It is interesting how a major event can be used for opposing arguments. For example the monster mid Atlantic snow storm. I have seen numerous ah ha comments snarling “take that global warming”. On the other hand it is reported that, yes, this is actually because of global warming. The rationale there is that since the Pacific Ocean was 2 degrees above normal last summer we are having an extremely strong El Nino which has been putting lots of water across the Northern Hemisphere, including these record snows and floods in California.
Now whether this is part of a normal El Nino, La Nino oscillation, or actually global warming is up for debate. It could just be normal fluctuation, especially after the longer than usual quiet sun period. However, it is pretty well established that a warm Pacific does lead to strong El Ninos.
Aside from the pro or con of the argument, it does make sense for us to conserve our finite resources, and develop all that we can, especially those that can be made in the USA, and stop paying for oil to unfriendly nations.
Here is a link on the current major mid Atlantic storm:
The other side (the manmade global warming believers) does it all the time in order to rationalize why the factual data may differ from their beliefs. It is no longer global warming but climate change, which can cover anything and everything.
The believers have a hard time explaining why their climate change models aren't working, i.e., there has been no global warming since 1998. If manmade global warming is the result of build ups of CO2, then why the current cooling? It reminds me of Obama's claiming all of the jobs he has saved despite the continuing loss of jobs. The response: It would have been far worse without Obama's intervention.
I want the other side to explain Climategate and the falsification of data to substantiate their theories. The science is far from settled. In fact, the greatest scientific hoax ever perpetuated on mankind is manmade global warming.
Which finite resources?