Here are some more cooling records to add to your previous post

Geoff

The waves of cold, Canadian air washing over the eastern United States brought a record low to Athens this morning, breaking a low-temperature mark that stood for 117 years.
http://onlineathens.com/stories/111908/new_357656965.shtml

Highs will be as much as 20 degrees below normal today throughout most of the East, challenging even more record cold high temperatures.

http://www.accuweather.com/news-top-headline.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&date=2008-11-19_09:25

Global Cooling cuts the crime rate in Greenville County USA

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20081119/NEWS01/81119017/1001/NEWS

Al Gore and his elk are Mouth Breathers, who are so concerned about all of this warming BS.. that they haven’t changed a thing about their (carbon foot print) please.

Nothing I can’t stand more than a “Do as I say… not as I do” mentality. I’m still embarassed to say that he’s won the Nobel Prize for this scam! Man isn’t the cause of any global warming… just the recipient of a scam perpetrated by a snake oil salesman… to create a market for unnecessary good and services. All those who fell for this charm… did so drinking the Kool-aid he was serving.

Until next time I’ll be chilling here in Florida… which is nice and cooler than normal right now.

Whereas under most paradigms a months cold snap wouldn’t mean much the idea that CO2 is driving things makes the fact of a cold October very significant. It is because these dummy’s pooh-poohed any other influence BUT CO2, that the news of a cold October is an idea that completelyrefutes their own “thinking”.

If Birdy was smart he’d want to know much more than he does. His inability to research the issue is typical of what you’d expect from economic arts graduates doing soft courses.

But to your point – well it’s a risk assessment isn’t it. My colleagues now view me as a sceptic. But you have to weigh up the evidence. There’s a lot going on. Greenhouse is a good mechanism. Alternative explanations don’t add up that well.

The next 20 years will tell who’s full of it. In the mean time choose wisely grasshopper.

I generally don’t read your posts, but I did read the last one above and it does have an interesting rhetorical style. Reminiscent of Hitler’s Mein Kampf in places. My comment is not meant to be totally negative, Hitler was a brilliant rhetorician.

We had to be warmer. Because the story went that the solar forcing change is just minimal. The cosmic rays story got a lot of laughs from a lot of very stupid people. And so it was axiomatic that CO2 was driving things. Hence this cold October refutes all that outright. And it was not predicted.

Now lets take the counter-examples. They are all some valley some where. Single day events. And not a lot of them. They tried to come up with an alternative list as counter-examples. But such examples as they could find, when examined in their totality, in fact backed up the idea that this a cold October. But it cannot be. Since the CO2 has been higher every October than the one before and every year. So where is all that extra heat hiding?

Get used to it you morons. This is a total refutation. And you people on the rational side of this debate. Stick up for yourselves and kick some of these goons in the throat. The only way to talk to an alarmist is DOWN.

I think the thread is interesting in how it sheds light on psychological issues relating to the perception and processing of evidence. But in your heart of hearts, since you’re already convinced about the reality of global warming, can you honestly say that, had new record high temperatures across significant portions of the United States and other places been reported, would you not have found that highly convincing of global warming?

Many people don’t want to see the obvious: any cursory glance of long term global temperature averages reveals that when temperature dips precipitously, they also tend to rapidly bounce back. Now, if that didn’t happen, then perhaps there would be something of interest to discuss.

Scientists are humans and humans have biases. It does make you think: what is the actual quality of the evidence? How easily can people see what cannot be proven as being there? I.e., “global cooling”. When a AGW theorist proclaims that he can’t point to any particular scientific paper as definitive support for his views, but instead the overwhelming body of research into climate over the last 100 years convinces him of the correctness of his ideas, what does that actually mean?

Correct – this whole post isn’t a serious discussion. We’re just horsing around waiting to see if someone lobs something really interesting in.