You should go talk to one Professor Nigel Brush. He could set you straight (if you're actually interested in the environmental science of it all).

Or you could keep belittling his field and his intelligence.

Wow, that's it. It's over, I guess. The jig is up!

The science of global warming had hinged on the work of one single absent-minded professor, and now that he admits he can't find some papers...well, obviously that discredits the whole enchilada, namely:

NASA - .nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarmingQandA/ https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif (The graph)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center - ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) - wmo.ch/pages/about/wmo50/e/world/climate_pages/global_warming_e.html

American Meteorological Society -
ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html

National Center for Atmospheric Research “How do we know Earth is warming now?” - ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/now.php

Earth System Research Laboratory - Global Monitoring Division “Climate Forcing” -
esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/about/climate.html

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research ucar.edu/research/climate/warming.jsp

Jet Propulsion Laboratory - California Institute of Technology “Global Climate Change” “How do we know?” -
climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/

American Geophysical Union (world's largest scientific society of Earth and space scientists) “Human Impacts on Climate” - agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

American Association for the Advancement of Science “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now”
- aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/

The United States Energy Information Administration “Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy” -
eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm

Massachusetts Institute of Technology “Report: Human activity fuels global warming” - web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/climate.html

California Institute of Technology “How We Know Global Warming is Real” “The science behind human-induced climate change” - gps.caltech.edu/~tapio/papers/skeptic_2008.pdf

Atmospheric Sciences - University of Illinois - Champaign “Evidence continues to mount that human activities are altering the Earth’s climate on a global scale.” - atmos.uiuc.edu/research/01climate.html

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution “Global Warming”
- whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12457

The UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre “Climate change - the big picture” - metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/

The UK’s Royal Society “Climate change controversies: a simple guide” - royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Based in Switzerland) “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report” - ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

Japan Meteorological Agency “Global Warming Projection Vol.7” - ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/gwp7/index-e.html

The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society “Our climate has changed substantially.” “Global climate change and global warming are real and observable.” - amos.org.au/publications/cid/3/t/publications

Royal Society of New Zealand “The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.” - royalsociety.org.nz/Site/news/media_releases/2008/clim0708.aspx

Scientific American Magazine - sciam.com/topic.cfm?id=global-warming-and-climate-change

==

Former skeptics:
weather.com/blog/weather/8_8372.html
scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-flipping-point
network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/14/jonathan-abrams-on-climate-change.aspx

==

Big snow in DC, cool weather in Florida.... yeah, gosh, I guess this case is CLOSED!

Come on, Matt, I'm only subverting the regnant climate change metanarrative. As a postmodernist, surely you can get behind that.

And it's now Phil Jones, Mr. Climate Change himself, who's saying that there hasn't been any statistically significant increase in global temperatures in the past fifteen years.

If you believe that science makes sense, and that it's worth paying attention to, you're going to have a hard time subverting the climate change metanarrative. Lots of smart scientists at your own institution (not exactly Oberlin or Kenyon) see lots of evidence (and teach lots of evidence) that supports it.

I don't think they should be dismissed just because Phil Jones' record keeping - in his own words - is "not as good as it should be."

No, no Matt. That's it. The jig is up. It's all over. The entirety of the global warming argument rested on the work and views of one man, Phil Jones. What the scientists might have to say at myriad other institutions matters not. The exception (on everything) makes the rule. The skeptics were right, apparently. I'm sure everything will be fine.

And we can't trust the scientists that did this peer-reviewed research:
https://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1558-8432/45/8/pdf/i1558-8432-45-8-1141.pdf

which says this (on p. 9):

"To assess possible future snowstorm conditions, the relationships
of the storm frequencies to seasonal temperature
and precipitation conditions, both estimated
to undergo future changes, were defined for 1901–2000
using data from 1222 stations across the United States.
Results for the November–December period showed
that most of the United States had experienced 61%–
80% of the storms in warmer-than-normal years. Assessment
of the January–February temperature conditions
again showed that most of the United States had
71%–80% of their snowstorms in warmer-than-normal
years. In the March–April season 61%–80% of all
snowstorms in the central and southern United States
had occurred in warmer-than-normal years. The relationship
of storm incidence to precipitation in all three
2-month periods of the cold season showed that 61%–
85% of all storms occurred in wetter-than-normal
years. Thus, these comparative results reveal that a future
with wetter and warmer winters, which is one outcome
expected (National Assessment Synthesis Team
2001), will bring more snowstorms than in 1901–2000.
Agee (1991) found that long-term warming trends in
the United States were associated with increasing cyclonic
activity in North America, further indicating that
a warmer future climate will generate more winter
storms."

Again, just to highlight:

"January–February temperature conditions
again showed that most of the United States had
71%–80% of their snowstorms in warmer-than-normal
years."

(There's likely some truth to the old adage that it can be too cold to snow - consider that Antarctica is a desert, for example)

In the future, the experts to turn to on these matters should be the economists and POLITICAL scientists at America's premiere conservative and libertarian think tanks!

Time to go make a snow man for Al Bore - Hahahahahaha!!!

Independent of the accuracy of climate science, wouldn't the better question to ask be: "should social engineers completely overhaul the way society runs?"

Owl, I'm guessing that, as long as the "social engineers" were coming from Heritage, AEI, Competitive Enterprise Inst., etc., your answer to that question would be affirmative.

What makes you think that?

Matt, Speaking of Kenyon and global warming what do you think of Nick Griffin coming to Kenyon to speak out against global warming, against the EU and about the decline of western heritage? He is a member of the european parliment. I am pretty sure he will be at MSU(which will be another fiasco), and rumor has it he will be at CPAC.

While I don't agree with Griffin, I think I will make it to MSU on Thursday to witness the so called "carnage" that is predicted.

So called, politics is getting too strange for me. In Matt and Craig's favor I think the incentive to confuse local weather with global climate is closely related to being unemployed and the state of the Economy. The experts on Wall Street saw the future recovery as more real and acted upon it, thus the stock market is still ahead of the economy and folks are nervous because present job conditions seem poor. Some folks are of course doing well. Selling a better economy @10% unemployment is like selling global warming in the midst of snow. This time next year it will probably be around 9%, still is that warm enough? Plus with AC and heating who is the princess and the pea that can feel the .7 C change? Different folks certainly have different ideal temperatures, and this can be seen by the levels kept on the AC or heating dial... the preference range is certainly wider than .7 C (say 62-80 degrees in the winter) (68-80 in the summer) and the fluctation when stepping outside is what is felt. The likely truth for the majority of americans is: "We haven't felt global warming yet." coupled with "We haven't felt the stimulus yet." So why spend on a climate bill that seems intangible?

Personally I think when global warming starts to get bad we will simply adopt a geo-engineering solution that will probably work a little too well...then you will have a sort of stimulus/inflation debate on the weather and how much sulfur dioxide to pump(or not) into the stratosphere. Funny how the Macro-economists of the weather will be hated! Chavez will get involved and try to pump more because he wants heating oil revenue?

your example says nothing about man made climate change. warming and cooling happen and from what i have read it is mostly from changes on the sun.

Brutus - My example wasn't intended to address the anthropogenic aspect of climate change, only the aspect of snowfall and winter storms (note, both differ from long-term snow COVER) in conjunction with global warming - to address those who pretend to have trouble keeping it straight in order to set up snow/straw men.

As for the sun causing the current warming, I highly doubt it:

https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/solar-variability.gif

and this (which gets rather technical):
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/

[You had an interesting comment that I meant to respond to in another thread but didn't get a chance to - now if I can just find it...]

John - Nick Griffin, speaking on climate change?? I thought he "limited" himself to the glory of the white race and Holocaust denial? What a disgusting cretin. In line with the notion that conservatives are the greatest opponents to real racism, I'm guessing that a big busload of concerned Ashbrook students will be going down to Kenyon to peacefully protest Griffin's hateful ideas, and point out that they have no place in a truly conservative United States.

"Personally I think when global warming starts to get bad we will simply adopt a geo-engineering solution that will probably work a little too well..."

Wow, talk about putting a lot of faith in science! If that happens, every time a geo-engineering solution is proposed can I play the role of The Helpful Conservative (not referring to you there, John - although I presume you are sometimes helpful!) and insist with a whine that "Well, really, we're going to need to see if this will really be necessary, and we should probably do more lab tests of the technology before we actually implement it - let's wait another 50 years or so, at least !!" ?? That'd be good fun.