Scientists predict 'mini ice age' by 2030

[Derek Willis]

1 hour ago, MissJatti said:

In the year 2000AD, scientists said that soon, England winters will be as hot as Spain summers.

I'm still waiting for that too happen.

I live in England and right now I am watching the snow falling - just like it did when I was a kid!

[Myles]

I don't buy it.   It would be nice to see a turn from the global warming we have been seeing.  

[lost_shaman]

40 minutes ago, Myles said:

I don't buy it.   It would be nice to see a turn from the global warming we have been seeing.  

Actually we are cooling and cooling will mean lots of misery and starving and death for many millions of people. Not that I'm an Alarmist or anything but that simply the truth no-one talks about.

Edited December 29, 2017 by lost_shaman

[Myles]

3 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Actually we are cooling and cooling will mean lots of misery and starving and death for many millions of people.

Every trend graph I have seen shows that the temps are trending up.        

[Essan]

16 hours ago, Nordmann61 said:

Do the chemtrail spraying make it even cooler, since it dims the atmosphere? Can it tip the predicted coming mini ice age into a real ice age?

No, aircraft contrails contribute towards warming - one reason research continues into finding ways to reduce them

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/mar/23/changes-to-flight-path-could-reduce-aircraft-effect-on-climate

[Essan]

3 hours ago, MissJatti said:

In the year 2000AD, scientists said that soon, England winters will be as hot as Spain summers.

I'm still waiting for that too happen.

I think you're getting confused with suggestions made in the popular media  that some parts of southern England could see a more mediterranean climate, especially in summer, by the mid 21st century  

[Essan]

2 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

I live in England and right now I am watching the snow falling - just like it did when I was a kid!

It does make a nice change after the past few snowless (or virtually so) winters!   

But then, "they" did say snow would become a rare treat  

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

Actually we are cooling and cooling will mean lots of misery and starving and death for many millions of people. Not that I'm an Alarmist or anything but that simply the truth no-one talks about.

The warmest month on record was February 2016 at the peak of the last El Nino excursion.  We have cooled 0.47 degrees since then, but that's a long way from being able to say that "we are cooling" from a climate perspective.  That's just weather doing it's thing.  It has warmed slightly since June, so don't get too excited about cooling.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

10 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

.  We have cooled 0.47 degrees since

You have absolutely no way to know what the global temperature has done! Certainly no to a hundredth of a degree!!! 

Just back off with your nonsense Doug!!!

[Doug1029]

10 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

You have absolutely no way to know what the global temperature has done! Certainly no to a hundredth of a degree!!! 

Just back off with your nonsense Doug!!!

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Doug

Edited December 29, 2017 by Doug1029

[Black Monk]

On 27/12/2017 at 0:04 PM, ChaosRose said:

It's not new. It has been discredited for years.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjPj5vMkarYAhUHKyYKHcKoAE0QFgg1MAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftheconversation.com%2Fthe-mini-ice-age-hoopla-is-a-giant-failure-of-science-communication-45037&usg=AOvVaw0cNoSzx8o_a-vyL8nL1NZS

Wishful thinking on your part, maybe. The Warmists want it to be discredited because, if it isn't, their own theory will be.

Global Cooling was, of course, the great global catastrophe we were all warned about in the Seventies and Eighties. Climate scientists and the media warned us about it. There was scientific consensus on the issue and anyone who didn't believe it was probably derided as a crank. Eventually, though, Global Cooling came to nothing. It is now almost forgotten about and the 1970s' Global Cooling Craze is deemed to be an eccentric and weird time in history.

Global Warming will go the same way and be regarded in similar light forty years from now.

Edited December 30, 2017 by Black Monk

[Black Monk]

On 28/12/2017 at 3:07 PM, King Fluffs said:

If the Thames freezes over again, can we have that market on the ice back?

The Thames Frost Fairs, held until 1814.

[Black Monk]

On 29/12/2017 at 10:20 AM, MissJatti said:

In the year 2000AD, scientists said that soon, England winters will be as hot as Spain summers.

I'm still waiting for that too happen.

Global Warmists said in 2000 that, by 2010, most British children won't know what snow is as they will grow up without ever seeing it.

With yet more heavy snowfall yesterday during this winter, how wrong they were.

Read this and chuckle:

The Independent report of March 20, 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...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.

David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually “feel” virtual cold. Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said. The chances are certainly now stacked against the sort of heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in “London Snow” of it, “stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying”.

Edited December 30, 2017 by Black Monk

[Doug1029]

19 minutes ago, Black Monk said:

Global Warmists said in 2000 that, by 2010, most British children won't know what snow is as they will grow up without ever seeing it.

With yet more heavy snowfall yesterday during this winter, how wrong they were.

Read this and chuckle:

The Independent report of March 20, 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...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.

David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually “feel” virtual cold. Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said. The chances are certainly now stacked against the sort of heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in “London Snow” of it, “stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying”.

You are mistaking weather for climate.  Weather is what you see when you look out the window.  Climate is a statistic.  Climate is based on 30-year averages.  Nobody could predict a climate change 10 years ahead because even if there was one, the statistics couldn't be computed until 30 years after the fact.  A 30-year time span was chosen to eliminate decadal-scale oscillations from climate-change computations (A cycle that recurs every seven years is not climate change, eg. the Chandler Wobble.).

There was, in fact, a slight decline in global temperatures in the late 1960s and early 1970s.  There was also a paper on the Milankoviych Cycles that, due to a simple arithmetic mistake that got past the reviewers, predicted just such an eventuality.  There was also a mistake in the atmospheric optical density that resulted in predictions of less incoming radiation than actually occurs.  At that time (pre-EPA), we had a lot of sulfate pollution from coal-burning power plants and smelters.  Once EPA banned these, the air got a lot cleaner, reflecting less energy back into space and this resulted in a warm-up.

Then in 1976 a new evaporation basin opened in the Drake Passage, changing ocean circulation and redistributing heat around the world.  That's when the current temperature excursion began, resulting in the global warming hysteria of the 1980s and 90s.

We have learned a lot about climate in just the last ten years.  Your information is 40 years old.  Don't you think it's time to update yourself?

Doug

 

[Derek Willis]

2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

You are mistaking weather for climate.  Weather is what you see when you look out the window.  Climate is a statistic.  Climate is based on 30-year averages.  Nobody could predict a climate change 10 years ahead because even if there was one, the statistics couldn't be computed until 30 years after the fact.

This is where I get confused. If, as you say, nobody could predict a climate change 10 years ahead, then why did David Viner of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia do exactly that? In 2000 Viner said that within a few years winter snowfall "will become a very rare and exciting event", and added, "children just aren't going to know what snow is".

Are you saying this climate scientist has been misquoted? He did of course add a get-out-of-jail remark by saying, "Heavy snow will return occasionally."

It reminds me of when Winston Churchill mocked Neville Chamberlain by saying, "I can confidently predict war will come next year ... or the year after that ... or the year after that ..." 

I wonder what Viner said during the winter of 2010/11, one of the coldest in the UK for quite some time?

Edit.  I am currently looking out the window at a snowman made by some kids this morning ...

Edited December 30, 2017 by Derek Willis

[Doug1029]

10 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

This is where I get confused. If, as you say, nobody could predict a climate change 10 years ahead, then why did David Viner of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia do exactly that? In 2000 Viner said that within a few years winter snowfall "will become a very rare and exciting event", and added, "children just aren't going to know what snow is".

Are you saying this climate scientist has been misquoted? He did of course add a get-out-of-jail remark by saying, "Heavy snow will return occasionally."

It reminds me of when Winston Churchill mocked Neville Chamberlain by saying, "I can confidently predict war will come next year ... or the year after that ... or the year after that ..." 

I wonder what Viner said during the winter of 2010/11, one of the coldest in the UK for quite some time?

Edit.  I am currently looking out the window at a snowman made by some kids this morning ...

I have no idea what Viner's motivation was or whether or not he may have been misquoted.  His papers deal mostly with the effects of climate on tourism.  He has done a couple dendrochronology studies.

2011 set some all-time records in Oklahoma, too.  Broken Arrow had 28 degrees below zero on February 10, 2011.  The original published temperature in Stillwater was 21 below.  And Ponca City and Perry had 25 below.

I can't see any change in extreme temperatures over time.  The increasing averages seem to be driven by changes in skew of temperature distributions, not by any uniform increase.  That being the case, one should shy away from forecasts about temperature extremes.  Maybe Viner hasn't studied local temps.  The UK shouldn't show warming anyway.  It is in the ocean with its huge capacity to damp out temperature changes.

All sounds to me like someone not Knowing as much as he thinks he does - a problem that seems to affect a lot of people.

Doug

 

[Truthseeker007]

On ‎12‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 2:35 PM, UM-Bot said:

A new mathematical model of the Sun's magnetic activity has indicated that we may soon be in for a cold spell.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/314413/scientists-predict-mini-ice-age-by-2030

Try telling that to the global warming alarmist and or Al Gore.

[Derek Willis]

57 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

I have no idea what Viner's motivation was or whether or not he may have been misquoted.  His papers deal mostly with the effects of climate on tourism.  He has done a couple dendrochronology studies.

2011 set some all-time records in Oklahoma, too.  Broken Arrow had 28 degrees below zero on February 10, 2011.  The original published temperature in Stillwater was 21 below.  And Ponca City and Perry had 25 below.

I can't see any change in extreme temperatures over time.  The increasing averages seem to be driven by changes in skew of temperature distributions, not by any uniform increase.  That being the case, one should shy away from forecasts about temperature extremes.  Maybe Viner hasn't studied local temps.  The UK shouldn't show warming anyway.  It is in the ocean with its huge capacity to damp out temperature changes.

All sounds to me like someone not Knowing as much as he thinks he does - a problem that seems to affect a lot of people.

Doug

 

Viner was working at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. So I guess he didn't know as much as he thought he did. Or perhaps he did ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, Derek Willis said:

Viner was working at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. So I guess he didn't know as much as he thought he did. Or perhaps he did ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Here is something I wrote several years ago:

Mann wrote THREE papers.  The first was the "hockey stick" paper (Mann et al. 1998).  The essence of the "controversy" is whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than present (defined as the year 2000).  Deniers need current temps to be below the MWP high to support their claim that current temps are nothing unusual.  Proponents need the opposite.  The MWP lasted from about 900 AD to about 1300 AD.  But Mann's paper covered the interval from 1400 AD to the present.  The two intervals do not even overlap; thus, this paper is pretty much irrelevant to the "controversy."  But because nobody (denier or proponent) seems inclined to actually read what was written, both sides assumed Mann was claiming the MWP barely existed.  This study was the first use of a new technique based on eigenvectors.  The paper included the famous “hockey stick” graph.

 

The following year the same authors extended the study back to 1000 AD using the same techniques (Mann et al. 1999).  This now included three-quarters of the Medieval Warm Period.  The paper included a string of caveats, among them that uncertainties prevented decisive conclusions before the year 1400.  But the popular press doesn’t find caveats interesting, so none of this got reported in the mass media.

 

Mann published a third paper which contained eight climate reconstructions from North and South America, Scandinavia, the subtropical North Atlantic, western Greenland, central England, eastern China and the Andes (Mann 2002).  This paper points out the localized temperature regimes present during the MWP.  The (averaged) Northern Hemisphere reconstruction and the western North America reconstruction (those bristlecones) barely show a warm period, while most of the rest of the world clearly had warmer temps.  West Greenland and the tropical Andes started the MWP with a sharp drop in temps, then followed up with a sharp rise.  Central England got off to a slow start, but later caught up.

 

The first two papers were controversial mostly because they were used by the IPCC in support of the 2001 Third Assessment Report.  The third one came out too late for the IPCC to use, so did not attract as much scrutiny from the general public.  Mann’s paper was one of four cited by the IPCC in support of its conclusions.

 

Experts disputing the findings included Pat Michaels of the fossil-fuel funded George C. Marshall Institute and Fred Singer who has questioned the link between melanoma and UV-B, the link between CFCs and the ozone hole and the risks of passive smoking.  Michaels actually is a climatologist and Singer is an atmospheric physicist.  These two men are among a tiny minority of scientists who question global warming and have the expertise to actually understand it.

 

A paper claiming greater Medieval warming (Soon and Baliunas 2003) was used by the Bush Administration in its attack on the Environmental Protection Agency and to justify non-support of the Kyoto protocols.  The publication led to concerns about the peer review process and the resignations of several editors.  The journal subsequently withdrew it from publication, but Jim Inhofe (Oklahoma’s great embarrassment) spoke in the Senate, citing it in support of his claim that “man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”  Inhofe never presented any evidence to support his comnclusion.

 

The George C. Marshall Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute publicized a paper (McIntyre and McKitrick 2003) without going through peer review critical of Mann’s proxy data and methods.  McIntyre is a mathematician, former minerals prospector and semi-retired mining consultant and the founder/editor of Climate Audit, a blog.  He doesn’t have any other qualifications.  McKitrick is an economist specializing in environmental economics and policy analysis.  This popular-press paper was his first foray into climate; though, he has since published others, mostly to defend this one.

 

Hans von Storch et al. (2004) criticized Mann’s statistics as underestimating variation in the earlier part of the reconstruction.  This was disputed and he later acknowledged that the effect was small.

 

McKitrick and McIntyre tried again in 2005 with a critique of Mann’s Principal Components Analysis, a technique used when there are multiple series, each trending in different directions.  This was disputed by Huybers (2005) and Wahl and Ammann (2007) who pointed out mistakes in McIntyre’s and McKitrick’s papers.

 

At the request of Sherwood Boehlert, Chairman of the House Science Committee, a panel of scientists was convened by the National Research Council (North 2006).  This report supported Mann’s findings with some qualifications, agreeing that there were some statistical shortcomings, but concluding that they had little effect on the result.  The citation is below.  Read it and make up your own mind.

 

Representative Whitfield and Edward Wegman (Wegman 2006) set up a committee of statisticians to investigate.  They supported McIntyre and McKitrick that there were statistical shortcomings, but did not determine whether these had affected the results.  They also produced a network analysis which has since been discredited by others amid charges of plagiarism (Mashey 2011; Mashey 2012).

 

The Climate Research Unit email controversy (“Climategate”) resulted from the hacking (theft) of private emails from a server at East Anglia University in 2009.  These were released out of context and selected to be as embarrassing as possible to the legitimate owners.  Eight different independent investigations subsequently cleared the scientists of all wrongdoing charges.

 

Since 1998 there have been at least two dozen reconstructions using different methods, so Mann’s findings have been tested many times.  Fourteen of these were used by the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report in support of its findings.  All these reconstructions have come out intermediate between Lamb’s original free-hand drawing and Mann’s (1998) reconstruction, but being closer to Mann than to Lamb.

 

The only examples of skullduggery I found in connection with the Hockey Stick and Climategate scandals were those of Wegman who produced an erroneous analysis, significant parts of which he plagiarized (stole) from other authors with minor manipulation and with the Climategate hackers and their supporters who stole private correspondence and deliberately misrepresented what it said.

 

Mann, Bradley, Hughes, McIntyre and McKitrick all had honest differences of opinion stemming from technical mistakes in their investigations.

Doug

 

Huybers, P.  2005.  Comment on “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” by S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick.  Geophysical Research Letters 32, L20705.

Mann, M. E., R. S. Bradley and M. K. Hughes.  1998.  Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the last six centuries.  Nature 392:779-787.

Mann, M. E., R. S. Bradley and M. K. Hughes.  1999.  Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium:  inferences, uncertainties, and limitations.  Geophysical Research Letters  26(6) (1999):  759-762. 

Mann, M. E.  2002.  The earth system:  physical and chemical dimensions of global environmental change.  In: MacCracken, M. C. and J. S. Perry, eds., encyclopedia of global environmental change.  John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.

Mashey, J. R.  2011.  Strange problems in the Wegman report, special report 35.2.  Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.

Mashey, J. R.  2012.  See no evil, speak little truth, break rules, blame others.  http://23.21.253.212/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/see.no_evil_.speak_little.truth_.pdf.

McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick.  2003.  Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy data base and northern hemispheric average temperature series.  Multi-Science Publishing Co., Essex, UK.

McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick.  2005.  Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance.  Geophysical Research Letters 32(3).

North, G. R.  2006.  Surface temperature reconstructions of the last 2,000 years.  In:  Statement of Gerald R. North, Ph.D., Chairman on Surface Temperature Reconstructions of the last 2,000 years, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences.

Soon, W. and S. Baliunas.  2003.  Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years.  Climate Research 23:89-110.

Von Storch, H., E. Zorita, J. M. Jones, Y. Dimitriev, F. Gonzales-Rouco and S. F. B. Tett.  2004.  Reconstructing past climate from noisy data.  Science 306(5696):679-682.

Wahl, E. R. and C. M. Ammann.  2007.  Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures:  examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence.  Climatic Change 85:33-69.

Wegman, E. J.  2006.  Ad hoc committee report on the “hockey Stick” global climate reconstruction, commissioned by the US Congress House Committee on Energy and the Envrionment.  US House of Representatives.

[SHaYap]

The World is getting so small that it now lies where the pointing finger lays ...

~

[Derek Willis]

10 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

The George C. Marshall Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute publicized a paper (McIntyre and McKitrick 2003) without going through peer review critical of Mann’s proxy data and methods.  McIntyre is a mathematician, former minerals prospector and semi-retired mining consultant and the founder/editor of Climate Audit, a blog.  He doesn’t have any other qualifications.  McKitrick is an economist specializing in environmental economics and policy analysis.  This popular-press paper was his first foray into climate; though, he has since published others, mostly to defend this one.

Doug, your bias - or should that be prejudice - knows no bounds. On another thread you demonstrated what seems to be a general trait - i.e. many climate scientists don't seem to understand the mathematics they use in attempting to prove their case. However, you criticize a mathematician for not having "any other qualifications". Surely mathematicians are what you need! As a teenager Steve McIntyre won a national mathematics competition in Canada. He then studied mathematics at the University of Toronto and graduated with a B.Sc. in 1969. He then read philosophy, politics and economics at Corpus Christi, Oxford, and graduated in 1971. He was then offered a scholarship to study mathematical economics at MIT, but decided not to. It sounds to me that McIntyre is a damn good mathematician, and certainly does have other qualifications - does a degree from Oxford University not count as another qualification? Your attempt to diminish McIntyre is simply because he wrote a paper critical to your belief system. Dear me, this smacks of desperation ...

[Black Monk]

19 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

You are mistaking weather for climate.  Weather is what you see when you look out the window.  Climate is a statistic.  Climate is based on 30-year averages.  Nobody could predict a climate change 10 years ahead because even if there was one, the statistics couldn't be computed until 30 years after the fact.  A 30-year time span was chosen to eliminate decadal-scale oscillations from climate-change computations (A cycle that recurs every seven years is not climate change, eg. the Chandler Wobble.).

There was, in fact, a slight decline in global temperatures in the late 1960s and early 1970s.  There was also a paper on the Milankoviych Cycles that, due to a simple arithmetic mistake that got past the reviewers, predicted just such an eventuality.  There was also a mistake in the atmospheric optical density that resulted in predictions of less incoming radiation than actually occurs.  At that time (pre-EPA), we had a lot of sulfate pollution from coal-burning power plants and smelters.  Once EPA banned these, the air got a lot cleaner, reflecting less energy back into space and this resulted in a warm-up.

Then in 1976 a new evaporation basin opened in the Drake Passage, changing ocean circulation and redistributing heat around the world.  That's when the current temperature excursion began, resulting in the global warming hysteria of the 1980s and 90s.

We have learned a lot about climate in just the last ten years.  Your information is 40 years old.  Don't you think it's time to update yourself?

Doug

 

It's this simple: In 2000, Global Warming believers told us, in no uncertain terms, that Global Warming would mean children in Britain would no longer know what snow is like within 20 years. Because of Global Warming. They were wrong.

Edited December 31, 2017 by Black Monk

[Derek Willis]

53 minutes ago, Black Monk said:

It's this simple: In 2000, Global Warming believers told us, in no uncertain terms, that Global Warming would mean children in Britain would no longer know what snow is like within 20 years. Because of Global Warming. They were wrong.

In 2006 the then UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, told us that we could expect a decade of unparalleled economic growth. In late-2007, the economies throughout the world crashed. When it comes to forecasting beyond a few months, none of them - economists, climate scientists, and politicians - really have a clue ...

[Essan]

23 hours ago, Black Monk said:

Wishful thinking on your part, maybe. The Warmists want it to be discredited because, if it isn't, their own theory will be.

Global Cooling was, of course, the great global catastrophe we were all warned about in the Seventies and Eighties. Climate scientists and the media warned us about it. There was scientific consensus on the issue and anyone who didn't believe it was probably derided as a crank. Eventually, though, Global Cooling came to nothing. It is now almost forgotten about and the 1970s' Global Cooling Craze is deemed to be an eccentric and weird time in history.

Global Warming will go the same way and be regarded in similar light forty years from now.

Rubbish

Even Nigel  Calder - who was responsible for popularising the "imminent ice age" idea - acknowledged in his 1974 book (The Weather Machine) that most climate scientists believed rising levels of CO2 would lead to warming....

[Essan]

3 hours ago, Black Monk said:

It's this simple: In 2000, Global Warming believers told us, in no uncertain terms, that Global Warming would mean children in Britain would no longer know what snow is like within 20 years. Because of Global Warming. They were wrong.

No, one person expressed a personal  opinion that snow would become a rare event.   As it has.   Here in the Midlands we just had snowfall  sufficient to build a snowman for the first time in 7 years.   To the delight of school  kids who had never seen such a thing before .....