Free Markets, Free People

So which is it–AGW means more snow or less snow?

As predictable as your relatives showing up on your doorstep a few hours after it’s announced you won the lottery, Al Gore had emerged from his hole in the snowpack to make sure we understand that the reason we’re seeing so much snow is … wait for it … man-made global warming.

Says the Goracle:

As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming: “In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow.”

Well, yeah, except the UK is on record as having had the coldest December in its recorded history and possibly the coldest in 1,000 years. I assume that’s all wrapped up in whatever we want "global warming" to be today, isn’t it Al? Because this isn’t the same story we’ve been hearing about all of this for years:

So which is it?



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

29 Responses to So which is it–AGW means more snow or less snow?

  • Al Gore and his ilk are guilty of “shouting fire in a crowded theater” when there is none. The chaos, economic crisis, human suffering, and a host of other problems that exist today are directly attributable to those, perhaps pre-meditated, actions. Isn’t there a legal consequence for this?

    • when there is none

      … no fire or no theater or no crowd.
      Al is guilty of yelling “theater” in a fire house, and then telling folks that they should be worried.
      And, let’s be fair, just because Al has a “carbon footprint” bigger than a Sasquatch is no reason to doubt him … there are plenty of other reasons to doubt him too.

  • So is it that Global Warming© means more stupid or only more ignorant?

  • Winning The Future .. AGW Edition

    If the science really is that settled, then this challenge should be easy:
    Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record.

  • Heads I win, tails you lose.

    What bothers me is that people continue to believe Algore: “It’s snowing because it’s hotter.” In a sane world, he would be reduced to standing on a street corner, yelling his kook theories at passersby.  Instead, he gets a Nobel.  Jebus.

  • Jay Inslee describes the loss of snow in the Cascade mountains which caused his son to have less snow bunny work.  Well, Cascade mountain snowpack is a measurable phenomenon and surprise, surprise, it has been growing, not shrinking, since 1950:  The cracks are becoming more and more apparent in the facade of the AGW alarmists.

  • “So which is it–AGW means more snow or less snow?”
    Yes!!!  Of course!!!  How can you ask such a silly, science-free question?!?!
    It is the consensus, you know…!!!

  • One can only be thankful that this idiot got no closer to the Oval Office than he did…while marveling at the fact he got as close to the Oval Office as he did.
    One more thing for which Bill Clinton must answer…

  • I’m still waiting on the waves of Katrina-level SUPER HURRICANES that were predicted to become a staple of every summer thanks to global warming.

    And those polar bears…..they all dead yet?

  • Gore is up to his neck in something he wasn’t equipped to even dip his toe into.

  • Of course it means both, it means whatever the weather is doing at the moment.

  • As a 40-year climatologist I always look forward to the latest Gore pronouncement on climate, since he is a marvelous source of pseudo-scientific blather. “Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air” might be OK for a jumior high science class, (or maybe not), but demonstrates a pitiful lack of meteorological knowledge.  Sadly, his statements are received by the media/public as though he is a font of climatological expertise…and this from a guy with little/no science background.  The fact that he is the face most recognized by the public in a field that I spent my professional career is a bit depressing.

    • How could you tell that he is “a marvelous source of pseudo-scientific blather” ?
      Was it his Nobel ?  .. or was it when he opened his mouth ?

    • Are you surprised,  a fair number of those talking heads don’t have degrees, and certainly not advanced degrees in sciences.    One group of ‘experts’ droning on for the edification of other ‘experts’.

  • What you all are missing here is the scientific consenses. You realize over 2000 people, some of them actual scientists signed a petition proving AGW to both be true and an immediate threat, right?

    Daft righties . . .

  • AGW is a tautology.  No matter what the question is, the answer is AGW.  Pure unscientific bullcrap.

  • Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is issuing a challenge to skeptics of climate change science: Bring it on.
    Boxer said Wednesday that she’s expecting hearings on the issue.
    She said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who is expected to head the panel’s oversight subcommittee, “is working on getting us going with some hearings.”
    “We are going to absolutely look at the science of carbon pollution and its impact on our people, on our planet,” Boxer said at a committee hearing on drinking water safety. “We are absolutely going to keep up with the science.”

  • AGW: The first post-modern science. When the evidence goes the other way, just redefine everything and pretend it was that way all along.

  • The attempt to explain the cold snaps within AGW doctrine have been ridiculous.  Indeed, the few attempts I have seen to document the causes have been shot full of falsehoods – i.e.,  see Pielke Sr. response to NYT editorial.  As to “addressing this for some time now,” I think it was uber-warmie Hansen who last predicted warm winters in the UK in the summer of 2008 – just a few months before the UK began the first of its now three in a row bitterly cold winters.  And at the heart of AGW prediction is the MET office.  They have been forecasting warm winters in 2008, 2009, and, yes, 2010 – and the Brits are downright pissed at that.  The bottom line is that every AGW spewing computer is programmed to show warming closely tied to CO2.  They have been wrong for 15 years, and every year they seem to be surprised by it – or in the case of Hansen, just make changes to the historic temperature record.  What someone needs to ask Gore, and everyone of these parasitic AGW proponents, is “what evidence would be necessary to falsify the theory of global warming? What are the “facts” that they identify as forming the crucial underpinnings that AGW? With that answer in hand, then the meme of AGW will cease to be mindless dogma. It will become actual science that cannot withstand scrutiny.”

    • One of the things I hate most about the Gorbal warming/colding/change/chaos/whatever is that science is made stupid in the eyes of people.
      There is an anti-science polity, and it ain’t Conservatives.

    The Outlaw Obama Regime is beginning to see the courts reassert the rule of law.
    Excellent. Keep. It. UP…