mhaze
I very specifically wrote that the 6 x1 in 1,000 year huge flooding events which happened in a Five (5) year period from 2010. Those events happened in the South East of the United States of America, you took off on a tangent completely unrelated to what I had previously written.

Something I've found constantly is that deniers either try to down play matters or say its wrong, very little in the way of evidence is ever provided. Another technique is to pretend particular details have not been provided.

Arnold Swartzenegger, an x Republican Governor of California poses some interesting questions:

http://www.knowable.com/a/arnold-schwarzenegger-just-blew-everyone-away-with-this-post-on-fb-wow

Governor Scott, Republican Governor of Florida is having some credibility problems at present, stating climate change is not happening. On a regular basis coastal areas of Florida are regularly flooded by the sea even when there have been no storms; just high tide events.

Tony153,

"I have been cross country skiing in the Vic snow fields and the Snowy Mountains since the 1970s. " etc etc

Personal recollection is a really really bad idea when making these types of evaluations. We all tend to remember things quite differently to the way the really were. This is the perfect example.

Here is a graph of snow depth based on data from Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority.

http://users.tpg.com.au/mpaine/snow_aug_sep_54-12.jpg

"Your comments about snow fall sounds too much like numerous other myths..."

Which comments do you assert to be 'myth'. Let me know and I'll show you where you are wrong.

"you might have noticed that the number of denialists is reducing, quickly."

Well actually no. Indeed I've noticed the opposite and posted a link to a survey from the UN showing exactly that the other day. Although I guess it depends on what you mean by 'denialist'. Actually I don't deny anything other than that you know what you're talking about.

Tony153,

Thanks but I'm well aware of the Vostok ice data. What its got to do with snow fall in London isn't clear however.

I know that the Gore-icle relied heavily on the Vostok data which is, presumably, why you are anxious to mention it.

Are you aware that that data also shows that climate change precedes CO2 in the historical record ie climate change caused CO2 change rather than the other way around.

ant,

Sorry if I lost you there with the actual data. What I was trying to show you was that the 6 1-in-1000 year events over a 5 year period is actually not really unexpected even if you accept that they really are 1 in 1000 year events and not just things that have been labeled as such.

mhaze

If those 6 x 1 in 1,000 year flooding events happened around the globe it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that it is within reasonable bounds. When those events happen in a particular region it stretches credulity to the very limit to suggest it is not extremely unusual; the denier technique in action of down playing information.

A number of American ski fields have something in common presently...lack of snow.

Something else you would presumably believe not being unusual was a rainforest in Washington State that normally has over a metre of rainfall being hit by wildfire earlier in the year.

Mhaze
Thanks for perfect example of denialism.
The graph you posted above shows definite downwards trend in snow depth.
Yet you apparently cannot see it.

Tony 153

I had a look at the graph mhaze posted as well, it is quite clear there has been a decline in snowfall in the Snowy Mountains. The last 32 years show a definite decline.
mhaze, is also not showing an appreciation of probabilities; or, he knows, but was trying to down play the probability of 6 x1 in 1,000 year events happening in a defined area within a 5 year period..

Elsewhere, deniers jumped on an article in breitbart which discussed a paper that had just been published about isoprene; one of the authors commented on how the paper had been completely misrepresented by the breutbart et al commentary. Isoprene provides a negative feedback for climate change in a marine environment; deniers treated it as a new discovery that would mitigate against climate change.

ExxonMobil have been investigated by the Attorney General of New York State for alleged criminal behaviour by providing mixed messages in relation to impacts of fossil fuels. Scientists in the 70s and 80s were in the vanguard in relation to climate science; but, management of ExxonMobil began to fund denier groups.

Deniers at first were scathing towards the sources that had made public ExxonMobile's mixed messages. mhaze, stated a representative of WUWT suggested the paperwork of ExxonMobil cleared them of any wrong doing.
Not long afterwards apparently the wrong paperwork appeared showing that ExxonMobile had been funding a number of denier groups. It's another matter that WUWT has come unstuck on.

It was then suggested that ExxonMobil had been bullied by its critics in taking the view that anthropogenic climate change is happening. The science produced by ExxonMobile scientists in the 70s and 80s clearly showed man's foot print in climate change.

Somewhat of an irony is that ExxonMobil scientists were able to accurately project the current state of the Arctic in the early 1980s.

continued