Our top climate scientists tell us that the storms are being caused by nonexistent warm, wet air.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
daveburton on Gallup Poll Shows That Very Fe… daveburton on Will Yale Censor My Comme… daveburton on Gallup Poll Shows That Very Fe… John on The Price Of Telling The Truth… Don Gaddes on Seven Year Drought Killed 40%… Bill Sokeland on NSIDC : Arctic Was Ice Free In… Notes To Ponder on 45 Years Since Paul Ehrlich Wa… gator69 on A Proof That Greenhouse Gas Dr… gator69 on Toto Has Moved! Menicholas on Toto Has Moved!
Real Science 
A reply in comments to me from a woman at NSIDC was, to the effect, to ask did I think there would be less snow in a global warming world. I knew she meant did I think that with more evaporation in a global warming world could that result in less snow.
But, here we are with less moisture but more snow. It would seem she had it partly right with there being more snow. But with winter 2001/10 having the second greatest snow extent on record she didn’t have that part right either. Because according to global warming ‘science’ there will be more snow in a smaller area, i.e., less extent.
Doh!
Maybe global warming science will get something right some day. But then even a broken clock is exactly right twice a day.
“Our top climate scientists tell us that the storms are being caused by nonexistent warm, wet air.”
Only fitting these “top” climate scientists are fully supported by a nonexistent concensus.
We will see how bold our Top Federal scientists are in the next budget phase, after they become non-supported with non-existent funds.
They said “more moisture” from the thawing Arctic…
It has not been more moisture, it has been less.
Let me just go ahead and say it for all the bedwetters – this is all completely consistent with global warming and was predicted by climate scientists using their GCMs.
Playstation Sim Planet!
Uhh, they’re using that high tech of a machine? Now I am impressed. They can probably make any picure they want with that setup.
And if it snows, or rains, or is cold, or hot, or dry, or windy, or calm, just remember – it is all consistent with AGW theory and was predicted using Sim Planet.
Just think, the USA is getting 0.1 F warmer every 10 years. In 100 years it might be 1.0 F warmer. So that justfies spending billions to study climate change and hundreds of billions in past and future taxes on carbon. How stupid are we to allow the theft of our future.
From the NOAA website referenced above: “… The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.
… The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is -0.01 inches per decade.”
For the contiguous US the official trends are 1.0F/century (0.55C/century) and flat for precipitation. How can Gore et al say that anything that happens in or near the US of A is a product of global warming?
The regional aspect of “global warming” seems lost. If we were to identify the top region of warming each year, identify and remove it from the global record, what would happen? I suspect that we’d see that the average “global” trend is cooling, not warming.
Anyone care to disagree?
droughtflood
Actually Doug, since 1998, the globe HAS been cooling.
http://thetruthpeddler.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/latest-data-confirms-a-global-cooling-trend/
I agree with Hal, lets see how many support AGW and Gore when the money starts to run out. Scientists like most educated people, follow the money….