"Scientists have established a link between the cold, snowy winters in Britain and melting sea ice in the Arctic and have warned that long periods of freezing weather are likely to become more frequent in years to come." This is from The Independent, which cites arch-warmist Professor Rahmstorf. Snowy winters will be about three times more frequent in the coming years compared with previous decades.

View full article here

The suggestive title of the post would imply that there is a wish for the likes of Prof Rahmstorf to be a transient phenomenon.
Unfortunately, as Dellers has recently observed, I don't think we are going to have enough bullets.

Gosh. Let me see if I can remember that game (being over 60, an' all).
Paper wraps stone; paper wins. Scissors cut paper; scissors wins. Stone blunts scissors; stone wins. Howzzat?

So the new, digital, update that gen whatever's produced on computers they could never have invented for themselves... let's see. Heat melts Ice; heat wins. Cold freezes water; Cold wins. Heat evaporates water; heat wins. Ah, but if heat had never affected water in the first place, Cold couldn't do a thing; so Heat Always Wins and Water always loses!!!!

Of course, Old Omar* was way too far back to have seen anything through his dipso haze, but he may have had a point when he included Wind in the equation:
[29]
Into this Universe, and why not knowing;
I know not whence, like water willy-nilly flowing;
And out of it, like Wind along the Waste,
I know not whither, willy-nilly blowing.

A couple of stanzas on, not having a computer model, the poor sap came up with this:
[33]
Then to the rolling Heav'n itself I cried,
Asking, "What Lamp had Destiny to guide
"Her little Children stumbling in the Dark?"
And---"A blind Understanding!" Heav'n replied.

I can't believe how far the Prof and all his pros have brought us since the 12th century - both politically and scientifically!!! Isn't it wonderful?
Beam me up, Scottie.

*[Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam -trans. Fitzgerald]

No honor amoung thieves

what horse shit

This is off the top of my head here but it does occur to me that there is great fear afoot that the grand global plan is in danger of being de-railed when it was almost up and running and any (ANY) attempt at keeping the faith going for just a short number of years again (and I do mean only three or four) is justified to keep the steam-roller going.

Even to the extent of saying that cold is hot and growing ice sheets are melting ice and nearly extinct cuddly polar bears are actually represented by a burgeoning population and hypothermia is the main mode of death of global warming and a reduction in hurricanes/cyclones actually represents an increase in cyclones...actually.

Whatever works will work.

Maybe I'm just mad.....

Interesting.

Let's face it, there's no set of conditions which the Climate Catastrophists will accept as refuting their hypothesis. Warmer winters are definitely proof of CAGW, colder winters are also definite proof of CAGW. When one of their claims is shot down; glaciers on Kilimanjaro, The Hockey Stick, drowning polar bears, increasing hurricane intensity, and others, they quietly forget it and move onto another.

The question is how much more of this outrageous nonsense is the public prepared to put up with and pay for. Gullibility must be strained to breaking point by now.

I think the present mishmash of confused climatic contentions is a deliberate attempt to ... er ... muddy the waters.

The idea is to persuade everyone that the climate is going to hell in a handbasket and it's all their fault. In short, it's a snow job.

Yep, it's that hot snow that's doing it.

This guy is a moron! It is culpably stupid to think that there any linear trends in the climate data, but what is unforgivable is that the data clearly show that we have left a warming period and that we are now cooling fast. Evidence is piling in that the assumptions of the satellite era (warming since they went up in '80 or so) have changed, unfortunately bastards like this are diddling the data and deliberately misleading the public.
If the sun continues as it is then we will have cooled to where we began the last warming phase (ie. 70s) within 10 years, maybe even 5years leaving a further decade or two of cooling to go.
Just when the World should be putting everything it can into power and agriculture infrastructure we are frittering away what wealth we don't have on the truly bizarre.
One thing I will say for this prat is that he is doing a good job of showing just how shoddy academic thinking is. I hope an effect of the internet will be to audit current academic thinking and expose the theories that academics so love, even when there is direct contradictory evidence. We'd have room-temperature super-conductors by now if it weren't for the shoddy reasoning of theorists in that discipline, in fact I've spent the last 2 years trying to open a dialogue with a relevant academic and have met a wall of arrogance. The technology offered by room-temperature super-conduction would be a game-changer in many areas but we are locked out by academia, respected professors hanging on to crap theories despite contrary evidence.

Sandy - on the academics ganging up to support each other on the 'Theory.' I'm sure it's true across all the disciplines at Home and in the US, probably elsewhere as well: there seems to be something corporate and political about the business. I do believe many of the best are constrained to 'toe the line' on pain of loss of livelihood and reputation. It's not that such brains can't see beyond the guff - but it is that they need to profess 'Marxism' and 'support their leader' ... whoever that may be. If - as in one case I know - the department gets itself into dodgy water, then they all try to swim together.

How anyone clears it out, I don't know. But I'm sure there are those who resent the demise of academic freedom; and, consequently, academic standards.

The Potsdam Institute is also home to Ottmar Edenhofer who was recently quoted as stating that “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth”

http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc- ... ealth.html

Winters are a transient phenomenon? Several billion years worth of winters and a series of ice ages is bloody transient? These people are seriously of unsound mind.

I have very seriously thought of doing a "J'accuse" on super-conductivity, looking at current theory in the light of known facts, and seeing if Anthony Watts would run it. Unfortunately confronting academia like that would pretty well lock me out of any lab. for the foreseeable.
Also trying to lay out the evidence from which academia makes such a perverse deduction would involve trying to explain electron band structure in crystals while aspiring to Willis Eschenbach's highly readable and informative didactic style.

Hey Guys straw poll:
If I say that electrons in crystals are waves and crystals have a very regular structure so this means some waves are just the right length to fit in easily and others are the wrong length to fit, so the wrong length waves represent energies and directions that are forbidden to electrons.
Does that make sense, or fit in with what you know?
Or is it sciency gobbledegook?

Sandy

I'm sure that if you could put forward a convincing business plan as to the climate change mitgation benefits of your ideas you would recieve a bottomless pit of funding and access to resources....

I'm only being partly facetious here.

They are in the grip of an obsession - a religion. The one fixed point in their lives is that global warming is real. Everything must therefore be tailored to fit that obsession.

How come? I thought "the Science is Settled"? No??

If they can't even make up their minds whether winters will be warmer or colder, is it a good "precautionary principle" to invest £18.4 Bn per year for the next 40 years building windmills (which, incidentally, don't work)?

Interesting to note all those "scientists" that the BBC have put on (most recently the blessed Sir David King, "the man who persuaded the government to take climate change seriously" - Grauniad) to explain that the real problem that the MET Office has is the fact that even their £33 million Supercomputer isn't powerful enough. Nothing at all to do with the fact that the dipshits in the MET Office have programmed their computer to ensure that everything that their Supercomputer belches out is covered with apocalyptic excess heat warmings?

So when are the MET Office going to get this four-eyed kraut plonker Professor Rahmstorf to explain how to re-programme the Supercomputer we already bought them?

Or, more to the point, when are we going to rise up and shove their warmist bullshit predictions up their fat comfortable arses?