Yes, Folks, It STILL Snows In a Warming World

Climate skeptics found plenty of reasons to dig out their dreary critiques this week, between the continuing controversy over erroneous reports from the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and the record-breaking snowfall on the East Coast. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) and his family built an igloo which Inhofe then dubbed “Al Gore’s house” in the streets of Washington, D.C. The Virginia GOP ran ads attacking the state’s Democratic representatives for their support of cap-and-trade and urged voters to “tell them how much global warming you get this weekend.” And skeptics across the world claimed that the smaller mistakes in IPCC reports undermined the organization’s broad conclusions on climate change science.

Let’s plow through this slushy thinking before it piles up too high.

Snow still happens in a warming world

In the winter, it snows, and one snowstorm does not overthrow all of climate science. “Perhaps it’s time for a refresher,” wrote Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones. “’Weather’ and ‘climate’ are not the same thing. Weather is what happened yesterday or may happen tomorrow; climate patterns occur over decades.”

“We can absolutely expect climate change to bring blizzards in places that don’t normally see a lot of blizzards, like Washington, D.C.,” chimes in Jonathan Hiskes at Grist. “Climatologists expect just this sort of ‘global weirding’: less predictable, more extreme, more damaging.”

Cold temperatures, even record lows, do not contradict the extensive body of evidence that global temperatures are rising. As Hiskes points out, erratic weather patterns support climate change theories, and the coming seasons will feature more newsworthy weather events. Chalk up the snowfall that shut down the federal government for almost a week as a bad sign, akin to harsh storms like Hurricane Katrina.

Climate science stands despite IPCC errors…

The IPCC messed up. The international organization is meant to gather and review the body of climate change science and produce definitive reports on that field. But in past reports, the organization included a few facts unsupported by real scientific research. Mother Jones’ Sheppard runs down these mistakes: the IPCC cannot back up its claims about the rising sea-level in Holland, crop failure in Africa, and the melting of Himalayan glaciers.

The bottom line, though, is that these errors do not affect the reports’ main conclusions. As Sheppard explains, “The controversies over the IPCC’s data haven’t challenged the fundamental agreement among the vast majority of scientific bodies that climate change is happening and caused in large part by human activity.”

…but that does not excuse the IPCC’s behavior

The IPCC cannot use that broad consensus as a defense, however. The organization needs to maintain both an impeccable reputation as a scientific body and its independence from political pressures. AtThe NationMaria Margaronis argues that in the climate arena, science and politics have been wedged too closely together.

“On a subject as politicized as this, it’s not surprising that scientists have been found guilty of hoarding data, smoothing a graph or two, shutting each other’s work out of peer-reviewed journals,” she writes. “The same goes on in far less controversial fields, where what’s at stake is only money and careers. … Every research paper and data set produced by climate scientists or cited by the IPCC is now fair game for the fine-toothed comb, whether it’s wielded honestly or with malicious intent. Nit-picking takes the place of conversation.”

Margaronis suggests that scientists admit to uncertainties and open up their data, while the rest of us stop looking to them as unimpeachable oracles on climate change. But as long as skeptics jump on a researcher’s every doubt as a refutation of all climate science, that’s not likely to happen.

Brace for impact

Negative attitudes about the IPCC and the snow are not idle threats to climate reform. As Steve Benen writes at The Washington Monthly, “It seems mind-numbing, but Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) said snowfall in D.C. has had an effect on policymakers’ attitudes.”

As cheap as they are, stunts like Inhofe’s seem to dampen lawmakers’ political will to pass real climate change legislation. Apparently, the Senate, already tip-toeing away from the cap-and-trade provisions passed in the House, can’t talk about global warming when there’s snow on the ground.

Foot-dragging like this costs the United States money and credibility. Administration officials are already downplaying expectations for the next international conference on climate change, to be held next winter in Mexico. And if the Senate gives up on a comprehensive climate bill and passes a weaker provision, the country will ultimately pay the price in higher deficits.

At Grist, David Roberts declares, “Good climate policy is responsible fiscal policy.” His evidence? Reports from the Congressional Budget Office. The Senate’s comprehensive climate legislation (known as the Kerry-Boxer bill) knocks $21 billion a year off the deficit, according to the CBO. The watered-down alternative increases the deficit by $13 billion a year.

Encounters with the arch-skeptic

Citing snowfall as an argument against global warming—and against passing climate change legislation!—is not the only half-baked idea climate skeptics throw around. As Joshua Frank notes for AlterNet, “There are usually a range of issues these skeptics raise in an attempt to cast doubt on climate change evidence.” Frank offers a primer of responses to common complaints—i.e. humans don’t contribute to global warming, that carbon emissions aren’t to blame, either, that climate science cannot accurately measure global warming.

Keep this resources handy. It only takes one event, like this week’s snow storm, for those misguided arguments to surface.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.

photo credit: thanks to matt prescott -- via flickr --for the great Snowpocalypse 2010 pic
By Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium Blogger


Doctor V.
Doctor V.3 years ago

Seriously Seth? You cannot fathom the possibility that climate manipulation for profit and power or worse? Have you seen the movies What in the World Are They Spraying? and Why in the World Are They Spraying? ???????
Have you stood on the west coast and watched the fake clouds made up of who knows what float in? I have... and I have felt what they cause in the body... there are fishy things going on and it must end... and those responsible must be brought to justice... and they will be... wait and see...

LMj Sunshine

Thank you.

LMj Sunshine

Thank you.

LMj Sunshine

Thank you.

LMj Sunshine

Thank you.

Ann Eastman
Ann Eastman6 years ago

What a shame that there was a reason this article needed to be written.

Kristen R.
Kristen R.6 years ago

Thanks for posting

Seth E.
Seth E.6 years ago

...continued from previous post:

Even if there is something afoot, do you honestly believe the relatively short window of activity of this one agency could have the impact on climate that over 200 years of worldwide industrial activity has had?

Don't forget, yet again, that weather is an element of climate, but weather is more localized and occurs over a much shorter period of time while climate is the total of environmental conditions over periods of many years. If weather could possibly be manipulated, its scope would be drowned out by all other natural occurrences when actual climate data is compiled and would thus be rendered insignificant in the big picture.

I'm not totally discounting your belief in these theories, as there's always some possibility of some classified actions where we would probably never learn the full truth, but I think you're overestimating their potential impact on actual climate.

Laderia even brought up the point in her post that the key to this issue is to stay focused, and I agree that we must learn to see the forest for the trees without clear-cutting it.

Regardless of peoples' stances on Global Warming/Climate Change, we know that we're doing damage to our planet, and rather than arguing about it and making excuses, we need to do something about it.

Seth E.
Seth E.6 years ago


I know this has been discussed before to varying extents, but there is a reason that conspiracy theories are not considered as acceptable science, and that is simply because they lack the burden of proof to be considered as fact.

I spent some time trying to identify Dr. Nick Begich's credentials (where did he get his doctorate, and in what discipline, for example), and in reading some of his writing, I get a sense of a combination of junk science, science fiction, and old-school Cold War paranoia that overwhelms any impression of credibility.

There are a lot of references to his involvement in studying or discussing subjects such as UFOs and the paranormal, as well.

In fact, I don't see anything that gives even the slimmest impression of him having any legitimate qualifications regarding environmental science or being a peer-reviewed research scientist in any other field, and this would leave very little reason to believe much, if anything, of what he says.

HAARP doesn't appear all that sinister, either; sometimes things are as they appear and only seem to be more to precisely the same type of conspiracy theorists as Dr. Begitch appears to be. HAARP even has a reputation of being a target of numerous conspiracy theories, particularly by those who lack the knowledge to understand its work.


Doctor V.
Doctor V.6 years ago

Stop the GEOENGINEERING and then it is possible to have a proper discussion about the other effects that man is having on climate !!!


HAARP and Beyond - Dr. Nick Begich VERY INFORMATIVE...