

Long-term cooling trend found in northern European climate - stfu
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-07/11/european-climate-record

======
patio11
There has been a dedicated effort to rebrand "global warming" as "climate
change." A cynic might note that no set of observations is inconsistent with
climate change.

(There is a less cynical take on the matter which goes something along the
lines of "Climate is distinct from individual temperature measurements and is
a highly localized phenomenon. If the phenomenon described as 'global warming'
came to pass, some places are going to get 'hotter' and some might get
'colder', because the atmosphere is really freaking complicated. Additionally,
climate has things which are interrelated but distinct from temperature, such
that humans in a particular region might really care about e.g. precipitation
patterns changing radically enough to disrupt their agriculture even though
they do not experience local changes in observed temperatures. Also, lay
people tend to think 'Brr, this is a particularly cold winter, guess global
warming isn't happening' but that is perfectly consistent with warming
elsewhere and even warming _right there_ , because even with a warming trend
there will still be cold days and the usual variation in temperature cycles,
and because people suck at measuring everything.")

~~~
ChuckMcM
Not sure why you got down voted, its a valid observation At some point the
science will catch up and we'll have a better understanding of what factors
change the climate both anthropogenic and what ever the opposite of that word
is. Since ice ages aren't really 'global warming' but they are valid 'climate
change' the latter seems to be a better category name for the phenomena.

A cynic would note that the brand 'Global Warming' has been co-opted by a
bunch of folks who would rather you were required to live your life to their
rules, rather than the existing rules, and so use the threat of human
extinction as a bludgeon to mould the less scientifically minded.

~~~
jonhendry
" bunch of folks who would rather you were required to live your life to their
rules"

This is a better description of the people who want me to live by _their_
rules - the people who want to burn lots of coal, for instance. I get to live
with their emissions, whether I like it or not.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I think we agree. Doesn't matter if the people defining the 'right' way to
live are Catholics, Jews, Christians, Warmists, Marxists, Anarchists, or any
other.

Group A, demands behavior B, threatens consequence C if people don't adhere to
the rules.

Sometimes the threat is positioned as a natural consequence "if you give up
your civil liberties you give others the power to disappear you", sometimes
the agent is more faith based like "if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your
personal savior you won't get into heaven and live with the angels."

Much of the warmist _rhetoric_ is akin to religion "If you don't change your
ways you will burn in an over warm planet." Much of the warming _science_ is
about understanding cause and effect. Trying to talk science with someone
whose opinions are based on faith (or emotion) is generally unproductive.

------
tedsuo
If you'd like to read a more accurate and detailed article on the new study:
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/07/tree-r...](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/07/tree-
rings-and-climate-some-recent-developments/)

------
sanxiyn
Previously on HN: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4223269>

Wired one is a much better reporting.

