Global Warming And ‘Climate Change’ May Possibly Be Contributing To…Wait, What?

I’ve been following this scientific political issue since the late 1980’s, a time when, as I’ve mentioned many times, I did believe that Mankind was mostly changing the climate, creating global warming. I’ve seen them change it to ‘climate change’. I was able to do my own homework, rather than relying on a partisan news media, and changed my belief set in the early 2000’s. And I’ve been blogging about this issue as a big part of this small site since the mid-2000’s. I scroll be dozens, if not hundreds, of stories and Tweets a day, yet, I do not recollect ever seeing a whopper like this one

Global warming and climate change may be contributing to record-breaking heat waves

The question of why these high-temperature heat waves seem to come back every so often has yet to be fully answered. However, some studies do indicate factors such as global warming might play a role in these events, Texas State University professor Richard Dixon said.

“The climate models predict, in an overall warming world, heat waves will become more frequent and more long-lasting,” Dixon said. “So, if you think about the climate model as an experiment that poses a question, then we’re seeing the answer that was posed from that climate model.”

Global warming is not the only scientific topic that has been introduced to explain increased temperatures and heat waves over the last few decades. Climate change, which has been a topic of discussion in both the scientific and political world, is another occurrence that has been invited into the conversation.

Scientists believe climate change to be an event that has been occurring over the last century due to hazardous toxins and activity produced by humans. These hazardous elements are believed to have been the cause of numerous changes to the world’s original composition.

While scientists continue to study to gather evidence of climate change, the recent heat wave will have to remain off their list of evidence for quite a while, McGregor said.

“I don’t believe that what we’ve seen is necessarily evidence of climate change. However, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that global warming is real and climate change is occurring,” McGregor said. “But you can’t take every unusual weather event that happens and say that’s proof of climate change because it’s not necessarily.”

Huh what? This is what happens when you’re trying to intermix actual science with dogmatic cult talking points, while also scapegoating mankind and ignoring past warming periods.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

28 Responses to “Global Warming And ‘Climate Change’ May Possibly Be Contributing To…Wait, What?”

  1. Jeffery says:

    TEACH typed: creating global warming. I’ve seen them change it to ‘climate change’.

    As you know, the IPCC was created way back in 1988, and was the beginnings of the international movement to limit global warming. IPCC is an acronym for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It was created 30 years ago.

    So when did “they” change global warming to climate change?

    Sounds like another falsehood in the deni-o-sphere.

    • Jeffery says:

      In addition to the IPCC, the CIA called it climate change…

      In 1974, the C.I.A. issued a classified report on the carbon-dioxide problem. It concluded that climate change had begun around 1960 and had “already caused major economic problems throughout the world.” The future economic and political impacts would be “almost beyond comprehension.”

  2. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: I’ve seen them change it to ‘climate change’.

    They mean different things. Global warming refers to an increase in Earth’s mean surface temperature, or sometimes to an increase in Earth’s aggregate heat content. Climate change refers to shifts in regional weather patterns.

    William Teach: The question of why these high-temperature heat waves seem to come back every so often has yet to be fully answered.

    What we can expect with global warming is more high temperature records on average than cold temperature records, and that is what we observe.

  3. McGehee says:

    We can also expect more high temperature records than cold temperature records in a perfectly natural, cyclical interglacial period such as we’ve been in for the last several thousand years. We are not yet overdue for the interglacial to break (though the current pause, which the climate cultists deny like the science-haters they are, may be a harbinger), but when it does, the reversal of the relationship between high versus low temperature records will emerge.

  4. Jeffery says:

    It’s amazing that science/climate change deniers feel they know more science than scientists. Even deniers understand the ridiculousness of their position which explains why they insist that actual scientists are all “on the take” cultists.

    The Earth is warming from the CO2 we humans are pumping into the atmosphere. New Conservatives deny the science because they object to any collective interference of their selfishness.

    • McGehee says:

      You’re so cute.

      • Jeffery says:

        Says a moustache with a hat.

        • Mangoldielocks says:

          It’s amazing that science/climate change deniers feel they know more science than scientists.

          The following is conjecture and speculation on my part:

          This is similar to Hollywood types who know more than the rest of us on Social Justice. Or how it’s becoming increasingly more dangerous in this country to be a white male. Perhaps its related to the crime wave in Chicago overseen by a Democratic Mayor and city government in which Their town has more murders than New York and Los Angeles Combined.

          Everyone who blogs or comments on blogs is an expert. Civil war is coming. The left believes they can win a war and want one. Badly. If they win the mid terms they will impeach Trump. Enough never trumpers who have had their swamp churned up and their offshore deposits halted will vote and we will have our first ever impeachment of a president carried to its fullest extent.

          And when this happens you will see violence in this country that will lead to civil war. Count on it. There are 60 million trump lovers who will take to the streets. There will be sixty million trump haters take to the streets and inbetween them all is 900,000 cops and a couple million national guardsmen all taking sides.

          Civil war is but a few votes away, a few months away as I look at the Rhetoric on this site it is plain that the trump haters are vile and nasty, making the Obama haters look tame. Obama inspired the tea party a bunch of grey haired grandpas marching peacefully in the streets.

          Trump has inspired insurrection and Antifa and a hatred for all things Right of Communism.

          I would urge people to walk it back. But they wont. I would urge people to take a deep breath but they are too busy hyper ventilating over a president who is defending himself against egregious lies by everyone.

          So there is no going back. California wants to break from the country. I would surmise their are about 30 states that will make this same break in the coming year or two. Then the Illegals can have California, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado. Texas will of course simply throw any trouble making Hispanics out of the state. After all there is no more CONSTITUION to stand behind right?

          Right? No more constitution to guarantee either side has a legitimate position.

          Walk it back folks. Walk it back.

          • Zachriel says:

            Mangoldielocks: Everyone who blogs or comments on blogs is an expert.

            Well, no, which is why most people rely on expert opinion. In this case, there is a strong consensus that anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that it will significantly alter climate. If you prefer not relying on expert opinion, then you can refer to the evidence.

            Mangoldielocks: Civil war is coming.

            Doubtful, but irrelevant to the topic.

          • Jeffery says:

            If Donald Trump is impeached by the House as described in our Constitution, and removed from office by the Senate as described in our Constitution, you believe “60 million trump lovers who will take to the streets”?

            Will you?

            Did Dems take to the streets when President Clinton was impeached for lying about oral sex? Trump has admitted that his campaign conspired with the Russians to vitiate our electoral process. It’s very likely he obstructed justice.

            Walk it back.

            Have you advised Trump to “walk it back”? He calls our free press “the enemy of the people”. He describes every Black person he deals with as dumb, low IQ, stupid and unintelligent.

  5. Jl says:

    “May be contributing to heat waves…” Or may not be.
    “Global warming ‘might’ play a roll…” Or, it might not be.

    • Jeffery says:


      Since scientific theories cannot be proven, the language of science is filled with “may”, “might”, “suggests”, “possible” and “likely”.

      So it’s highly probable that fossil fuel generated CO2 is causing the Earth to warm, but not proved.

      If you’re diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme, your oncologist will give no more than a 5% chance of being alive in 5 years, and it’s likely you’ll die within 1 to 2 years even with aggressive treatment. She might tell you you “might” be cured.

      Science deniers think politically and magically, but not scientifically, so they attack scientists for being honest.

      What is your hypothesis to explain this period of rapid warming?

  6. Jeffery says:

    Is it possible that the NuCons of 2008 decided that sacrificing Europe, Africa and the US coasts would help in their goal of an authoritarian regime? Up until 2008 even Republicans understood the long-term dangers associated with global warming.

    It’s still more likely they just wanted to solidify their base of undereducated, Christian white people.

  7. Jl says:

    The hypothesis is the same natural warming the has warmed the earth to as warm, or warmer than it is now for the last 4.5 billion yrs. And the same old “rapid warming” still doesn’t work because there’s no comparable records to be able to say that. The “rapid warming” claim is taken during a period of thermometer use. How fast did other 150 yr periods warm? We don’t know

    • Zachriel says:

      Jl: The hypothesis is the same natural warming the has warmed the earth to as warm, or warmer than it is now for the last 4.5 billion yrs.

      However, that hypothesis fails. Natural factors do not account for the current warming trend, while fundamental physics indicates that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases will cause the surface to warm.

      Jl: The “rapid warming” claim is taken during a period of thermometer use.

      Thermometers are not the only way to determine temperature change.

      • drowningpuppies says:

        Bazic Phyzicz by Zzzzz:

        Hardly, but rather based on the basic physics of heat flow.
        Start with this basic fact: The Earth can only gain or lose heat radiatively.
        #2.3.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-11 10:24


  8. Jl says:

    And to show how blatant the scam is, notice how NOAA said in 1989 that there hadn’t been any US warming for the last 100 yrs, but just like magic suddenly there was..

    • Zachriel says:

      Jl: just like magic suddenly

      The article conflates absolute temperature with temperature anomaly.

    • david134 says:

      You do realize that our boy z is just a kid. It seems the current one just rotated in and is trying to do his troll thing. In a bit he will be over at legal insurrection and hitting other conservative blogs with other names that are not yet blocked.

      • Jeffery says:

        Hi dave!

        If Zachriel is a but a child, how embarrassing for you and your tribe that he effortlessly slashes and dices your every argument, using only evidence.

  9. Jl says:

    Excuse me- not the bottom graph but the 1999-2016 graph

    • Zachriel says:

      Jl: the 1999-2016 graph

      If you follow the link it explains the difference: “The corresponding graph in Hansen et al. (1999) shows a smaller trend, since it is based on data that were not yet corrected for station moves and time-of-observation changes, see FAQ.”

Pirate's Cove