21 Responses to “U.K. citizens wish global warming was true”

  1. JMD says:

    This video must be fake. The Met said the UK was in for a mild winter and they got their data from the CRU at East Anglia. Those are unimpeachable sources, right?

    This footage must have been shot where I live in eastern Canada. We have lots of global warming on the ground and I have been out to shovel it every day this week.

  2. Wednesday, 6 January 2010
    Britain braced for heaviest snowfall in 50 years
    Telegraph
    “The heaviest snowfall in almost 50 years is hitting parts of Britain as Arctic weather brought nationwide chaos. …The Met Office claimed the amount of snow forecast could be the biggest single fall since the notorious winter of 1962-63, when some areas of the country were blighted by snow and ice for more than three months.”

  3. Taruni says:

    A tip of the hat to Mother Nature for giving the lie to the Jones’ and the Manns’ and the Rajenders’ and the Al(l) Gores of the world.

  4. Kaboom says:

    What do you not understand about predictions of increased precipitation in accordance with the settled science?

    Snowfall is precipitation.

    Global warming heats the oceans, which increases water vapour in the troposphere, which leads to …… increased precipitation. This is known as a feedback mechanism.

    Not only that, but it is rotten snow, which will not do anything for the Arctic, galciers, or endangered polar bears.

    • Don Perry says:

      What Kool-Aid have you been drinking, Kaboom? When all the smoke clears from Climatgate, perhaps the truth will come to light. There has been global warming since the Little Ice Age and current climate fluctuations are part of the natural cycle. All the hype about AGW is politically motivated nonsense intended to control your life and enrich the few who push for cap-and-trade schemes. If you want a better indicator of climate change, watch the sun.

      • Steve Mennie says:

        What do we call the politically motivated nonsense being utilized today to control your life and enrich the few?

      • Kaboom says:

        No Kool-Aid (or more precisely, Flavor-Aid) at all.

        Just the science. Precipitation isn’t just rain, you know. All of these feedbacks have been precisely predicted by the models, which have themselves been created by expert climate scientists.

        The “climategate” hacking and theft of personal bantering e-mails does not in any way, shape or form diminish the scientific truth of the models. Sure, past data may have been fudged a little, but the models themselves utilise purely scientific forward-looking design parameters.

        • JMD says:

          Ah yes, Kaboom, the models. Would those be the models that failed to predict the 1998 El Nino which had such a huge weather impact that year? Or failed to predict the cooling we have experienced in recent years. The models can’t even handle atmospheric water vapour (clouds) which are so important to weather. Besides how can you accurately model a chaotic, non-linear system such as climate where variables are infinite? Have another sip of Al Gore’s Kool-Aid, Kaboom.

        • Joe Keough says:

          Hmmm. It’s becoming even more difficult to hide the decline. And that is a travesty.

        • Lon says:

          “The “climategate” hacking and theft of personal bantering e-mails does not in any way, shape or form diminish the scientific truth of the models.”

          Took a class in Oceanography last summer. I also live in Florida where we have hurricanes each year. Both experiences have brought me to the same conclusion. Oceans: Models are based on whatever data scientists determine is pertinent. It takes 100 points of date just to predict the waves in a simple inlet tomorrow. Who picks what is pertinent? Hurricanes: If you plug the same data into 3 different hurricane models today, they will all disagree on where the hurricane will be tomorrow. Models are not worth the time they take to write them. The globe (starting with the seas) is just too complex. THAT is the scientific truth about models.

          • John P A Knowles says:

            Lon, I agree entirely with your comments on computer models. Junk in – junk out. Even if we understood the chaotic nature of some climate variables we still do not have sufficient computational power to run a meaningful model.
            I note that many warming models predict a warming of the Equatorial air at 10,000m. This has never happened.
            A computer is just a number crunching tool with zero intelligence.
            JPAK.

          • Sophia says:

            “The “climategate” hacking and theft of personal bantering e-mails does not in any way, shape or form diminish the scientific truth of the models.”

            I would say that the above statement is absolutely 100% correct. The hacking and theft of the e-mails does not diminish the scientific truth of the models.

            It is the models themselves that diminish the scientific truth of the models. The hacking and theft of e-mails only points it out to everyone.

  5. Steve Mennie says:

    Seems it’s been forgotten that ‘global warming’ will result (has resulted) in chaotic and unpredictable weather. Simple minds continually confuse weather with climate.

    • Lon says:

      Actually, climate is just a long-term trend in weather. Scientists determine climate based on 20-year periods always excluding the current decade. That is one of the things that makes the current alarms (even if true) so untrustworthy. It violates the rules the scientists have themselves established.

      However, climate changers can point to a hot week in the summer and say, “Ha, global warming!” but doubters are not allowed to look at a cold week in winter and say, “Ha, not warming!”

    • Kaboom says:

      Look, it’s quite simple:

      It is weather if it happens on a scale of less than 30 years.

      It is climate if the weather keeps going in the same direction for 30 years.

      Please e-mail me in 2040, and let me know whether the climate is warming or cooling….

    • Igor says:

      Steve, maybe you could explain

      a. What was this “Holocene Climatic Optimum”;
      b. Why on earth it is called “Optimum”; and
      c. What the temperatures were like during that period?..

  6. Lon says:

    Exactly. Now that would be consistent with a good scientific method. However, in 2040 we will not be able to give a sound conclusion beyond 2030.

  7. Sophia says:

    What a disaster… Can you imagine the carbon footprint required to clear all that snow?

  8. Sophia says:

    Anyone have a video of someone shoveling snow off the sidewalk / parking lot at CRU?

    • Joe Keough says:

      Dear Sophia,

      Your last three observations have left me feeling warm all over! I have a new hero!

      Thank you,

      Joe Keough

  9. John says:

    Sophia,
    Thanks, that’s the funniest thing I heard today. I also laughed when Kaboom said this, “All of these feedbacks have been precisely predicted by the models, which have themselves been created by expert climate scientists.” and then he/she went on to say, “Please e-mail me in 2040, and let me know whether the climate is warming or cooling….” Does this person know anything about climate change? He must be an embarrassment to all the warmists everywhere.

This website is for sale for $10,000. Contact us if interested.