Record snowfall in New York state:
Oswego County, a rustic string of towns and villages on the southeastern rim of Lake Ontario, received 5 to 10 feet of snow over eight days. In one town, Redfield, the National Weather Service reported an unofficial total of 11 feet 8 inches, which would be a state record for snowfall from a single storm event. And the Weather Service said more snow was on the way.I also found this Times of India report from 2005:By contrast, the New York City record, set exactly one year ago today, was 26.9 inches as measured in Central Park.
Almost as soon as the Kyoto Protocol on global warming came into effect on February 15, Kashmir suffered the highest snowfall in three decades with over 150 killed, and Mumbai recorded the lowest temperature in 40 years.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 12, 2007 11:22 AM | Email This
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/02/vclav-klaus-about-ipcc-panel.html
Posted by: MJC on February 12, 2007 11:04 AM"We do not know how much we must change our economic activity to produce a particular reduction of warming. And we do not know whether warming is necessarily dangerous. Over the millennia, the planet has warmed and cooled for reasons that are unclear but clearly were unrelated to SUVs. Was life better when ice a mile thick covered Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings farmed there? Are we sure the climate at this particular moment is exactly right, and that it must be preserved, no matter the cost?
Could I get David Matthews to respond to this point?
Posted by: G Jiggy on February 12, 2007 11:14 AMWe can add to those weather phenomena the following events in recent weeks:
1) Freezing temps in Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and Phoenix
2) Snow falling in the hills around Tucson, AZ
3) HUGE snowstorms in the midwest and great lakes - from Denver, to Texas, to Buffalo
4) Record lows in Hawaii - in the 50's!
5) Remember the gorgeous weather at the Superbowl in Miami, FL?
The plain truth is that the whole Global Warming Scare is simply the world's largest power-grab by Socialists and budding Totalitarians in order to seize the common man's wealth and to control every aspect of his life.
-JP
Posted by: Jefferson Paine on February 12, 2007 11:17 AMWhat does this mean? Global warming could mean more extreme snow fall. And, certainly, extreme snowfall does NOT mean there's no global warming.
Posted by: DJ on February 12, 2007 12:01 PMFunny that cities like San Francisco aren't getting that kind of snow now, huh?
Is there always an explanation when the evidence contradicts Global Warming extremists?
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Even our own President would not dare speak so frankly about the obvious Marxist charade that is climate hysteria and routinely succumbs to the rhetoric.
But like many things politically correct, the average Joe in the US might nod approvingly, make a cautious statement, or not say anything at all, but actions speak louder than words. Americans may be gullible, and may even believe some of the hysteria to a certain degree, but when push comes to shove, no one is going to voluntarily and drastically reduce their quality of life for the sake of some extremely vague future threat. ANd certainly not for the sake of some foreigner who is unwilling to do the same in return.
Al Gore's hysteria will amount to nothing. And all of the fawning journalists, fancy award ceremonies and alleged scientific "consensus" is not going to motivate the average Joe. Average Joe has heard all of the hysterical predictions of at least 10 different doom and gloom scenarios over the past 50 years, and he knows that this too, shall pass. And frankly, any climate change threat that occurs on geologic and solar time scales would be the very definition of "gradual, and is simply none too pressing in the scheme of threats we face in life.
Every minute, hour, day, month, year, decade, etc. there is always an assessment of reality and an according prioritization in the mind of every individual, regardless of any external hoopla. And the more the gyrating, whining, blogging, chicken-littling, the more the average Joe resets their own bar for what constitutes useless noise.
What does it take to raise scientific concensus up to scientific theory?
Posted by: Right said Fred on February 12, 2007 12:44 PMIn the case of Global Warming, the right amount of grant money, a healthy mix of politics, and the corresponding computer model coded to validate the theory.
Oh, and a whole lot of partisans in the media and throughout politics desperate for an issue.
Posted by: MJC on February 12, 2007 01:25 PMWhere as in the previous major changes to the environment they followed a more gentle progressive curve (bar the Yellow Stone and Malaysian super volcano eruptions etc). The current is highly aggressive. There is 1.3 times as much CO2 is entering the atmosphere compared with just 20 years ago
Forget about the Inconvenient Truth as a film and forget about politics in general (even though in Republican states they consume 2 twice as much power as the US average, and now three times as much as the new almost Greener than Denmark California). Even if the Global Warming issue is all bull (WHICH IT IS NOT) it makes excellent business sense to actually curb your consumption. It never ceases to amaze me how cattle like the arguments are against curbing general consumption, as if it is a bad thing.
I have saved and will save this year over $1,900 by some small simple changes, I still have the lights on and they are not candles (even though they would contribute as well to global warming >:¬} ). Ok so I am not making the power and oil companies even more wealthy than they are and it is against your capitalism. But I am! I am making bigger changes in my company and I will save in more money there, so I can plow back the profits in to service, price my pocket Capitalism at work again here. So forget the Environment its great for Business (except for the Oil companies)!
BTW. Exxon Mobil now concedes that there is a problem, and its products are contributing to Global Warming (what, where are the class action suits!). Oh and if saving money is not a good enough reason, getting some of the $30 billion invested in the "Green" sector in US in 2006 alone would be a nice incentive.
Hell even (sic) God is getting in on the act, well in the form of the evangelical Christians. Pat Robertson said to his TV flock "We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels", don't think he meant burn more! The ironic thing is, if this debate was taking place 8 years ago George W. Bush could be leading the pack of the New Evangelical Climate Initiative. That would have been fun to see, G.W. having a crisis of conscience.
BTW. Exxon Mobil now concedes that there is a problem, and its products are contributing to Global Warming (what, where are the class action suits!)
Another example is ethanol. There's a massive amount of energy wasted to produce ethanol along with huge losses due to corn subsidies that make if far less green in the long run.
And then there's the opportunity cost of replacement with more energy efficient technologies. If you can't afford that, then even if you want to use them, you can't. And if the government ends up making a rebate program for every light-bulb, water heater, etc. then in the long run, there's still a huge subsidized cost that is ultimately born out by the taxpayer.
Energy savings does make great economic sense, and there are plenty of technologies to purchase if you can afford the initial investment and justify the costs over the total time of ownership. And of course it's fine if one is making good personal economic decisions based on solid cost benefits, and not simply hysterical overreactions to vague threats.
But redistributing world income without even getting participation from many of the countries involved, is a bad socialist scheme that is simply designed to part Americans from more of their tax dollars, and ultimately won't have any effect in rationally persuading anyone to adopt a more energy efficient lifestyle.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 12, 2007 03:05 PMI don't think anyone appreciates people making unsubstantiated comments like this. If this statement can be backed up with facts, let's have them.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 12, 2007 04:19 PMAnd yet the Global Warming Alarmists have told us we can expect to MORE precipitation in Washington State. How does that square with your statement?
Or did you actually read the article? It was about Peruvian Glaciers and predictably neglected to mention that glaciers in that region are both growing and shrinking, with more growint thasn shrinking.
Greenpeace tried to spread this story some time back and it seems they were debunked pretty quickly when real scientists, who actually study peruvian galciers were called to provide some fact checking.
Try again?
Posted by: deadwood on February 12, 2007 05:28 PM> "We do not know how much we must change our economic activity to produce a particular reduction of warming. And we do not know whether warming is necessarily dangerous. Over the millennia, the planet has warmed and cooled for reasons that are unclear but clearly were unrelated to SUVs. Was life better when ice a mile thick covered Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings farmed there? Are we sure the climate at this particular moment is exactly right, and that it must be preserved, no matter the cost?
> Could I get David Matthews to respond to this point?
I read George Will's editorial and was not impressed in the least by his opinions:
1. Undoubtedly there are natural climatic variations including great epochs of cold weather (ice ages) and warmer periods (the last ten thousand years).
2. These climate is impacted by numerous natural variables, some of which are well understood and others which remain mysterious.
3. No amount of effort by environmentalists or anyone else is going to preserve our present climate. No environmentalists are fighting to provide the Earth with an eternally stable climate.
4. Environmentalists are concerned about the human impact upon the global environment. This concern ranges from protecting species from extinction, protecting ecosystems from destruction, and fighting against the scourge of pollution.
5. Human pollution has reached truly global proportions. From the millions of tons of floating plastic debris floating in the oceans to the millions of tons of pollution pumped into the atmosphere, the Earth is suffering substantial damage at humankind's hands.
6. The pollution of the atmosphere and destruction of entire ecosystems (the Amazon Rain Forest, for example) do have an impact upon the climate.
7. The natural warming cycle is being enhanced by human activities. Human-induced climate change threatens to occur in a sudden & dramatic fashion and this is one of its greatest dangers.
8. The risks associated with human induced climate change are so dangerous that wisdom insists that humans cease these pollution activities at all costs.
That's my response to George Will.
You first, David.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 12, 2007 07:03 PM
The theory starts with the fact that liberals cannot get elected by espousing what they truly believe, so they must mask their intentions to the public and electorate in order to gain power to enact those liberal policies that would fail at the ballot box.
Research evidence has shown that liberals are ignorant, foul mouthed and hungry for power. They have little hope of convincing voters to vote for their anti-capitalist, anti-American agenda . Under CRAP theory, it is inevitable that living standard of Americans will head southward as the "solutions" to the global warming theory are implemented.
And of course every correct theory must be able to make accurate predictions. PBJ's Correlated Relationship of Atmoshperic Politics also has predicitons that offer "evidence" that this theory is in fact true. Prediction #1: The more media hype given to the liberal global warming theory, the more monies will flow into "research" grants to academic institutions, a liberal bastion. Prediction #2: The more media hype given to ignorant liberals with no scientific background whatsoever (such as Al Gore) who espouse the liberal global warming theory, the more "credible" such non-credible politicians will seem. The fact that such politicians as Al Gore once stood with Tobacco Farmers and told them he was "once of them" and a few years later used the the death of his sister from smoking to ingratiate himself with the crowd at the 1996 Democrat convention will be soon forgotten. No one will ever ask Al Gore where he did his post graduate work in atmospheric science. Prediction #3: Internationally, fake agreements such as Kyoto will be created and the US will be urged to sign on. Drastic measures that curb economic prosperity will be proposed in the name of preventing climat echange. Of course, as with KYOTO, none of the non US signatories will meet or even come close to meeting their obligations under the treaty but the US will be the only nation in which this will be an issue.
You will know the CRAP theory is true and accurate as it predicts the sun will shine somewhere in the world at least once a day, night will fall somewhere in the world at least once a day, somehwere in the world it will be hotter that somewhere else in the world, somewhere in the world it will be colder than somewhere else in the world and liberals will always lie, cheat or steal to grab power.
Posted by: pbj on February 12, 2007 07:13 PMFrom your post I gather that:
Pollution is a conservative value
and that ...
The Republican party serves the interests of the oil corporations.
Which is, of course, obvious. The White House is owned by the oil, coal, and mining industries.
The Republican Party has already killed 3,100 American soldiers in Iraq, 150,000 innocent civilians have also died because of Republican aggressive warfare, now how many millions of people are the Republicans willing to kill by polluting the planet and destroying the environment.
Vote Republican if you love pollution.
It has been proven that Democrats serve the interests of large corporations & big oil just as much as Republicans.
"The Republican Party has already killed 3,100 American soldiers in Iraq, 150,000 innocent civilians have also died because of Republican aggressive warfare, now how many millions of people are the Republicans willing to kill by polluting the planet and destroying the environment."
You are spewing the talking points of the President of Iran, who was trained to propagandize from Bagdad Bob. Not all Republicans are neo-conservatives, besides your baseless flatulence. You are clearly the enemy within.
Posted by: KS on February 12, 2007 07:52 PM> It has been proven that Democrats serve the interests of large corporations & big oil just as much as Republicans.
That's true. I agree. The Democrats are as guilty as the Republicans, and everyone will pay a price for all of this extremely profitable foolishness which we call "the American economy".
Nature is going to handle the United States of America in a harsh manner. Nature will settle this issue in a fashion which will displease both Republicans and Democrats.
America will collapse economically, socially, and politically. Pray that the collapse will occur in a peaceful manner.
> You are spewing the talking points of the President of Iran, who was trained to propagandize from Bagdad Bob. Not all Republicans are neo-conservatives, besides your baseless flatulence. You are clearly the enemy within.
Not enough Republicans are neo-cons but the Republicans who possess real power are neocons. These criminals in the White House have murdered more innocent civilians than Osama Bin Laden. Their extreme incompetence in regards to Iraq and Katrina generate extreme doubts about their wisdom regarding climate change or anything else.
Would you trust your planet to a man such as George W. Bush and his oil industry pals? I wouldn't.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 12, 2007 08:00 PMWhile such an approach has been very successful in other avenues of human endevor, such as religion, it is not the preferred, or even the proper, methodology of science.
In science, one starts with a set of facts, develops a theory, tests the theory through reproduceable experiments, and if the theory still holds (and only then), the theory becomes established.
Sometimes the theory passes some but not all the tests and still survices as a workable theory, so long as it does not fail important tests.
This is not what has been done with the global warming by man's actions theory. The theory was proposed in the 1980's and by 1990 was acceepted as fact with very little work done to test it against the facts. Since then nearly all the work has focused on what this might mean, or what I would call "What If" studies.
No amount of polictical BS can get past this problem. That is why so many respectable senior climate researchers have expressed doubts about the theory.
The best defence of the global warmers is that since the theory has not been proven false, we must reduce carbon to be on the safe side.
There are two problems with this approach. First, no matter how much we do to reduce carbon, it will have negligible effect, and second, if they are wrong, people will turn against science and solutions to known environmental problems.
Posted by: deadwood on February 13, 2007 06:43 AMIf Kyoto is so important why were some countries given passes, and what are they doing to enforce it with countries that don't meet their goals?
Posted by: ronk on February 13, 2007 07:15 AMPeople who call liberals Marxists don't know what they're talking about. They should chill. Liberal Democrats want the same thing conservative Republicans want- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no Socialist plot to use global warming as an excuse to install a Communist regime. People who think this watch too many movies.
People who think conservatives who don't totally swallow the global warming thing are ignoring facts should also chill. Conservative does not mean willfully ignorant. Nor does it mean being a slave to big business. That's all stereotypical BS and it's wrong. Conservatives love their planet as much as anyone. They just want to make sure we're not throwing the baby out with the overheated bathwater. Can't blame 'em for that, can we?
Let's face it folks. We need hardheaded, doubtful conservative minds to keep us from running amok at the slightest thing. And we need intuitive, imaginative, caring liberal minds to see the future coming and do something about it before it's too late. Why can't everybody just accept this and get together and do what REAL Americans do- cooperate?
Nuff said.
Posted by: marv on February 13, 2007 02:02 PMApologies!
Posted by: Alex Gogan on February 14, 2007 01:46 PMThe statement I challenged is: "even though in Republican states they consume 2 twice as much power as the US average, and now three times as much as the new almost Greener than Denmark California"
I just have a very hard time believing that such a broad statement would come out of a publication such as The Economist. They certainly must have quoted studies than can be referrenced.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 14, 2007 04:46 PM