One almost has to admire the Blumer-esque cluelessness of P.J. Gladnick.
In a July 26 NewsBusters post, Gladnick berates the Discovery Channel for making the utterly uncontroversial claim that recent colder-than-normal temperatures in the Bering Sea don't disprove global warming because the sea operates on its own cycle of warming and cooling and that existence of global warming "doesn't mean every spot on the globe gets warmer every year":
Huh? So they admit the temperatures are cyclical but hold stubbornly to the global warming theory for which no evidence is presented. See, if it is getting warmer that is evidence for global warming. However, if the temperatures are getting colder, that is also proof of global warming according to this bizarre reasoning.
My suggestion to the Discovery Channel is to do what they are supposed to do. Discover the science behind global warming instead of blindly accepting it as established fact.
But the idea that not every location on the planet is undergoing a warming trend even as the planet as a whole is undergoing one is not "bizarre reasoning" at all: As we've noted, even global warming "skeptic" Patrick Michaels has warned against portraying short-term extreme weather in a given location as indicative of the existence (or not) of global warming. That presumably also applies to weather cycles in specific locales like the Bering Sea.
Is Gladnick really that impervious to logic? It seems so.