http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/weathersheffield_3149107c_thumb.jpg
The question might be more accurately phrased as "WAS David Viner right..." Here is the link to the article published in March of 2000:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment...
It was interesting to revisit this article after several years; Viner, however, did not say snow "is" a thing of the past, he said that-editorial paraphrasing in parentheses-(within a few years winter snowfall will become) "a very rare and exciting event".
At the time I found the article rather sensational, and it was certainly one of the early examples I saw that alerted me to the way the media sensationalizes the specter of climate change via headlines and selective quotes. But I do question the reliance on short term trends to predict longer ones and this seems to be borne out by arguments on both sides of the argument, most recently by the AGW opposition view that regards the slowing of warming for several years as proof of the failure of AGW theory while simultaneously trumpeting the statistical insignificance acknowledged by Climate Scientists. How can the warming be statistically insignificant while the lack of it is somehow proof of a cooling trend or that concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere don't influence average global temperatures?
It seems that many people want to grasp at straws proffered by the media and very short term analyses as substantial evidence that proves what they want to believe one way or the other, and that is all too often reinforced by their political ideology. I just can't really buy into that or allow casual readings of headlines and articles to dictate what I believe-but this article is really a prime example of misleading journalism. And don't get me wrong-I'm not defending Viner, he went out on a limb-perhaps in his own interests or to market the concept of AGW. But really, what is 'a few years?' That could mean 5 years or 30...he did say: "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time." I can't speak for the UK at this point and if Viner was being literal he still has 5 years to be proven wrong, but he did say "probably" rather than "precisely" and there are certainly other regions of the globe that are having issues coping with large amounts of snowfall, which Viner obviously includes in the whole concept of weather extremes rather than the limits some would impose by defining "extremes" as the number of tornadoes and hurricanes that occur.
What David Viner said back in 2000 was that "within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," and he was specifically talk about England.
Now almost 15 years after this was said we find that he was mistaken, at least in the short term. Yet the anti global warming gang have turned this into a claim that it was never going to snow anywhere again and keep regurgitating this soundbite every time it snows anywhere, from America to the South Pole.
As if this single comment made almost 15 years ago, disputes all the scientific evidence in the climate science field of study. As if one scientist making a statement which does not happen makes all the other scientific knowledge accumulated and assessed by hundreds and thousands of scientists over decades false.
The whole purpose of science is to be constantly testing and challenging theories and this inevitably means that as our knowledge grows previous conclusions from the evidence change.
If that was not so we would still be sitting around our mud huts, grinding flour on millstones and believing the world was flat.
How about you provide proof that David Viner actually said that instead of a link to a snowy picture on some denier rag?
Seems that he has to be a global warming denier.
Nobody that is concerned about global warming would make that as a general statement.
Also, notalotofpeopleknowthis is no better than wattsupwiththat.
one snowstorm in one place is not global nor climate.
try something original or ask again during a deadly summer heat wave
he did not say that.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/weathersheffield_3149107c_thumb.jpg?w=504&h=316
The question might be more accurately phrased as "WAS David Viner right..." Here is the link to the article published in March of 2000:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment...
It was interesting to revisit this article after several years; Viner, however, did not say snow "is" a thing of the past, he said that-editorial paraphrasing in parentheses-(within a few years winter snowfall will become) "a very rare and exciting event".
At the time I found the article rather sensational, and it was certainly one of the early examples I saw that alerted me to the way the media sensationalizes the specter of climate change via headlines and selective quotes. But I do question the reliance on short term trends to predict longer ones and this seems to be borne out by arguments on both sides of the argument, most recently by the AGW opposition view that regards the slowing of warming for several years as proof of the failure of AGW theory while simultaneously trumpeting the statistical insignificance acknowledged by Climate Scientists. How can the warming be statistically insignificant while the lack of it is somehow proof of a cooling trend or that concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere don't influence average global temperatures?
It seems that many people want to grasp at straws proffered by the media and very short term analyses as substantial evidence that proves what they want to believe one way or the other, and that is all too often reinforced by their political ideology. I just can't really buy into that or allow casual readings of headlines and articles to dictate what I believe-but this article is really a prime example of misleading journalism. And don't get me wrong-I'm not defending Viner, he went out on a limb-perhaps in his own interests or to market the concept of AGW. But really, what is 'a few years?' That could mean 5 years or 30...he did say: "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time." I can't speak for the UK at this point and if Viner was being literal he still has 5 years to be proven wrong, but he did say "probably" rather than "precisely" and there are certainly other regions of the globe that are having issues coping with large amounts of snowfall, which Viner obviously includes in the whole concept of weather extremes rather than the limits some would impose by defining "extremes" as the number of tornadoes and hurricanes that occur.
What David Viner said back in 2000 was that "within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," and he was specifically talk about England.
Now almost 15 years after this was said we find that he was mistaken, at least in the short term. Yet the anti global warming gang have turned this into a claim that it was never going to snow anywhere again and keep regurgitating this soundbite every time it snows anywhere, from America to the South Pole.
As if this single comment made almost 15 years ago, disputes all the scientific evidence in the climate science field of study. As if one scientist making a statement which does not happen makes all the other scientific knowledge accumulated and assessed by hundreds and thousands of scientists over decades false.
The whole purpose of science is to be constantly testing and challenging theories and this inevitably means that as our knowledge grows previous conclusions from the evidence change.
If that was not so we would still be sitting around our mud huts, grinding flour on millstones and believing the world was flat.
How about you provide proof that David Viner actually said that instead of a link to a snowy picture on some denier rag?
Seems that he has to be a global warming denier.
Nobody that is concerned about global warming would make that as a general statement.
Also, notalotofpeopleknowthis is no better than wattsupwiththat.
one snowstorm in one place is not global nor climate.
try something original or ask again during a deadly summer heat wave
he did not say that.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/weathersheffield_3149107c_thumb.jpg?w=504&h=316
