Yes, if you _systematically_ string anecdotes together in a way that accounts for sampling, etc. it means something. That process is, in fact, statistics. That is also very different than people jumping on this anecdote or that to try and prove global warming does, or does not, exist.

As to why people are believing that global warming is an out-and-out hoax. I think this is because the issue has been caught up on partisanship. Remember, it is standard procedure to consider everything a partisan opponent says to be “lies”.

And we wonder why people think global warming is a hoax? Not possible, not probable, but a hoax perpetrated by ??? with an interest of regulating extraction/manufacturing corporations out of business. It’s all a huge conspiracy, and by gum we’re wise to all those conspiracies.

The weather at any given point in time is not evidence for or against global warming. I agree with David’s point that if the weather on a given day is consistent with global warming and is used as evidence for global warming, the opposite must also be true, namely that when the weather is not consistent with global warming it can be used as evidence against global warming. The solution is to not use isolated weather events as evidence.

Abetter example than the cold winters mentioned above might be hurricanes. there were many that tied Hurricane Katrina to global warming and predicted very severe hurricane seasons to come. The year following Katrina actually had a mild hurricane season. The single mild hurricane season was not evidence against global warming, however previous attempts to use Katrina as evidence encouraged people to also use the mild hurricane season as evidence. The solution is to resist using isolated weather events as evidence and insist on long term data.

The second topic – partisanship – is an impediment to the discussion and understanding of global warming whether one is liberal or conservative. The issue is heavily partisan, and the most important factor in how someone feels about it is not generally based on scientific background or understanding, it’s based on political party. I don’t want to speak for David here, but it seems like he was saying in the usual partisan zeal to make an argument, people are tempted to disregard science and use anecdotes to make their position. This approach serves no one, since when the weather changes the opposing party will use that as anecdotal evidence as well, and it will have been legitimatized (wrongly) by the first use of anecdotal evidence. The solution is to decry use of anecdotal evidence no matter which side is using it.

I’m not sure I meant to call the post partisan. I think (and to be honest I don’t remember my thoughts at the time) I may have been thinking about how the use of anecdotal evidence (which partisan debates are full of) and the “capture” of the issue as a partisan one are linked (and simply did a very poor job of linking to the use of anecdotal evidence to partisanship rather than linking the article to partisanship).

I have recently been thinking about the reasons for the failure to get the public to understand that the fact the world is getting warmer is one of the least controversial and have been convinced for some time that the use of the issue in partisan warfare is part of the reason.

I will comment that in some places colder winters can, in fact, be a consequence of global warming. But it is true for the same reason that global warming can in produce cooler summers in some places. In the end anecdotes about hot summers leave you open to anecdotes about cold winters.