Climate Science Rule #1 : Never Look At Actual Data

Global warming over the next century could significantly reduce the amount of winter snowpack in mountainous areas in the northern hemisphere, according to a new study published in Nature Climate Change.

Seasonal snowpack melt is an essential source of fresh water, and its loss could threaten drinking water supplies, agricultural irrigation and wildlife ecosystems.

Stanford University climate expert Noah Diffenbaugh led the study, which compares snowpack conditions across the northern hemisphere in the late 20th century with climate model projections for the next one hundred years.

Global Warming Might Threaten Water Supply

Winter snowpack has been increasing in the northern hemisphere, with three of the four snowiest winters occurring during the last five years. Two years ago, there was snow simultaneously in 49 out of 50 states.

Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab

It must be great being a climate expert. You just make up whatever bullshit sounds good for getting funding and attention.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Climate Science Rule #1 : Never Look At Actual Data

  1. Pathway says:

    Doesn’t that go against the AGW theory. More moisture should translate into more snow pack. As the moisture is forced up by the mnts, more of it should turn to precip and fall out.

  2. kirkmyers says:

    The AGW alarmists have stopped doing science, and now are playing with climate models, which is the equivalent of staring into a crystal ball, but a lot more fun and a lot more lucrative than your typical seance. Plus it’s much easier to bamboozle the mark — in this case, the taxpayer — with impressive-sounding scientific balderdash.

    In today’s world of climatology (which happens to rhyme with “astrology”), if observational evidence doesn’t agree with the “consensus” model or theory, the real-life data must be wrong. This is what now passes for science.

    The arrogant haruspices foretelling the coming planetary meltdown can’t find their own ass, but they are damned certain they can predict sea levels and global temperatures a hundred years from now. Why does anyone take the fools seriously?

  3. lance says:

    Sent AndyDC my graph of the last 22 years here in Southern Alberta, and our trend has been upwards…however, its only 22 years…

  4. ” Two years ago, there was snow simultaneously in 49 out of 50 states.”

    And THAT was evidence of Global Warming (TM) too!

  5. Paul Matthews says:

    One of the most dishonest bits of the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers was on this issue. They say (page 5) “widespread melting of snow and ice”, and “Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres”.
    How did they manage to say that?
    By showing only the graph for Spring (in fact March-April, which does show a decline) and hiding the data for winter (that shows a slight increase) and fall (showing no change).

  6. ralph says:

    How can you lose when you use scary words like “could”, or “maybe”, or “might”, or “possibly”, or “may”. The Sun “might” go out tomorrow. Send me some money and I’ll tell you more.
    Sounds a lot like fortune telling to me but no one seems to recognise it.

    • Andy OZ says:

      AGW hokum is very close to fortune telling and then also religion. Spiral dynamics developed by Clare W Graves shows how.
      Fortune Telling is from the purple value meme (Mystical), Religion from the blue value meme (Absolutism), and AGW is from the green value meme (Communitarian). They all sacrifice the individual for the “collective good”.
      They can all be terribly misguided: like the spanish inquisition, salem witch trials, and in this case AGW and the “killing of carbon dioxide”.
      Science has been hijacked by a bunch of misguided (or miscreant) evangelists and just like Christianity between 200AD and 1600 AD, heretics (such as many of us here) are not tolerated.
      Eventually AGW evangelicals will make it illegal to not agree with them and heretics will need to recant or be purged.
      Calling them on the hysterical predictions and crazy government policy changes like Steve does with his web blog is a must if only to stem the tide and allow our kids to wake up to the climate crapfest.

      • Shooter says:

        First of all, know your history. The Salem Witch Trials are overblown, and Christianity actually played a fundamental role in Western science. “Heretics” were not punished. Between 200 AD and 1600 AD was not the “Dark Ages” as you describe. Galileo was punished for disrespecting the Pope personally, not because he was a “martyr of science”.

        I’d agree with you if your history wasn’t so off. You use myths to back up another myth. There’s bad religion and bad science. Those are connected, but don’t make up a war between science and religion.

  7. Josualdo says:

    “The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.” Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office:

  8. Gator says:

    PhD = Parrots have Degrees.

    • johnmcguire says:

      i still like the old , piled higher and deeper , as it still so aptly describes the truth . What can you get with a PHD and a shovel ? A real job . Of course the PHD is superfluous. 🙂 PHD , an acronym they put after your name if you really have them bullshitted .

  9. RobertvdL says:

    CrossTalk: Franken-Climate

    no comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s