Global Warming Hearing Cancelled Because of Snow

Here is an excerpt from a 03/26/13 story published by The Washington Times.

An unusually chilly March day and the snowstorm it spawned have shut down much of official Washington on Wednesday — including a hearing House Republicans had called to examine global warming.

Didn’t the IPCC say that global warming would result in less snow?



CNN Mocks Rand Paul’s Filibuster, No Wonder CNN is Losing Credibility
Tom Brokaw: Obama Spends Too Much Time Campaigning
  • jim_m


  • LiberalNightmare

    All we need now is a picture of a hungry polar bear wandering the streets of DC

    • Brett Buck

      Releasing hungry polar bears in Washington sounds like a great idea. I wonder if polar bears are prone to indigestion?

    • Plinytherecent

      That would be cruelty to animals.

  • MartinLandauCalrissian

    Too hot? IT’S GLOBAL WARMING!! Too cold? IT’S GLOBAL WARMING!! Just right? IT’S GLOBAL WARMING!! No real proof? IT’S GLOBAL WARMING!!

    • Wild_Willie

      I couldn’t add another word. You summed it up nicely. A circle argument. ww

    • TomInCali

      It’s snowing outside? IT’S PROOF CLIMATE CHANGE IS A FRAUD! Another record-breaking heat wave? (*crickets*)

      Seriously, this happens every year on Wizbang. During winter, multiple gleeful posts about how it being cold outside proves climate change is a hoax. During the summer, all news reports of heat waves are summarily ignored. Just more vacuous arguments from people who don’t understand the difference between climate and weather.

      • MartinLandauCalrissian

        What is your degree in climate “science”?

        • TomInCali

          Where’s yours? And very interesting that you think only scientists with relevant degrees should set social policy. I wouldn’t expect that point of view from a conservative. (Or a liberal, frankly.)

          • MartinLandauCalrissian

            You have no sense of introspection, do you, moron? You come here and accuse everyone of being too stupid to understand “science.’ THAT is why I asked YOUR degrees. Idiot.

          • TomInCali

            OK, now you’re just doing some unintelligible rambling and name calling. I didn’t accuse “everyone” of anything regarding “science”, so I don’t know who you think you’re quoting. Although for you, the accusation that you allege I made would probably be applicable.

      • herddog505


        1. We were assured that, due to global warming, snow would become a rare if not unknown event. Oh, it snowed? RECORD snowfall? Um, well… er… uh… CLIMATE CHANGE! Yeah, that’s it! We predicted this all along! We just didn’t tell you…

        I refer you to the British Met office predictions that Britain would likely never see snow again, predictions that proved humiliating a few years later when the island was covered in the stuff;

        2. We’ve found that “record breaking”… depends on who’s keeping the records. Temperature data are “homogenized” and “averaged” and “massaged” and “manipulated” such that one never knows what the “record” is real or an utter fabrication;

        3. I can see snow. I can’t see whether it’s 0.3degC hotter in North Carolina than it was 50 years ago at this time;

        4. Let’s talk about cherry picking the data. You gorebots will sieze upon anything, from wildfires to shark sightings, as “proof” of global warming (or climate change, or whatever you’re calling it today). Yet even your own pet scientists (I use the term loosely) are telling us it’s getting cooler. Oh, just ignore THAT: we’ve decided (consensus!) that the world is getting hotter, and that’s that!

        Meantime, in the midst of all this heat, Britain is having the coldest March in thirty years.

        We’re getting our share, too.

        Hot, hot, hot.


  • herddog505

    But… but… the science is settled! CONSENSUS!!!


    As for predictions of less snow, some lefty will come along to tell us that this is EXACTLY what global warming… er… climate change… um… climate disruption… has ALWAYS predicted. PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!

  • ackwired

    A 3/26/13 story? I’ll look forward to reading it.

    • herddog505

      Good catch!

  • Now this is interesting. Apparently the more water vapor you’ve got in the atmosphere, the more warming you get. (Water being more potent than CO2 when it comes to warming… but it’s a lot easier to tax CO2)

    (Edit – since the last two sentences of the conclusion are hidden by Disqus, here’s the money quote: “Four independent data sets demonstrate that the IPCC theory is wrong. CO2 does not cause significant global warming.)

    NASA satellite data shows a decline in water vapor

    Climate models predict upper atmosphere moistening which triples the
    greenhouse effect from man-made carbon dioxide emissions. The new
    satellite data from the NASA water vapor project shows declining upper atmosphere water vapor during the period 1998 to 2001. It is the best
    available data for water vapor because it has global coverage.
    Calculations by a line-by-line radiative code show that upper atmosphere
    water vapor changes at 500 mb to 300 mb have 29 times greater effect on
    OLR and temperatures than the same change near the surface. The cooling
    effect of the water vapor changes on OLR is 16 times greater than the
    warming effect of CO2 during the 1990 to 2001 period.
    Radiosonde data shows that upper atmosphere water vapor declines with
    warming. The IPCC dismisses the radiosonde data as the decline is
    inconsistent with theory. During the 1990 to 2001 period, upper
    atmosphere water vapor from satellite data declines more than that from
    radiosonde data, so there is no reason to dismiss the radiosonde data.
    Changes in water vapor are linked to temperature trends in the upper
    atmosphere. Both satellite data and radiosonde data confirm the absence
    of any tropical upper atmosphere temperature amplification, contrary to
    IPCC theory. Four independent data sets demonstrate that the IPCC theory
    is wrong. CO2 does not cause significant global warming.

    Unlike the AGW folks, they show their work.

    And as I posted previously…
    ‘Ground Zero for Global Warming’? State of Alaska temperatures in 2012 refused to cooperate

    Has Global Warming Stalled? (Now Includes January Data)

    Big drop in global surface temperature in February, ocean temps flat

    The AGW scam is starting to unravel faster and faster. I’m not surprised Al Gore bailed as he did. Better to leave while your reputation is intact, than stay and lose credibility.

  • GarandFan

    Evidently The Goracle is somewhere on the East coast at the present time. The guy is a snow magnet.

  • EricSteel



  • Par4Course

    While the federal machinery in Washington shut down based on a forecast of snow, DC actually got only a light coating. Global warming is a hoax but the cancellation of the hearing in question, a real Snowquester, an unexpectedly light snow – or any other weather-related incident – does nothing to prove or disprove the lefties’ ideology-based climate theories, although it may produce a certain level of irony.

  • Paul Hooson

    I find myself quite a critic of some of the idiocy passed off in the name of “green” thinking. In Portland, Oregon, a plastic bag ban voted for by the city council has only led to a dramatic rise in shoplifting losses for merchants, as thieves use the reusable bags to conceal and shoplift merchandise from local businesses. One medium sized grocery store has reported shoplifting losses up by $10,000 a month. A large Walgreen’s location actually closed down due to too much shoplifting losses. In other news some electric automobiles sold by Zap had so many problems, that the federal government forced the company to buy back much of their 2008 model year production from customers and crush them down for scrap. And cheap electric power scams are flourishing on the Internet, as hucksters seek to play on those who believe that some free power from a perpetual motion machine or from the Sun easily exists to go “green”. Many consumers are urged to spend more in water to wash out used cans and bottles than what their value is to supposedly recycle.Many households might spend up to $30 or $40 in water over three months to wash out cans and bottles to recycle for the garbage companies that have a value no greater than $5 to $10 in recycled metal or glass. A lot of “green” thinking really makes little sense when real logic or facts are brought into the equation.

    If anything, some of this “green” thinking nonsense has only made a few snakeoil salemen very wealthy at this point, and made many more of us pay only more for energy or other important goods. Certainly, we don’t want dirty air or water, or to be like China where pollution in 500 of their largest cities is as bad for a child as smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. But, we also need common sense and facts to temper this “green” thinking hysteria, and sort out the fact from the fiction.

    • “A lot of “green” thinking really makes little sense when real logic or facts are brought into the equation.”

      Think of it as a religion instead.

      You sacrifice (through effort and money, even if not very much) and Mother Gaia will allow you to continue to live on the planet. Not recycling is a heretical notion, even if said recycling isn’t economically feasible. It IS, after all, sacrifice… and Gaia will smile upon you for doing so.

      • Paul Hooson

        That makes a lot of sense to view it as a cult-like religion. JLawson. Some of the efforts to recycle a little bit of nothing, even if it makes no economic sense also reminds me for some reason of the Mao-era backyard steel furnaces in China, where there was some dream of China being a self-sufficient nation, not relying on Soviet imports, etc. Much of the steel produced was such bad quality, that it was nearly useless. Further, recycled metal is a terrible idea in many cases. I have a background in some metallurgical studies, and there is molecule damage called “workhardening” that takes place each time metal is reused. You don’t want to buy anything made from recycled metal because it is so brittle compared to virgin metal ore. Even in body work in cars and ships, recycled metal is a terrible idea. The Titanic easily sunk because the metal was both likely recycled as well as had a poor temper quality, because of shoddy metallurgical work in the Irish shipyard where it was built. You certainly don’t want recycled metal in any item other than just some toy car. It’s poor for use in any moving part product, use in tools, engines, car bodies, etc.

        • Most of the stuff (as I recall) from the Great Leap Forward furnaces was so impure it really wasn’t much more than slag.

          But yeah – a religion. Kind of like AGW – it’s going to be a catastrophe, but we can propitiate the CAGW monster by paying higher prices for energy since we’re dumping the EVIL carbon-burning sources for HOLY windmills and solar, and paying a lot of money in taxes.

          Toss in a half-dozen virgins, and we’re good to go – and don’t DARE suggest that it might not be as bad as the high priests say it’ll be.

          Crazy times, man.

  • Piltdown Man.

  • Constitution First

    Who prefer a colder planet rather than a warmer one?
    Plants must breath in CO2 just as we must breath O2, more CO2 makes for a Greener world.
    The case for Increasing CO2 output is overwhelmingly positive.
    The measures for decreasing CO2 hurt the poor the most.
    No measure (other than economic collapse) for decreasing CO2 has ever been shown to actually work.
    The goal of Environmental terrorism is Societal Control.

    You would have to be a Liberal not to see the obvious.

  • I have come to the
    conclusion that we all have a
    little blame global warming
    and its consequences and guilt even more politicians who do not slow

  • I have come to the
    conclusion that we all have a
    little blame global warming
    and its consequences and guilt even more politicians who do not slow