“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” –Mahatma Gandhi

I listen to the song “I Go to Extremes” by Billy Joel quite often. In fact, as I am writing this, I am listening to it. Given my personality, it fits.

It’s probably why I love the weather and the challenge of forecasting its extremes – it’s in the blood. It’s also why I am well acquainted with what the weather has done and what it can do, which is why to me this whole climate fight is turning into some kind of silly bad dream. The average is a product of all events, some more extreme than anything we are seeing now. In fact, I believe by making the public aware of what the weather has done and the extremes that are a natural part of life on the planet, we do a service by helping people to understand this is nothing mysterious, and is forecastable. Keeping with the rock and roll motif, the entire climate “fight” has turned into a scientific version of Bob Dylan’s “Desolation Row,” which I listen to quite often also because the characters and lines come out of nowhere, and probably only make sense to Dylan. Which is what I assume about some of the people telling us the things they are – it only makes sense to them. Then again, maybe not. I was once in a rock and roll band and I wrote our songs with our lead guitar player who was from England. We would always argue about the ending of a song. I felt you needed to set up the listener and then get him with the hook at the end, conveying your meaning. My friend said it doesn’t matter what you think, it’s what the listener wants to think.

Now where is this going? (You have admit, you have never heard folks in the AGW debate try to get a point across by quoting Ghandi and then bringing up rock and roll.)

I try to take solace in Thoreau: “The sum of all our fictions add up to a joint reality.” But what happens when you are in a “debate” with people that seem to think there are heroes and villains; try to claim this is some kind of war; are allowed to isolate, demonize and destroy their opponents; and basically could care less about any facts that get in the way of their fictions as long as they get their goal?

And that is another problem: When you peal away the layers of this onion one suspects that, given all the excuses for why their forecast is busting, including one of the best ones – the opposite of what we said is simply part of what we were saying – you have to conclude that the layers are simply meant to hide the real intent.

But I feel that in this debate you have to set up the listener with a forecast, then have him see if it’s right. I don’t think it’s anything goes. The forecast was made in 2007 by me on national television: Earth’s temperatures would start to fall as the flip in the ocean cycles meant cooling of the waters. The sun, oceans and stochastic events made up the theme of the tune I was playing. The hook was the end of the forecast: By 2030, we return to where we were in 1978 as measured by objective satellite readings, which we did not really have before that time like we do now. Simple test, not much wiggle room. So far I am right. Their models are wrong.

I am my fathers son and he always taught me to know history, look for light and never quit. I figure at the very least, being involved with this is helping me with that lesson. It forces you to look for things of the past, like the opening quote from Ghandi, or read and reread Kipling’s “If.” The test of greatness is time, and that poem perhaps is as meaningful as anything I have read.

Yet some of the wisdom I have garnered from today – be it Billy Joel’s wondering about what drives him, or Dylan’s mystifying ballad (at least to me) – somehow blends in for me. You have to understand, I am not trying to save the planet. Because of that I feel that there is another lesson in all this. While I find that a lot of people are trying to affect those around them by trying to force them toward what they believe is a better solution, I think the better way to get an answer is to question oneself and respond, not force the answer on another person.

This is unlike any argument I have ever been in. The more I look, and the more I study it, the more I believe the demon they are trying to destroy is boxed in by all around it. It’s there, but it’s so over-rated that its actual influence as far as our life on the planet truncates to 0. Yet we are told opposite no matter what the facts say. Somehow, being involved, it all ties together for me in a personal way.

So here we are, in a winter that several years ago my antagonists were trying to say would never occur, who are now wondering if it will ever end (they want people to forget they said that – the quote “kids won’t know what snow is anymore” stands out). I was out in Sept. 2011 explaining why, based on natural climate cycle theory, the winters of ‘12-'13, '13-'14, and '14-'15 could be bad (admittedly last year got started late but made up for it well into spring). It’s kind of tough to listen to all this and not fly off the handle. In fact it’s one thing after another. But then there is Ghandi and Kipling – far better men than what I could ever be, shining a light to reach for.

And of course there is Blly Joel, with the rock and rollers version of Eccl. 1-9: “there is nothing new under the sun.” We didn’t start the fire.

In the great scheme of things, the old and new can come together to help one in a time where confusion is used as a reason to gain control.

Joe Bastardi is chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm.