There’s so much glee and gloating in the deniers’ headlines: “Central Plank of Global Warming Alarmism Discredited” (referring to MIT researcher Kerry Emanuel’s recent finding that climate change might not result in more and stronger hurricanes), “Uncommon Cold is an Antidote to Warming Fears” (it’s been cold this winter, hasn’t it?), “Global Warming Gets the Cold Freeze” (ditto). Yup, a budget crunch for snow-removal in Chicago and cold iguanas falling from trees in Florida sure proves all those hundreds of silly IPCC scientists wrong.

Except they don’t. One season does not a climate trend disprove. As Grist’s excellent guide on “How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic” points out, just because “It’s cold today in Wagga Wagga” doesn’t mean a thing. Cold today (or this week) is just weather. Climate is a different thing entirely.

Or, look at it this way: the long-term odds of tossing heads or tails on a penny always trend toward 50-50. The more times you toss, the closer to a 50-50 spread you’ll get. But toss a penny just 10 times, it can happen occasionally that you’ll get heads every time. That doesn’t mean the tails side of the coin has disappeared.

Two researchers from Tufts University made a similar analogy in a study last year on “Florida and Climate Change: The Costs of Inaction.” They put it like this: in a standard 52-card deck, the average number you’ll draw over time will approach seven. Add some extra high-score cards to the deck, though, and your average will be higher over time … even if you occasionally get a two- or three-card.

This past winter, for many, was a two- or three-card on the temperature scale, unusually low. Over the long term, though, the climate deck is still stacked for a higher average. And there’s no glee in that.

An article in Canada’s National Post summarized weather around the northern hemisphere and concluded that arctic ice is back, heavier than ever in some areas, and China is reeling from its worst winter in a century.

Of course, it doesn’t mean global warming is a non-entity, nor does it mean we’re headed for a mini ice-age. The author, Lorne Gunter, took a swipe at environmentalists this way:

“Ok, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.

But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Geeorgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter’s weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.”

The article goes on to claim that winds drive ocean currents northward from the tropics, and that has accounted for much of the recent polar ice melt.

To prove that point, Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona here in Tucson, is quoted as saying that current theories about polar ice-melt cooling the oceans and stopping the circulation of warm water to northern latitudes is wrong. Wind patterns determine the flow of warm ocean currents northward. There will be no mini Ice Age as has been predicted.

Then there’s the theory that the sun is entering a period of sunspot inactivity. The last time the sun was inactive for a long period of time, a five-century-long Ice Age gripped the earth, ending in 1850.

A Russian scientist, Oleg Sorokhtin of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, is quoted as saying man made climate change is a “drop in the bucket” compared to what could happen if sunspot inactivity continues. He advised people to “stock up on fur coats.”

Pick your poison, as we used to say. Nature is doing its thing, we’re doing ours, and who’s to know what’s really happening to our planet?