It's not me you have the argument with… ;D
(from the comments on the linked article)
I really don't understand that, because the University at which I study is one of the world-leaders in this, and I recently saw an article from the Cimatic Research Unit on the University's own internal network that said that, whilst the year was cooler than many recent years, it was still above average. Thing is, you can't trash a well-grounded theory because of one cold year. Give it several consecutive cold years and there's hope that we're entering something like the 17th-18th Century cold snap that saw frost fairs on the river Thames in London, but you really can't re-write science on one result. Anyway, I'm, not going to get drawn into this argument again – I fear that too many are still complacent because they don't want to risk forefeiting their way of life for something that might not bcome too problematic in their lifetime (understandable human tendencies that we all have, of course), but human inertia and ignoring elephants in the room so very nearly led to Britain being invaded in 1940 (Churchill was deried as a senile fool for warning of the dangers posed by Hitler: "Of course" everyone else said "Herr Hitler poses no threat to the UK").
There's also the tendency of people in one country to say "Well, we had lots of snow, so everywhere must have been." Ze fly has already alluded to a very poor skiing year in the Alps; Souhern Britain has had barely had a dusting. I'm no climate researcher, but I am a scientist, and there are many examples of non-scientists misrepresenting, misunderstanding, and simply ignoring scientists when we don't say what people want us to say or we explain that we can't speak with absolute certainty. Very little in science is proveable beyond all doubt; that's why Climate Change is called a theory not a Law. As scientists, we base our theories around the available evidence and continue to seek new evidence. If the new evidence casts doubt on the theory, then it is debated and assessed, and, if it is accepted as being valid, the theory is modified. The theory of climate change, as I understand it, is not set in stone; however, to hope that it is incorrect or to ignore it is very unwise. Perhaps Al Gore should have called his film "An Incovenient Theory that hasn't been proven yet but is probably the Truth", but "An Inconvenient Truth" is somewhat more memorable and not much less accurate. ;D
