Global warming causing freezing

2010-12-21 22:43

Paris - Counter-intuitive but true, say scientists: a string of freezing European winters scattered over the last decade has been driven in large part by global warming.

The culprit, according to a new study, is the Arctic's receding surface ice, which at current rates of decline could disappear entirely during summer months by century's end.

The mechanism uncovered triples the chances that future winters in Europe and north Asia will be similarly inclement, the study reports.

Bitingly cold weather wreaked havoc across Europe in the winter months of 2005-2006, dumping snow in southern Spain and plunging eastern Europe and Russia into an unusually - and deadly - deep freeze.

Another sustained cold streak in 2009-2010, gave Britain its coldest winter in 14 years, and wreaked transportation havoc across the continent. This year seems poised to deliver a repeat performance.

Heat contributes to chill - research

At first glance, this flurry of frostiness would seem to be at odds with standard climate change scenarios in which Earth's temperature steadily rises, possibly by as much as 5°C or 6°C by 2100.

Climate sceptics who question the gravity of global warming or that humans are to blame point to the deep chills as confirmation of their doubts.

Such assertions, counter scientists, mistakenly conflate the long-term patterns of climate with the short-term vagaries of weather, and ignore regional variation in climate change impacts.

New research, however, goes further, showing that global warming has actually contributed to Europe's winter blues.

Rising temperatures in the Arctic - increasing at two to three times the global average - have peeled back the region's floating ice cover by 20% over the last three decades.

This has allowed more of the Sun's radioactive force to be absorbed by dark-blue sea rather than bounced back into space by reflective ice and snow, accelerating the warming process.

Source of heat

More critically for weather patterns, it has also created a massive source of heat during the winter months.

"Say the ocean is at 0°C," said Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

"That is a lot warmer than the overlying air in the polar area in winter, so you get a major heat flow heating up the atmosphere from below which you don't have when it is covered by ice. That's a massive change," he told AFP in an interview.

The result, according to a modelling study published earlier this month the Journal of Geophysical Research, is a strong high-pressure system over the newly-exposed sea which brings cold polar air, swirling counter-clockwise, into Europe.

"Recent severe winters like last year's or the one of 2005-2006 do not conflict with the global warming picture, but rather supplement it," explained Vladimir Petoukhov, lead author of the study and a physicist at the Potsdam Institute.

"These anomalies could triple the probability of cold winter extremes in Europe and north Asia," he said.

Uneven weather distribution

The researchers created a computer model simulating the impact on weather patterns of a gradual reduction of winter ice cover in the Barents-Kara Sea, north of Scandinavia.

Other possible explanations for uncommonly cold winters - reduced Sun activity or changes in the Gulf Stream - "tend to exaggerate their effect," Petoukhov said.

He also points out that during the freezing 2005-2006 winter, when temperatures averaged 10°C below normal in Siberia, there were no unusual variations in the north Atlantic oscillation, another putative cause.

Colder European winters do not indicate a slowing of global warming trends, only an uneven distribution, researchers say.

"As I look out my window is see about 30 centimetres of snow and the thermostat reads -14°C," said Rahmstorf, speaking by phone from Potsdam.

"At the same time, in Greenland we have above zero temperatures - in December."

  • Limelite - 2010-12-22 01:34

    What a load of hogswallop. Soon everything will be blamed on the farcical global warming/climate change/global climate disruption lie. Everytime they lose believers they change the name so that we can re-believe. People aren't that stupid and gullible...or maybe some are.

      Kakabooi - 2010-12-22 07:50

      And the earth is flat and the center of the universe.....

      malansgh - 2010-12-22 08:19

      Yup, people aren't that stupid and gullible, but you are. - 2010-12-22 11:25

      Dont be a moron.

  • alansimpson - 2010-12-22 02:21

    Cheers Limelite, they really think people are stupid. Cold = Hot? This really is the end of the rent seeking road.

  • Zion - 2010-12-22 07:12

    Limelite, you being a critic of the article, can you please give us your view and causes of this freezing phenomena. It, in this case, runs counter to the norm. If you so vehemently disagree then surely you should have some concrete opinions, etc. Please do not include god in the discussion.

      Semjaja - 2010-12-22 07:43

      It's called Winter Zion, ever heard of the Little Ice Age? Waaaaay colder than it is now in Europe, no Global Warming then...

      Andrew - 2010-12-22 08:38

      There is a very strong La Ninja at the moment - predicted to run into 2011 - this usually results in colder winters in the North - and drought in the south.

      Zion - 2010-12-22 16:21

      Very clever Semjaja, If we have summer here then it is obviously winter that side of the globe and vice versa. The winter there, is rather too severe to be normal.

      Roger 01 - 2011-01-07 13:36

      The same happened 14 years ago and many times before. God help us!

  • Brendon - 2010-12-22 07:34

    Most people actually still buy this nonsense. Just another plot from our new order goverment. Not many people know that the ice caps on mars are also melting, hence a solar phenomenom,not caused by human means.

      Jason - 2010-12-22 08:25

      LOL, Ice caps on Mars??? wtf?

      Mike - 2010-12-22 15:06

      I suspect they melted a LOOOOOOOOOOOONG time ago mate...

      Brendon - 2010-12-30 18:51

      Roger 01 - 2011-01-07 13:39

      The ice melted on Mars? I'm gonna build that underground shelter NOW !

  • cdjstrydom - 2010-12-22 08:12

    @ Alfred, The issue is not global warming but "manmade" global warming. Any idiot knows the earth goes through climate cycles, it's just the causes that many people has an issue with.

  • Hugh - 2010-12-22 08:30

    A study in the late nineties pointing to the fact that the reduction in European air pollution over the previous ten years led to an air temp increase has been conveniently ignored. It was said and accepted at peer level that air pollution contary to the belief at that time activily contributed to the reflection of sun radiation. That the reduction of I think 15% led to a rise in air temp. A similar study over LA during the no fly of 911 showed the similar results.

      Andrew - 2010-12-22 09:01

      SO2 causes cooling, the aerosol it forms apparently reflects a lot of radiation. We took SO2 out of our power station emmissions by adding sulphur recovery plants and we removed sulphur from our transportation fuels - all to reduce acid rain. This had the unpredicted (at the time) effect of cooling the atmosphere (apparently, but I am again not convinced that the data is conclusive). Interesting though since the 90's were very hot years - then again they were characterised by high solar activity (highest for many decades) and a sustained El Ninjo. Not to mention the huge expansion in urban heat islands...

  • sipho - 2010-12-22 09:29

    Arguments from global warming deniers normally amount to "you can't prove the case definitively so let's ignore it until you can". Yet very few trained scientists in the field are deniers. Now we get these comments from the peanut gallery and unfortunately some people are dumb enough to listen ... lets hope no politicians are reading these comments...

      Andrew - 2010-12-22 09:49

      No they don't - again you attack the sceptics - by calling them "deniers" implicating that they are somehow similar to evolution "deniers" or "flat earthers". Can you try to address the debate here rather than attack people personally. The issue is that we are debating the spending of trillions of dollars of tax payers money - I believe we have a right to ask "what is this money going to achieve exactly?" We are also within our rights to ask - "is this really the most critical issue we face (bigger than poverty, malaria, Aids, environmental habitat destruction, pollution, overpopulation)?" - Well it is obviously not - unless you have a vested interest in the "alternative energy" bandwagon - which an increasing amount of people now have judging by the proliferation of people wanting to sell their "greenhouse gas reduction" products and services. We are even selling "carbon futures" on Al Gore's Chicago Climate Exchange. Who really has the vested interests here? This debate must reach the politicians - it cannot rage only in the scientific domain while the popular media swallows the hypothesis wholeheartedly.

      Semjaja - 2010-12-22 10:43

      "Yet very few trained scientists in the field are deniers." What about the ones that are? Do their unproven hypothesis also not deserve to be looked at in an objective manner? Instead they're villified, that's not science man, that't more like religion.

      sipho - 2010-12-22 10:46

      Those issues you mention are all linked to our human activity problem, driven by overpopulation. Reduce human impact, reduce human population and solve all these problems including global warming. The money being spent is not relevant. Each human has to reduce his impact on the environment and his energy consumption, so denying or whoever you want to call it causes people to ignore their effects, which is ultimately very destructive for everything. Why am I stating the obvious? Deniers are deniers are deniers...

  • lmduplessis - 2010-12-22 09:35

    A system in imbalance, such as our atmosphere at the moment (Imbalance being all the extra energy from the sun due to Greenhouse effect from excess carbon, ect ect) will not just WARM up, as the name "Global Warming" will lead some to beleave. What happens when there is a usual, predictable, localized and minor imbalance in the atmosphere? Thats what gives us weather and weather patterns. NOW, make the imbalance PLanet wide and much larger in scale, and the effects are much worse. Also, it causes the set climates for the planet to go out of control, like a bridge shaking itself apart in the wind, it doesn't go toppling to one side all in one go (WARMING) ot oscillates voilently from side to side (Warm to Cold to warm, like with Seasons)in increasing intensity untill larger and larger cracks form (Localized climate changer) and then shortly after this the whole thing collapses, which is what the scientists. Now, all you people who persist in denying the obvious, i am not a scientists. I am not all that smart, but his makes sense to me. Alll i'm getting from you is that you lot are incapable of believing that HUMAN actions can cause this, and as such that humans need to take responsibility for the current weather abnormalities. But i guess you are incapable of doing this, cause at a small level this would mean that you YOURSELF would have to take responsibility for this, and we all know this is the age of NOT taking responsibility for ANYTHING if you can blame someone else!

      IceBlaster - 2010-12-22 10:30

      The first part about the imbalance is true, but the human factor is minimal since the largest contributing greenhouse gas is water vapour which contributes +-80% to so-called global warming, or which +-98% is naturally produced and the other +-2% is man-made. All in total Man contributes less than a 1% in global warming therefor natural climate change. That is why global warming or better named climate change has happened many times before. But i agree with Andrew that should not stop people recycling or living cleaner lives, espesially since africas biggest problem is by no means the myth that is global warming.

  • Thatch22, Annemieke - 2010-12-22 09:49

    Global warming is not true. I dont believe this for years already. Just a way to get more taxes. And it is normal that weather changes, it happens already since earth is there! So stop this bloody nonsens and dom climat conferences all over the world.

  • Al-Jackal - 2010-12-22 10:41

    All these scientist really know is that they know nothing and every self-respecting scientist will tell you that

  • William - 2010-12-22 12:11

    Global warming is such a load of nonsense and the way they are trying to blame the Cold weather on it is very sad for so called scientist. Global warming had been propagated for years and years but still the weather is more stable then their theories. Open your eyes folks MONEY MONEY MONEY ...The world is dying Open a New account ..Support us to stop it from happening....Let's get government to spend billions on grants..and lets give the contracts to these "green corporations" who we know loves this world so much...It is for our children so that hey can have better weather..blah blah blah. The Theories change , the Lies get more elaborate but one thing remains...Global warming crusaders are filling their pockets with your money...WAKE UP !!!!

  • Ben Fowler - 2010-12-22 12:45

    I am still undecided on this issue. I tend to go the middle way. I have a THEORY (please don't ask me to proof it all you triple PhD scientists ). My theory is that there is global warming but that it is not as bad as the proponents claim it to be. This global warning might be due to a combination of natural and human activity. I think that they are using the opportunity afforded to them by the rise in temperatures to push another agenda. The developed/industrialized/west needs to wean themselves of their dependence of oil since it will run out someday and the major oil deposits are in the countries of people that you would not call their friends. To stay competitive while alone changing your economy from oil based to other sources of energy will almost be impossible for any country. Much technology must still be developed. This must truly be a global effort. No country would freely change from oil to more sustainable energy sources. You need incentives to overcome fear and greed. What better incentive than avoiding the terrible outcome painted by global warning proponents.

      cicboy - 2010-12-22 13:31

      Totally agree with you, Ben. It is not about global warming, but rather a situation where oil reserves are depleting and western governments require an alternative source of energy, hence massive funding is being diverted into these sectors. Obviously, they don't want to destabilise global markets by openly stating that they are investing in alternative energy sources due to depleted oil reserves, so they use Global Warming as a guise. I think to sum up, which a lot of the global warming sceptics are not considering here, is that like it or not our taxes will need to be pumped into finding alternative energy resources to prevent a collapse in the global economy. Our lifestyle demands it!

  • chrismtb007 - 2010-12-22 13:09

    There are more sunspots at the moment, the weather has been changing decade after decade, hot and cold changes the Whole world through. the "global warming farce" is a tool to scare people, and became a political pion, to get votes and get civilians to vote for the "green" option... there are a lot of proof for this, the best is, go back on meteorological history, especially for Europe, and you will see taht there was the "little Ice age" followed by an extreme heat wave for a few years.... Global warming was created so Barack Obama could get voted as the US prsident, and with creating fear, you controll people that are scared, as easy as that!!!

  • bmpdragon - 2010-12-22 14:11

    To Andrew and all the other sceptics of "AGW" (Anthropic Global Warming): climate change caused by humans is a fact. While it is true that the Earth has gone through numerous epochs of warming and cooling (the Glacial’s and Interglacial’s known colloquially as "Ice Ages"), and that the climatic and environmental loops are incredibly complex to model (with such diverse factors as tilt of the Earth, type of Earth orbit, ocean currents, buffering of land masses, reflection of surface areas, molecular makeup of the atmosphere, etc.), climatologists (including palaeo-climatologists) are developing more accurate simulations all of which indicate that humans are negatively affecting the climate and environment. Also, Andrew you are mistaken: Nature and Science are peer-reviewed journals that are popular by scientific/academic standards (given the citation rate) but not amongst laypeople/non-academics. Furthermore, having an engineering degree has no bearing on the authority of your arguments and is an example of a logical fallacy (argumentum ad verecundiam). More specific responses to some of your anti-AGW statements: during the Medieval Global Warming period, the ice sheets in Greenland and the Artic circle did not substantially recede (as compared to today). Almost every colleague scientist I have asked (particularly palaeo-climatologists) have told me that climate change caused by human impact is a fact.

      IceBlaster - 2010-12-22 14:43

      Models are just as accurate as the people that use them, you design them like you say to indicate that humans are negatively affecting the climate and environment then they will. Put in bad info like they probably are they will get the results they getting now. Put crap in get crap out.

      Andrew - 2010-12-22 15:08

      I have never claimed to be an expert, just an engineer with a good understanding of thermodynamics, heat and mass transfer. The ice sheet in Greenland has not receded dramatically as you suggest - you can see a daily graphic of the ice extent on Nasa's website (I look at this regularly - it's hard to actually see any recedence in Greenland at all). During medieval times, we have on historical record (and archeological record) the history of viking agriculture on a grand scale in greenland. As I keep reiterating ad nauseum - I am simply a scientist/engineer with a healthy level of scepticism asking some very reasonable questions. The fact that people never answer these questions but rather attack my character is of deep concern to me and smacks of something other than scientific debate. At least you are being reasonable in your response. I was indeed mistaken on Science and Nature (got myself confused with Scientific American and National Geographic being bandied about) - thanks for correcting me there. It was Scientific American that published the notorious Himalayan glacier nonsense. I put in the point about having a science degree in response to Alfred's insults (Dumb Rednecks is what he called all sceptics). He also states 3 or 4 times that 90% of scientists support his views - this is not true, many scientists are skeptical and in fact very few are convinced entirely. Speaking out is very unpopular - since it provokes such intense emotion amongst the AGW crew.

      Andrew - 2010-12-22 15:13

      Also, the models and predictions that are generated are all based on an assumed temperature rise, based on data that has manipulated to pretend that the medieval warm period simply did not exist at all. I am encouraged that you at least are prepared to admit that there was a warm period. How about the recommendations of the review of the IPCC data after climategate --- which asked for better peer review and suggested that the IPCC employ a qualified statistician, the mind boggles that they didn't have one to review Briffa and Mann's manipulations. Scientific debate and peer review is ALWAYS GOOD!

      bmpdragon - 2010-12-22 23:38

      Andrew, no climatologist or evolutionary biologist worth their salt (or airspace) will assert that the climate is constant. Most Glacial and Interglacial periods are veritable rollercoaster rides on the thermometer (in terms of geological time). What is unusual about the present interglacial, the Holocene, is how relatively stable it has been (given a few "mini" warm and cold periods where the temperature fluctuated about 1degree Celsius). But human activity is a threat to the relatively predictable and calm climate of the last 10 000 years. To quote several palaeo-climatologists: "Because the recent warming is so much more marked than earlier natural fluctuations, such as the Medieval Climatic Optimum and the Little Ice Age, it implies that the gentle long term downward trend, which was the most obvious natural variation, was reversed dramatically around the end of the nineteenth century, as a result of human activities" (William J. Burroughs — Climate Change in Prehistory). "By controlling the environment, humans have created their own mechanisms for increasing per capita surplus. The problem is that this is unsustainable. We are living far beyond Earth’s present capacity to provide, living on borrowed surplus, and in doing so we are altering Earth’s delicate balance and throwing it into rapid climate change" (Renée Hetherington and Robert G. B. Reid — The Climate Connection).

      bmpdragon - 2010-12-22 23:52

      Contrary to what you say, Andrew, most climatologists acknowledge that human activity has taken our species into unchartered climatic territory (excuse the pun). While I support healthy scepticism as part of the scientific process, in the face of irrefutable and overwhelming evidence, scepticism can easily become a pathological conspiracy theory.

      Douglas - 2010-12-23 01:50

      Andrew: The ice sheet in Greenland has not receded dramatically as you suggest... Interesting. It was calculated in 2008 that the Arctic circle as a whole has, since 2003 (or in the space of 6 years), lost 2 trillion tons of land ice due to melting (see ). If it is NOT melting as you suggest, what could be causing the raging waterfalls disappearing down the Greenland crevasses? (For a cool pic of this, see ) Or are you saying the photo was doctored?? And I suppose the data of rising sea levels (3mm per year, or 50% faster than the 20th century average) is ALSO fraudulent? Speaking of NASA, this from their website, re a famous Greenland glacier (Jacobshavn) they'd been studying: "Airborne laser altimetry measurements of Jakobshavn's surface elevation, made previously by researchers at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility, showed a thickening, or building up of the glacier from 1991 to 1997, coinciding closely with the glacier's slow-down. Similarly, the glacier began thinning by as much as 15 meters (49 feet) a year just as its velocity began to increase between 1997 and 2003." ( Also: "A comprehensive analysis of millions of ICESat measurements taken over the past few years shows that ice sheets are thinning both on Greenland and the Antarctic." (

  • shanklys.kin - 2010-12-22 14:26

    What a load of bollocks. Let's just face it. Al Gore and his chronies were just trying to capitalize on the warm cycle the earth went through, to nail the world with carbon tax and all other types of "green" schemes to take our money. Now the warming is causing the freeze? What next. Bunch of liars. Climategate scandal disproves any creditability these people may have had.

      Douglas - 2010-12-23 01:57

      What a gas. Climategate scandal, huh? I suggest you read a bit deeper into the subject. Try this for size (taken from "In the months that followed [the supposed Climategate scandal], there were several inquiries into the allegations resulting from the emails. When a few of the more suggestive email quotes are reeled off by pundits without much context, they can sound pretty damning. But each and every one of these inquiries has found no fraud and no conspiracy. The most comprehensive inquiry was the Independent Climate Change Email Review led by Sir Muir Russell, commissioned by UEA to examine the behaviour of the CRU scientists (but not the scientific validity of their work). It published its final report in July 2010 (all quotes are taken from this report unless otherwise specified). This inquiry was no whitewash: it examined the main allegations arising from the emails and their implications in meticulous detail. It focused on what the CRU scientists did, not what they said, investigating the evidence for and against each allegation. It interviewed CRU and UEA staff, and took 111 submissions including one from CRU itself. And it also did something the media completely failed to do: it attempted to put the actions of CRU scientists into context. The Review went back to primary sources to see if CRU really was hiding or falsifying their data. It considered how much CRU’s actions influenced the IPCC’s conclusions about temperatures during the past millennium. It commissioned a paper by Dr Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, on the context of scientific peer review. And it asked IPCC Review Editors how much influence individuals could wield on writing groups. Many of these are things any journalist could have done relatively easily, but few ever bothered to do. So when put into the proper context, what do these emails actually reveal about the behaviour of the CRU scientists? The report concluded (its emphasis): Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour, and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt. In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments."

      weatherhappens - 2010-12-27 19:43

      @Douglas, yea it is amazing what kind of whitewash can happen when your chummies investigate you. Its like the African National Congress investigating themselves. Considering Phil Jones who was the heart of the CRU climategate scandle came clean and admitted that there has been no observable warming in the last 15 years, I think that puts paid to mountains of hype used to promote AGW in the last 15 years.

  • Julius - 2010-12-22 15:32


  • Olavin - 2010-12-22 19:54

    I don't have a problem with global change. The cycle of heating causing cooling which again causes heating has been happening for millions of years. CO2 emmisions have risen and fallen with the cycle trend, so that's not new either. The cycle is sure to continue. What I do have a problem with is that the rich and powerful are now riding the issue to become richer and more powerful through carbon credits. Carbon credits don't even cut down emmisions. The way it's formed is that a company can push out as much carbon as it wants as long as it lines the pockets of the rich and powerful with the tax they've imposed. They don't really care about changing the amount of CO2 emmisions. This is the raping of nations by the elite. And people say to me, "but even if global warming is not man made, surely you agree we are polluting the planet and we have to change our ways." Yes, we are and yes we do need to change our ways, I do my bit. But I refuse to join the church of extreme green religion as long as they are fine with riding in the same boat as the elitist scum who think the general population are just bottom feeders.

  • steve.allinson - 2010-12-22 22:55

    There is no end to the absolute tripe these government paid 'scientists' keep feeding us - how can they keep a straight face? I distinctly recall that "the science is settled" and Gore's climate Armageddon fairy tale movie promised us that the climate would get hotter, there would be more huuricanes, the ice caps would melt inundating low lying land etc, etc. Yet now, 12 years later, they can only 'prove' warming by massive manipulation of datasets (CRU quote "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment" (this "moment" is in its second decade) "and it is a travesty that we can't.")In England, I can see the climate is getting colder. The explanation? guess what, it ain't CO2. I'd suggest the ad hominem critics of Limeleight (below) check out some real science and meteorology, try for starters, check out the devlopment of Solar Cycle 24 and our sleeping sun have a look at Leif Svaalgard's work - might require more effort than swallowing the official line though and that ain't counter intuitive.

  • BobArmstrong - 2010-12-23 06:23

    It's becoming like a freak show attraction to see just what convoluted idiocy true believers in the eco-leninist "Science" will swallow rather than learn a little science , which requires math , and think for themselves . A doornail is effectively smarter because it's not subject to delusions . Really , people like Alfred and seem to have missed out on that class in grade school when they should have learned that they like all ( organic -- means "carbon" ) life are constructed of CO2 combined with H2O ( and a little ash ) by sunlight . It ain't pollution , dudes , unless you consider life pollution . You've drunk the Kool-aid and joined the ranks of what Lenin called , his "useful idiots" .

  • putney1968 - 2010-12-23 17:13

    Actaully, the average temperature in Nuuk, Greenland in December ranges from 15 10 28 degrees F. So it's about average right now. Today's range is 32-34 and it is snowing. Not much departure from average.

  • obloodyhell - 2010-12-23 17:20

    In equally disturbing news, the SAME highly reliable sources ALSO report that The Grinch is out to STEAL CHRISTMAS!! Peons are advised to keep their Xmas gifts locked up in a large steel vault at the Bank of Whoville, in their security boxes, along with all their carbon credits.

  • weatherhappens - 2010-12-27 19:36

    If one just goes back in recent history 3 to 5 years the zen masters of global warming were telling us that warmer winters were to be the new norm and that snow in places like England would be a thing of the past. But now they have changed their story once again because reality doesn't match what their sacred computer models prognosticated. Bottom line, the climate cartel is in major damage control and making this stuff up as they go because their grants are at stake and their reputations are in tatters because they now look like the fools they really are. Even their UN IPCC AR4 report from 2007 makes it clear that AGW causes warmer winters--except when it doesn't!

  • weatherhappens - 2010-12-27 19:38

    If one just goes back in recent history 3 to 5 years the zen masters of global warming were telling us that warmer winters were to be the new norm and that snow in places like England would be a thing of the past. But now they have changed their story once again because reality doesn't match what their sacred computer models prognosticated. Bottom line, the climate cartel is in major damage control and making this stuff up as they go because their grants are at stake and their reputations are in tatters because they now look like the fools they really are. Even their UN IPCC AR4 report from 2007 makes it clear that AGW causes warmer winters--except when it doesn't!

  • weatherhappens - 2010-12-27 19:38

    If one just goes back in recent history 3 to 5 years the zen masters of global warming were telling us that warmer winters were to be the new norm and that snow in places like England would be a thing of the past. But now they have changed their story once again because reality doesn't match what their sacred computer models prognosticated. Bottom line, the climate cartel is in major damage control and making this stuff up as they go because their grants are at stake and their reputations are in tatters because they now look like the fools they really are. Even their UN IPCC AR4 report from 2007 makes it clear that AGW causes warmer winters--except when it doesn't! BTW 30,000 scientists, 3,500 of them earth sciences signed the Petition Project stating that anthropogenic global warming is a load of excrement.

  • weatherhappens - 2010-12-27 19:43

    If one just goes back in recent history 3 to 5 years the zen masters of global warming were telling us that warmer winters were to be the new norm and that snow in places like England would be a thing of the past. But now they have changed their story once again because reality doesn't match what their sacred computer models prognosticated. Bottom line, the climate cartel is in major damage control and making this stuff up as they go because their grants are at stake and their reputations are in tatters because they now look like the fools they really are. Even their UN IPCC AR4 report from 2007 makes it clear that AGW causes warmer winters--except when it doesn't! BTW 30,000 scientists, 3,500 of them earth sciences signed the Petition Project stating that anthropogenic global warming is a load of excrement.

      Roger 01 - 2011-01-07 13:53

      Is that an echo I hear ?

  • weatherhappens - 2010-12-27 20:01

    The last sentence of this story is a lie, which one has come to expect from the alarmist camp Greenland is running well below normal temps: Once again the climate cult offers up its grand narrative if utter mythology!

  • Basson - 2011-01-18 19:33

    All bull. Political gains and money making. Earth goes trough hot cold cycles for millions of years. What happened to the hole in the ozone? Nothing we did changed it. There is the big brains that preached doom because of the HOLE in the OZONE ...oh wait its the same guys doing the global warming bull.

  • Concerned - 2011-03-09 17:06

    I'd like to find out if the following info I read is correct or not. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, in just four days,negated every effort mankind has made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on the planet. That's just one volcano. There're about 200 active volcanoes spewing out emissions at any one time - every day. When Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Phillipines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire years on earth. It was active for one year. Mankinds contribution to global warming is negligent. The current climate change/global warming scare is a prelude to additional taxes to aid governments to balance the books. Please comment.

  • pages:
  • 1