climate change, such as the National Academy of Sciences and National Center for Atmospheric Research, are credible either? How exactly would you put together a "Truth Commission" to make it distinct from what has already been done?

Posted by: Andrew-CapitalWeatherGang | October 14, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Andrew, I fear you've mistaken sarcasm for reporting.

For roughly the past ten years, every time there was a heat wave or a few mild days in January, the public was treated to "It's Global Warming!" This hysteria reached its height with Hurricane Katrina, although it's been more humble since.

Most of the time when Drudge or other conservative commentators point out these cold snaps and say, "It's Global Cooling!" they're making fun of the hysterical reporters. It's pure and simple sarcasm.

In fact, Drudge goes both ways on this. For the time being, he's playing up the cold snaps. But you can be sure he'll play up the heat waves when those happen to.

In the end, the big problem is that for years, climate scientists pointed to every heat wave and hurricane as global warming. Don't blame others when such tactics come back to bite you in the ass.

Posted by: nlcaldwell | October 14, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"I covered the comments made by Australian commentators and officials, who were making such a link, and noted that increased wildfires and drought are consistent with predictions by Australia's official science agency."

Mr. Q's point was that you failed to mention the fact that arson played a role in those fires. And while it is technically true that YOU did not blame global warming for the fires, you clearly were trying to set up readers to make that link themselves. But the arson fact would be an impediment to your goal, so no need to bother with the facts that detract from your position. Honestly, you are such a disingenuous fact cherry-picker at this point it is hard to understand how you can call yourself a journalist. Oh nevermind, you fit right in with all of the other hacks at this paper who never let the facts get in the way of their reporting.

Posted by: octopi213 | October 14, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Freedman, I never said that you "blamed the fires in Australia on climate change".

I said that were "quick to exploit the horrible fires and loss of life in Australia (that was inexcusable)".

Or, as you like to call it - "put extreme weather and climate events into a climate change context in order to increase public understanding of the issue".

What you refer to as putting into a climate change context, I call exploiting. And in the case of the wild fires and loss of life in Australia, it was absolutely, undeniably, nauseatingly disgusting.

Mr. Q.

Posted by: Mr_Q | October 14, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

"In fact, Drudge goes both ways on this. For the time being, he's playing up the cold snaps. But you can be sure he'll play up the heat waves when those happen to."
Oh, rubbish. He was all over the cold weather in Chicago this summer but didn't have one word about the 100+ degree heat wave in Seattle.

Posted by: kevinwparker | October 14, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Mr Q: Apparently not "absolutely, undeniably, nauseatingly disgusting" enough to move on to another blog more suitable to your obviously sensitive tastes.

Keep up the good work gang! This site is leaps and bounds better than any other metro-area weather news source! The mix of local forecasting, serious climate discussion, and in-depth explanations to all sorts of weather related topics is fantastic.

V. much looking forward to your winter weather outlook!

Posted by: HRC2121 | October 14, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

octopi213 and Mr. Q: To blame arson alone is an incomplete explanation. The environmental conditions were primed for fire, and someone acted to take advantage of those conditions for truly sick purposes. At the same time, to blame environmental conditions and climate change alone is also simplistic.

But I have a feeling that neither of you handle nuance very well.

Posted by: Andrew-CapitalWeatherGang | October 14, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Neither of us is blaming arson alone. Mr. Q simply pointed out how you neglected (refused?) to mention that some of those fires were intentionally set, yet you fell over yourself to "put extreme weather and climate events into a climate change context."

Let me give you an analogy:
The following is reported in a story:

"A driver was killed when their car veered off the road and hit a tree on a cold, wet night. Experts have said that the chances of an accident increase at night, especially on wet roads, especially with the increasing speeds that people tend to drive."

Seems like a logical, reasonable thing to write. But what if the article left out the fact that car had been hit by another car, which caused it to hit the tree? That seems like an important fact that might have had a bigger impact on the accident than the wet road or darkness.

You have essentially engaged in this kind of "journalism" by leaving out important facts that would have changed how readers would have viewed the story.

Posted by: octopi213 | October 14, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

I just saw a blog post on climate variability by Mark Lynas, author of the book "Six Degrees" (confession: I have not yet read his book):

Posted by: Andrew-CapitalWeatherGang | October 14, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse


"Record heat wave continues in Seattle, Portland..." - July 30, 2009; Drudge

Posted by: nlcaldwell | October 14, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Freedman wrote, "octopi213 and Mr. Q: To blame arson alone is an incomplete explanation."

This is the second time today where you are trying to put words in my mouth. Are you having a difficult time comprehending what I write, or is this deliberate?

I said that "The young man who was quick to exploit the horrible fires and loss of life in Australia (that was inexcusable), and whose column never used the words arson or IOD, is complaining when ..."

Andrew Freedman also wrote, "But I have a feeling that neither of you handle nuance very well."

Is that what you are calling it? Nuance?

Your omission of critical facts is "nuance"?

If that helps you sleep at night, run with it.

Mr. Q.

Posted by: Mr_Q | October 14, 2009 5:15 PM | Report abuse

octopi213: I'll refer to one of my comments to the post in question:

"...The possibility that arson was to blame for some of the fires fails to negate the impact of climate change-related trends which may have contributed to the deadly event. The dryness and extreme heat made it possible for an unknown number of people to allegedly light some of the blazes that went on to kill nearly 200 people. The arson wouldn't have been so deadly had conditions not been so hot and dry.

In other words, the weather/climate conditions were a prerequisite for the fires (many of which are thought to have been caused by lightning, not from human intervention), and for that reason the arson suspicions were not included in the article. What some see as bias was intended to avoid giving the impression that arson was the dominant factor in the fires, when there is no evidence of that at all, and in fact all reports indicate the extreme heat and dryness was the primary factor that led to the fires. If further investigation finds evidence to the contrary, we will report that.

Are there uncertainties regarding links between the recent heat, dryness, and wildfires in southern Australia, and global climate change? Of course there are, and that was stated in the article as it has been stated in virtually every other story we have run on climate change and extreme events. The intention is not to scare people, but rather to inform them about the ways in which climate change may affect their world."

Posted by: Andrew-CapitalWeatherGang | October 14, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Q: Our disagreement on the Australian wildfires story concerned the definition of "critical facts." You perceived arson to be the preeminent critical fact of that story, perhaps negating any and all influence that the unusually dry climate conditions and record heat had to do with the deadly fires. My reporting, which was based on the reporting of the Australian media and Australian government scientists, indicated otherwise. This belongs in the 'agree to disagree' category, where every other exchange we've ever had eventually winds up.

Posted by: Andrew-CapitalWeatherGang | October 14, 2009 5:39 PM | Report abuse

nlcaldwell: While Drudge may be more evenhanded than I think he is (after all, he refers to 'global warming' using air quotes), the rest of the climate skeptic blogosphere that has jumped on the cold air outbreak certainly is not.

Posted by: Andrew-CapitalWeatherGang | October 14, 2009 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Mr Q: How is the fact that some (not all) of the wildfires were started by arson a "critical" fact, when the underlying cause of the fire's ferocity and size was due exclusively to conditions on the ground caused by record-setting drought?

Afterall, the fires were being discussed in the context of the conditions that existed as a result of global climate change (i.e. drought) NOT in the context of how they started.

How the fires started really isnt relevant when the point trying to be conveyed is that severe drought resulting from climate change creates conditions that enable wildfires to grow in a manner that they otherwise would not absent those climate induced conditions.

How the wildfires start really doesnt matter - as its a fact they'll occur naturally or unnaturally anyway. What matters is what kind of enviroment those fires (natural or unnaturally started) encounter as they expand.

I believe this was the underlying point trying to be made.

But if for some reason you think how the fire started matters just as much as the conditions on the ground when the fire is lit - then I think Andrew is right, and you're missing the intended nuance.

Posted by: HRC2121 | October 14, 2009 5:45 PM | Report abuse

In answer to your question, I've not formed an opinion on the credibility of the National Academy of Sciences or National Center for Atmospheric Research. I do think, however, that in the United States climate change has become so politicized--by my party, the Democrats--that we need to start with a clean slate and reconcile all the conflicting data.

-- Robert Moen,

Posted by: Rmoen | October 14, 2009 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Nice article, Andrew. After having lived for 60 years just outside the Beltway, we moved last year to San Antonio, TX. Just in time for a record fifty nine 100+ degree days this past summer, on top of a two year drought. You don't have to convince anyone down here about the 'climate change'.

Posted by: Fredneck2 | October 14, 2009 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Freedman wrote, "You perceived arson to be the preeminent critical fact of that story, perhaps negating any and all influence that the unusually dry climate conditions and record heat had to do with the deadly fires."

Having tired of putting words in my mouth, you have moved on to telling me what I perceive? Un. Frickin. Believable.

Into the breach once more! I wrote, "... and whose column never used the words arson or IOD, ..." Please take as much time as is necessary to digest those words.

Australia's drought was a result of the IOD, Indian Ocean Dipole. It didn't have anything at all to do with "climate change". And I wrote IOD in my original comment! Sort of blows a big stinkin hole in your "perhaps negating any and all influence that the unusually dry climate conditions and record heat had to do with the deadly fires" comment, doesn't it. Unlike your original column, I addressed the root cause of the drought in my original comment. Which puts me one up on you.

Try this link.

So you have a drought caused by the IOD and a fire caused by arson. Then, the horrible suffering and loss of life was exploited by people with an agenda. Absolutely disgusting. I ask the same question I asked when Mr. Freedman originally wrote the column, "Have you no shame?"

Mr. Q.

Posted by: Mr_Q | October 14, 2009 8:07 PM | Report abuse


Thanks for the really nice words. We're glad you enjoy our content.

Posted by: CapitalWeatherGang | October 14, 2009 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Stew over this a while: A new study by scientists at the U.K Met Office reveals that, if greenhouse gases emissions continue to rise unchecked, global warming will exceed 4 degress C (7.2 F) by the end of the century. These new new findings were announced at a special conference last month to consider the realistic global consequences of climate change beyond 2 °C. The results are obtained from an ensemble of 17 different models that account for greenhouse warming triggering feedback loops which will release ever increasing amounts of greenhouse gases.

Needless to say, as reported by New Scientist, the picture painted by the130 international scientists and policy specialists attending the meeting was not pretty. Even greater warming would occur in many regions along with major changes in the distribution and amounts of precipitation. According to Dr. Richard Betts of the Met Office, the impacts will have very large consequences for food security, water availability and health (here)

Personally, I find these results reasonably credible - based on my understanding of the models and experimental design. However, I'm also aware of the debate amongst climate scientists concerning the nature and importance of the feedback loops. Stay tuned!

Posted by: SteveT-CapitalWeatherGang | October 14, 2009 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Re: the Australian bush fires... I think winds were a major factor

Posted by: spgass1 | October 14, 2009 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Andrew, while I'm flattered you take the time to respond, you may want to rethink that! Not that I'm judging anyone (much less myself), but when you argue with a fool, most people are going to have a tough time telling the difference.

In any case, my point isn't that Drudge is evenhanded. My response to kevinwparker was more flippant than it was constructive. No, my point can be boiled down into two elements:

1. It's usually sarcasm playing off the fact that...
2. You guys started it!

Until very recently, the news media trumpeted every heat wave and mild day in January as further evidence of global warming. Conservative commentators make fun of this hysteria by trumpeting every cold record broken in Athol, Idaho. So I think that you've simply mistaken sarcasm for serious commentary.

Is this the case always? Heck no. There are some very unserious people on both sides of the equation who cherry pick their data points. Yet I think for the most part, people are very serious on this subject. Unfortunately, the stakes are so high in the minds of both sides that it makes coming to any middle ground difficult, if not impossible (or even desirable).

Posted by: nlcaldwell | October 14, 2009 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Andrew, that metoffice link was interesting:

"Our decadal forecast predicts an end to this period of relative stability after 2010. We project at least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than the 1998 record."

The quote gets to Matt Rogers's question about how long the AGW experts say we have to wait to see a temp increase. What if the next several years do not exceed the 1998 temps?

Of course the question of is it warming is separate from is it because of C02 emissions so perhaps this debate will go on for some time...

Posted by: spgass1 | October 14, 2009 11:05 PM | Report abuse

spgass1: You raise a good question, as Matt has re: the MetOffice info. I think what we're seeing, and what we're trying to cover without falling into the many traps of mistaking short-term variability for a cessation of long-term warming, is a re-assessment of decadal temperature trends and how models can reproduce and project such trends. Many questions remain to be answered, but the vast majority of climate scientists believe enough is known now to be very confident that human activities are causing long-term warming, with shorter term wiggles around the overall trend.

It will be very interesting to see if that Met Office projection, the source of which I am unsure, will verify.

Posted by: Andrew-CapitalWeatherGang | October 15, 2009 1:26 AM | Report abuse

So who will hold the Met Office Accountable when they are wrong?

Posted by: Tom8 | October 15, 2009 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Freedman wrote, "You perceived arson to be the preeminent critical fact of that story, perhaps negating any and all influence that the unusually dry climate conditions and record heat had to do with the deadly fires. My reporting, which was based on the reporting of the Australian media and Australian government scientists, indicated otherwise."

To attempt to tell another person what they perceive is quite unbelievable, even for you. As usual, you are incorrect.

As far as your "reporting" goes, you simply regurgitated the opinions of those you agree with. You called attention to the opinions of that you wanted to call attention to. And you omitted facts that did not support those opinions. If you want to call that "reporting", well then as you say, we shall have to agree to disagree.

The IOD caused the drought.
An arsonist(s) caused the fire.

And if the story is about the Australian wild fires, then yes, I consider the IOD (the cause of the drought) and the arsonist to be critical facts. But neither of those two facts were in your original column.

I encourage your readers to go back and read your original column and then decide for themselves whether or not the IOD and arson were critical facts.

Mr. Q.

Posted by: Mr_Q | October 15, 2009 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Q.

Sometimes I wonder why you keep beating your head in Andrew's threads. It has to be to round out the debate and not to change Andrew's editorials. He is very clearly not objective or open-minded. I call them editorials, because that is very clearly what they are, loosely disguised opinion pieces that omit facts not consistent with the opinions presented.

Posted by: RMVA | October 16, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse


At times it does feel like beating my head against a wall. I freely admit that. And I have been sorely tempted to throw in the towel. I really don't have the time for this, and I don't know how much longer I can keep it up.

I have two goals -
1. To point out all of the facts that Mr. Freedman refuses to cover, so that anyone who is new to the debate gets a balanced perspective. As much as I would love to walk away that would be irresponsible of me.
2. To help Andrew. Don't you wish you could be there to hear his scoff when he reads that?

If a young man spent the formative 17 years of his life (from age 5 to age 22) at a parochial school, some people would say he had been brain washed or indoctrinated. What if a young man spent 17 years at a military academy? Would not some people claim he had been indoctrinated? Of course they would! But if a young man spends 17+ years of his life being educated by people who are either moderately liberal or extremely liberal, no one says a word or thinks anything of it. Fascinating isn't it? Why is that? How can otherwise intelligent people, who could easily spot indoctrination in others, fail to recognize their own indoctrination? It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Mr. Q.

Posted by: Mr_Q | October 16, 2009 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Q,

Please don't give up the fight. We need folks like yourself out there, pointing out what a sham AGW really is. People need to understand that the legislation that is about to be passed is going to cost most people very dearly, for no other purpose than to line the pockets of people like Al Gore.

Posted by: octopi213 | October 16, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Thanks octopi213. I will hang in there as long as I can. Thanks for your contributions too. I liked your accident analogy. And I really appreciate how quick you were to call Mr. Freedman when he attempted to rewrite my criticism (into something more to his liking). You just have to laugh when the guy who wrote that Australian wild fire column criticizes those who point to a ball game being canceled due to cold. Maybe the skeptics were simply trying to "provide readers with a more complete perspective". Or maybe they were trying to "put extreme weather and climate events into a climate change context in order to increase public understanding of the issue". Or are only those who believe in catastrophic, man caused, global warming permitted to do that?

Mr. Q.

Posted by: Mr_Q | October 16, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I always hope when clicking on the comments that civility and reasonable discourse can be a reality. When that hope quickly fades, I starting thinking maybe next time.

Posted by: John-Burke | October 16, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse


Can you please provide an example of "civility and reasonable discourse" in the comments section of a blog? Which blog (a blog which tackles political issues such as global warming) has the "civility and reasonable discourse" that you would like to see here?

Mr. Q.

Posted by: Mr_Q | October 16, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2012 The Washington Post Company