It is not hard to find members of the Church clamoring all over themselves with their proof of global warming by pointing out record heat.  A simple Google search will give you all the pages you want for this (despite many of them ignoring the last 10 years of cooling).

But during a record cold spell, in times like this, one must be reminded by the true believers that just because heat is a sign of global warming, that doesn’t mean cold is the opposite:  A sign against.

A couple of examples for you:

ABC News:

Beijing had its coldest morning in almost 40 years and its biggest snowfall since 1951. Britain is suffering through its longest cold snap since 1981. And freezing weather is gripping the Deep South, including Florida’s orange groves and beaches.

Whatever happened to global warming?

Such weather doesn’t seem to fit with warnings from scientists that the Earth is warming because of greenhouse gases. But experts say the cold snap doesn’t disprove global warming at all — it’s just a blip in the long-term heating trend.

Christian Science Monitor:

The brutal cold snap that has put much of the Northern Hemisphere on ice this week doesn’t disprove global warming or mean we’re off the hook for greenhouse emissions.

No sane climate scientist would say that global warming means never having another severe cold snap. What it does mean is a gradual shifting of the odds away from record-breaking cold days and toward record-breaking hot ones.

The Independent:

Closer to home, while we shivered yesterday, in Madrid the temperature was 10C against a seasonal average of 9C, and in Rome it was 13C, compared to an average of 11C. The weather’s natural variability means it is impossible to draw long-term conclusions about a changing climate from any single episode, be it of hot, or cold.

Sphere:

Surely, this means that all of this talk — or at least some of it — about global warming is hype.
No, it doesn’t.

Telegraph.co.uk:

But he said it was wrong to focus on single events – whether they were cold snaps or heat waves – which were the product of natural variability.

Instead they should look at the underlying, longer term trends for the climate which were more ”robust” evidence of the changes which are happening.

They go on and on.  The dilemma here is they are all saying the same thing: 

Just because we’re in a cold snap, doesn’t mean we should see that as a sign of anything.  Instead we should look at the bigger picture.

Much like the Wizard of Oz, here they say one thing, but behind the curtain, something else entirely is going on.

Now, again, the Interweb is a fantastic source of information.  Anyone can Google and disprove what their saying now in regards to not paying attention to a single weather event.  They have all argued at one point or another that every time it gets hot for a day, that warmth is proof positive of climate change.  Even watching the media reflects this, as television is bombarded every summer with Global Warming this, Climate Change that every time the mercury rises even for a short event.

Yet now that big-time cold is happening, and not just for a day or an isolated event, they yelp to ignore the facts behind the curtain.

As one commentator (by the name of board_member) wrote on the Independent article:

Wait just one cotton-pickin’ minute, it seems like only yesterday (maybe 2 weeks ago), all you climate warm-mongers were screaming and shouting, touting VERY localized observations of warming trends to reinforce your claims of the devastating effects of anthropogenic global warming. Now that the same observations don’t support that claim, you’re saying that the localized observations are meaningless? What gives?? Which is it??

You’re not trying to sell us something, are you? Surely not!

You see, I have two problems with the whole “Let’s look at long-term trends” thing that they are spouting now.

They weren’t saying it in the summer, or when they wanted to point out localized observations of warming.

Even if we go back a thousand years, we still aren’t looking “long-term trends” which go back millions of years.

The earth has been warming/cooling with and without humans here.  We are even at a low point when it comes to the earth’s temperature, as the average global temperature is somewhere around 6-8 degrease census warmer then the earth is now, but all of this history and “long-term trends” is ignored for 1000 year hockey stick graphs to pick and choose the reference points.  I’m sorry, but 1000 years of history on the Earth (which even ignores the medieval warm period) is like me judging climate trends for the next year based off of the last fifteen seconds.

In the case of measuring history and pointing fingers, size matters, and no one wants to show the temperature record going back millions of years because it completely blows away the entire notion of human caused global warming.  Sorry guys, but my graph is bigger.