“Children Will Not Know What Snow Is” (The Debate Is Over)

A few new articles:

(Originally posted early 2015)

(NYT)There was the February 9, 2014, Times article headlined “The End of Snow,” which ran on the front page of the paper’s Sunday Review section, and which the ever-shrewd Matt Drudge remembered, and linked from his Drudge Report site, amid the snowmaggeddon roughly a year later. “In the Northeast, more than half of the 103 ski resorts may no longer be viable in 30 years because of warmer winters,” the article warned. “It’s easy to blame the big oil companies and the billions of dollars they spend on influencing the media and popular opinion. But the real reason is a lack of knowledge. I know, because I, too, was ignorant until I began researching the issue for a book on the future of snow…. This is no longer a scientific debate. It is scientific fact.”

Via Gateway Pundit

The United Kingdom is suffering through their longest winter in 50 years. 5,000 deaths blamed on the bitter cold.

The Daily Mail reported, via Doug Ross (2013):

Today is officially the first day of spring – but it will bring little respite to freezing Britain as snow continues to fall, closing schools and causing chaos on the roads.

The country is on track to suffer its coldest March in more than 50 years as conservationists warned that the prolonged winter weather was damaging wildlife.

The unrelenting cold weather is showing no signs of slowing this week as snow continues to fall across the North…

…The last time March was so cold was in 1962, when the average temperature was 2.4C (36F) – or 4.1C below the norm.

Here is a headline and portion from “experts” in their field scaring the public:

Snowfalls Are Now Just A Thing Of The Past
Monday 20 March 2000

Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.


Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a generation was growing up “without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world – open-air skating”.


Warmer winters have significant environmental and economic implications, and a wide range of research indicates that pests and plant diseases, usually killed back by sharp frosts, are likely to flourish. But very little research has been done on the cultural implications of climate change – into the possibility, for example, that our notion of Christmas might have to shift.

…read more…

Thesis/Antithesis Becomes Synthesis

As Tim Blair notes, “Britain’s Daily Mail once ran with the warmies, but no longer.” Today, the Daily Mail reports:

The eco-debate was, in effect, hijacked by false data. The forecasts have also forced jobs abroad as manufacturers relocate to places with no emissions targets …

Academics are revising their views after acknowledging the miscalculation. Last night Myles Allen, Oxford University’s Professor of Geosystem Science, said that until recently he believed the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century.

But he now says: ‘The odds have come down,’ – adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower. Prof Allen says higher estimates are now ‘looking iffy’.

(Ed Driscoll)

WUWT mentions that “figures released by the Met Office show the UK mean temperature for the 2012/13 winter finishing at 3.31C. This is below the long term 1981-2010 average of 3.83C.” WUWT continues:

The winter ranked 43rd coldest since 1910, and continues the trend towards colder winters. In the last five years, only 2011/12 has been above the 1981-2010 average. The average over these five years has been 3.03C.

Interestingly, the average winter temperature for 1911-2013 stands at 3.52C, so by 20thC standards the last few years have been genuinely cold.

From video description:

So much focus of the media has been on ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ that other studies are ignored. This work focuses on another cycle known to cause ‘mini-ice ages’. We are due to go into one anytime from now until the end of the century.

From January 8, 2010 All of Britain covered by snow

Why Clouds Matter! CERN’s C.L.O.U.D. Program Drives Real Climate Science

(The above graph is an example of how cosmic rays affect the cloud cover of earth… of which will be explained somewhat in what follows.) This post is partly to explain what CERN (CLOUD) is and to point out that global warming and cooling is based on something other than man. (For a semi-technical philosophical/theological walk through CERN’s discovery of the “God Particle,” see Dr. William Lane Craig’s review.) In other words, driven mainly by nature… not man. First, let us get a primer on why clouds play an important role in climate sensitivity in an interview of Dr. Roy Spencer:

Clouds the Key to Global Warming from Papa Giorgio on Vimeo.

Dennis Prager Interviews Climatologist, Roy W. Spencer:

Roy W. Spencer is a climatologist and a Principal Research Scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, as well as the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award. Spencer’s research suggests that global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution and suggests that natural, chaotic variations in low cloud cover may account for most observed warming.


For more clear thinking like this from Dennis Prager… I invite you to join Pragertopia.

Here is CERN’s recent discoveries discussed on a Canadian Broadcast to better introduce the video by CERN that follows:

Here is a short blurb by What’s Up With That to help introduce the topic:

This refers to the CLOUD experiment at CERN.

I’ll have more on this as it develops (updated twice since the original report now), but for the short term, it appears that a non-visible light irradiance effect on Earth’s cloud seeds has been confirmed. The way it is posited to work is that the  effect of cosmic rays (modulated by the sun’s magnetic variations which either allow more or deflect more cosmic rays) creates cloud condensation nuclei in the Earth’s atmosphere. With more condensation nuclei, more clouds form and vice-versa. Clouds have significant effects on TSI at the surface.

“Cloud feedbacks are the primary source of inter-model differences in equilibrium climate sensitivity, with low cloud being the largest contributor”.Even the IPCC has admitted this in their latest (2007) report:

Update: From the Nature article, Kirkby is a bit more muted in his assessment than the GWPF:

Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,” he says.

Here is the video:

Here is the founder and principle scientist talking more about CLOUD:

CERN Confirms Danish Theory on Global Warming ~ Ezra Levant

Some posts from a debate I had via FaceBook:

Firstly, whether it is getting warmer or cooler is a different question from whether man is a cause of this “climate change”.

Secondly, why do you say Fox News? They merely report what other news sites report. You seem to encapsulate your question with a bias I reject offhand:

❖ A NASA scientist says this will be the last year of heat: The upshot is chilling: “If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades,” Hill states. “That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.” (Old link dead, new one added: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/suns-output-to-fall-leading-to-a-mini-ice-age.html; Also: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/the-major-aas-solar-announcement-suns-fading-spots-signal-big-drop-in-solar-activity/) So Fox news is just reporting what MSNBC and CNN will not… differing views on which way the climate will go over the next decade.

(See more examples in regular media):

 ✔ http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
 ✔ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/11/ipcc-scientist-global-cooling-headed-our-way-for-the-next-30-years/
 ✔ http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227869/global-cooling-chills-summer-2009/deroy-murdock#

You also have to realize what drives these reports of record heat. How are they recorded? Have you ever asked in what way these heat and cool waves are recorded? Or do you just accept as true — without question — what people tell you? I want you to read the following two posts on the matter (one is on my old blog), and ask yourself how this new information changes your view and why satellite data is superior.

1) http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/07/record-breaking-us-heat-wave-breaks.html
2) http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/2008/03/too-hot-to-handle-or.html

Another post:

Firstly, I isolated a small part of a video you may enjoy… the info in it correlates with the info below (http://www.mrctv.org/videos/does-co2-drive-climate).

I know it’s tough to move with science as it evolves. But almost all researchers know Co2 doesn’t drive climate… and that the real debate is in the warming or cooling causing a greater effect on cloud cover, which will cause the catastrophic pictures a middle-school kid is brainwashed with via Al Gore. I cut and uploaded portions of an old interview so we can both talk to each other. The first audio has to do with the question of whether the earth is getting warmer or cooler (http://vimeo.com/28137108). You must get out of the myopic view you are used to seeing and look at a larger graph of temperature change (http://youtu.be/tTp5h9BuQtQ).

The second has to do with how little C02 affects warming, and what and where the real debate is over, clouds (http://vimeo.com/28136890).

As the study and understanding of what drives this mysterious global phenomenon [clouds], and new studies are showing that the sun may be driving them as well (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-news-cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change/).

A final post:

✦ “What an interesting view you have on this subject Sean. I’m not sure how you have found a way to convince yourself that carbon dioxide is not related to temperature, but i would like to offer you an objective, non blog, non bias, and factual link. Are you ready for it?” (quoting Nick)

Well, just so your readers know, in that last post [above] there are links to ~ if you follow them: the second link is audio is Roy Spencer (bio already given below). The third is just a graph of temperature of 2500 years. The fourth is Roy Spencer again. The fifth references a scientific journal. The sixth is a NASA article. The seventh is a NASA filming of the sun. And in the first video link (the actual video that shows up in that last post) there are these people involved:

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu – Professor and Director, International Arctic Research Center
• Tim Ball – Head of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (Misidentified in the film as Professor from the Department of Climatology, University of Winnipeg. Ball left his faculty position in the Department of Geography in 1996; the University of Winnipeg has never had a Department of Climatology.)
• Nigel Calder – Former Editor, New Scientist from 1962 to 1966
John Christy – Professor, Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville and a Lead Author of Chapter 2 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (Credited in the film as ‘Lead Author, IPCC’)
• Ian Clark – Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
• Piers Corbyn – Weather Forecaster, Weather Action
• Paul Driessen – Author: Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death
• Eigil Friis-Christensen – Director, Danish National Space Center and Adjunct Professor, University of Copenhagen (who has since criticised the programme for fabricating data and not fully explaining his position on 20th century global warming).
• Nigel Lawson – Former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer
• Richard Lindzen – Professor, Department of Meteorology, M.I.T.
• Patrick Michaels – Research Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
• Patrick Moore – Co-founder, Greenpeace
• Paul Reiter – Professor, Department of Medical Entomology, Pasteur Institute, Paris
• Nir Shaviv – Professor, Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
• James Shikwati – Economist, Author, and CEO of The African Executive
• Frederick Singer – Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (Misidentified in the film as Former Director, U.S. National Weather Service. From 1962–64 he was Director of the National Weather Satellite Service.)[citation needed]
• Roy W. Spencer is a climatologist and a Principal Research Scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, as well as the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award. Spencer’s research suggests that global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution and suggests that natural, chaotic variations in low cloud cover may account for most observed warming. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29)
• Philip Stott – Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of London
• Carl Wunsch – Professor, Department of Oceanography, M.I.T. (who has since repudiated the programme)

So I will restate more clearly: C02 follows temperature change… it doesn’t lead it. That big giant ball-o’-flame in the sky has much more to do with climate change than Exxon… who has less impact on the enviro than volcanic activity (mankind that is).

I give evidence for history being hotter in the past than it is today by substantial degrees in a post that links to my blog. Since there are links out embedded in the below [at my blog], I give the link so you can follow them out from there if you wish… because they do not appear below:

(1) Mars (Uncommon Descent h/t) has had a bout of global warming… last I checked Exxon doesn’t drill there;

(2) In the 8th century AD, the Roman Empire grew grapes used for wine on the slopes of Salisbury Plain (about 80 miles southwest of London) in the United Kingdom;

(3) The Vikings raiding and traveling the seas was made possible by the now frozen “Greenland”actually living up to its name;

(4) NASA‘s “fact” that 1998 was the warmest year (used by Al Gore) was disproved by an amateur mathematician;

(5) In 1970′s, at the first Earth Day rally, scientists, meteorologists and politicians all pushed a theory that there was Global Cooling (Time magazine for instance). While this theory wasn’t as embedded in popular thinking and scientific literature as is global warming, it was still the dominant theory of that time;

(6) There is more ice now that 29-years ago; Antarctic sea ice more than in 1979;

(7) In the 1500′s till the late 1800′s passages that are now iced over allowed for what is termed as the Northwest Passage… Exxon or cars weren’t around then?

❖ “If you are like me and bit foggy on the Northwest Passage, here is a five cent refresher. The British coined the term Northwest Passage for the potential northern oceanic pass that would allow vessels to move between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The earliest explorations for the fabled passage were by Cortes in 1539. The late 1500′s were marked by British explorers, Martin Frobisher, Humphrey Gilbert, and John Davis. Several expeditions followed, all with little success of finding the passage but tempered by the acquisition of new lands. Some attempts lead to deaths of entire crews. Notable of these is the Sir John Franklin expedition in which all of the crew members were lost to starvation, scurvy, cannibalism, and lead poisoning from food sealed in tins. The first to transverse the Northwest Passage was Sir Robert McClure using a combination of both sledge and ship. Ironically this was done during the search for Franklin’s team in which McClure’s own ship became trapped in the ice for three winters. The passage was finally conquered entirely by sea by the Norwegian Amundsen in 1906.”

(9) Acid rain scares of the 1980′s were mostly unfounded and not man-caused;

(10) On the northern side of Mammoth (in California), there are tree-lines that were preserved by a volcanic eruption in A.D. 1350. In this preserved tree-line there were seven species of tree that grew well above the current tree-line in this mountainous range. The Earth would have to be 3.2 degrees warmer (Celsius) in order for these particular trees to grow in this higher altitude.

The above, believe it or not, actually is from one of my blogs on same-sex marriage and involved wine and beer filled discussion between friends at Halloween: “Same-Sex Matters (Race and Gender in Marriage)”: http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/same-sex-matters-race-and-gender-in-marriage/#ixzz1VvcHwnKG