On 26/03/13 16:56, harry wrote:
On Mar 26, 8:25 am, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1215549 20130326 065810 Tim Watts wrote:









On Tuesday 26 March 2013 05:40 Mike Tomlinson wrote in uk.d-i-y:

There's another couple of threads currently running about climate
change, but they've strayed somewhat off topic.

Spotted this in the Grauniad yesterday:

"Scientists link frozen spring to dramatic Arctic sea ice loss

Climate scientists have linked the massive snowstorms and bitter spring
weather now being experienced across Britain and large parts of Europe
and North America to the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...spring-arctic-
sea-ice-loss

Thoughts:

1) I know, it's the Grauniad

2) these are scientists, not greenies dressed up as scientists

3) I have no particular leanings either way on the climate change
argument. Some people say the amount of sea ice has hardly changed,
some say it's massively reduced. I don't know who to believe.

I'm going with "weather is essentially random and has unpredictable
extremes" until enough real scientists say otherwise.

Here you go:

http://www.netweather.tv/index.cgi?a...winter-history

very similar to March 1962 which of course preceeded the famous winter of
1963.

Another notable one from the same link:

"1849: April, great snowstorm hit Southern England. Coaches buried in
drifts. Notably late snowfall."

So this winter is nothing that hasn't happened before - it's just the tip
end of an extreme. So I call "********" and "desparate to keep the [global
warming] dream alive".

Just what does a spell of British weather have to do with global climate?

You got that wrong. It's what has global climate got to do with
British weather?

I'd have thought it was apparent to even you now.
Extreme weather events becoming more frequent is the answer.


except they aren't becoming more frequent at all.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.