Global Warming & Horoscopes

[I]f every weather event that happens fits your global warming hypothesis or theory, the theory cannot be invalidated by real world observations or data. Climate fear promoters are now morphing to the level of the daily horoscope in your local newspaper. Horoscopes are worded in such a vague manner that essentially anything that happens to you that day can be touted as “proof” the horoscope was correct.

Marc Morano, Climate Depot

We learn to today that heavy snow is proof of global warming.




We learned two years ago, compiled here by Breitbart, that lack of heavy snow is proof of global warming.



(H/T Hot Air, here and here)

So the question has to be, is there anything that is not proof of anthropogenic global warming? Or has it all reached the same level of trustworthiness as astrology.

The AP has out a story on people who suggest that "Scientists seek better way to do Climate Report" in the wake of Climategate. But you have to hand it to the AP. They insure that we understand that the important parts of the IPCC report all show AGW to be a virtual certainty:

A steady drip of unsettling errors is exposing what scientists are calling "the weaker link" in the Nobel Peace Prize-winning series of international reports on global warming.

The flaws — and the erosion they've caused in public confidence — have some scientists calling for drastic changes in how future United Nations climate reports are done. A push for reform being published in Thursday's issue of a prestigious scientific journal comes on top of a growing clamor for the resignation of the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. . . .

No errors have surfaced in the first and most well-known of the reports, which said the physics of a warming atmosphere and rising seas is man-made and incontrovertible. . . .

Scientists — including top U.S. government officials — argue that the bulk of the reports are sound.

"The vast majority of conclusions in the IPCC are credible, have been through a very rigorous process and are absolutely state of the science, state of the art about what we know of the climate system," said National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco, who runs the agency that oversees much of the U.S. government's climate research. . . .

Many IPCC scientists say it's impressive that so far only four errors have been found in 986 pages of the second report, with the overwhelming majority of the findings correct and well-supported. . . .

One would think that the fact that computer programs, raw data and meta data are still being largely withheld and that the peer review process is not merely corrupt, but systemically unreliable, might lead to a few less attempts by these folk to claim scientific certainty. Unless and until scientists make available their raw data, meta data, and computations/computer programs, there is absolutely nothing that can relied upon in the area of Climate Science.

And indeed, Yid With Lid walks us through just how unreliable that climate science really is. Probably the most influential single graph furthering the mania of AGW has been Mann's Hockey Stick - the one where he dropped the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age from the historical record. Yid blogs on a Guardian article exposing how others at the CRU were skeptical of Mann's rather amazing feat of erasure at the time it took center stage.

And on a final surreal note, the Senate has postponed hearings on "Global Warming Impacts, Including Public Health, in the United States." Anyone who discounts the reality of the Gore effect or the existence of a God with a sense of humor is missing the obvious.