Continued:

Anthony Watts from WUWT has stated that the rationale for him becoming involved in the denial
of climate science is through his worry about government taking away freedoms; ideology rather than science being a driving force, shown in:

http://climatecrocks.com/2012/09/21/dissecting-anthony-watts-pathetic-climate-disinformation-on-pbs/

From transcript:

SPENCER MICHELS: What’s the thing that bothers you the most about people who say there’s lots of global warming?

ANTHONY WATTS: They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society.

A political answer: rather than, a scientific one.

ExxonMobil have been saying that a carbon tax is appropriate.

Another interesting point is that climate science has an almost 2 century history; whereas, funded climate change denial has little more than 2 decades of history.

Watts sought to have video banned, it shows how his investigations into how temperature was managed was wrong, he came unstuck again:

http://climatecrocks.com/2009/08/19/youtube-reinstates-banned-climate-video/

The video displays a link with Heartlands a prime denier group.

The flea continues his nonsense despite having been shown to have no science to support his position. As a fraud supporter, he has a standard tactic. Accuse the realists of having no science.
I will again post the science which exposes the baseless climate lies promoted by the flea, and the dishonesty of is his use of the baseless term “denier”. Fraud promoters, like the flea, have no science to deny.
“Climate: The Counter Consensus is one of the very best expositions of both the science and the politics of climate change yet written. It can serve as an outstanding introduction to the issue of climate change, and as an accurate and up-to-date summary of the latest research. It includes a discussion of Climategate and the Copenhagen Conference. The range of scholarship that Professor Carter has mastered is astonishing. The language is clear and simple, but never over-simplified.
At the end of the book Carter asks the question ‘how did it come to this?' How did we get to the sort of the situation whereby in 2006 the former president of the Royal Society, Robert May told a meeting of BBC journalists and executives ‘that the science supporting global warming alarm was so certain that it was the BBC's public duty to cease providing airtime to alternative viewpoints.' How did we get to the position whereby policymakers around the world have been dictated to by a handful of scientists who have shown themselves willing to fabricate evidence, destroy original data, and defeat public scrutiny? How did we get to a situation whereby one of Australia's two major political parties is demanding a substantial reduction in the nation's standard-of-living which would make practically zero contribution to limiting the increase in global temperature?”
http://www.ipa.org.au/sectors/climate-change/publication/1838/turning-up-the-heat-on-climate-change-alarmists/pg/4.
What better basis for a Royal Commission?
Despite the expenditure of large amounts of time, money and research effort, no global human climate signal has ever been isolated or measured. Its magnitude is therefore small, and it must lie obscured within the noise and variation of natural climate change.

Wow. Get your tinfoil hat, it's all a conspiracy! There isn't a national academy of science on the entire *planet* that rejects modern physics-based climate science, but you'll quote a known contrarian's book (full of half-truths and lies) to justify your POLITICALLY BASED point of view. Here's the thing. EVEN IF climate change was a fraud (and I simply don't believe in conspiracies *that* big, which is about on a par with believing the moon is made of cheese and NASA covered it up with fake moon-rocks), the good news is we should wean off coal anyway because we have FAR CHEAPER power available!

Fact: Coal kills 3 million people a year worldwide, which is nearly 2 Chernobyl disasters a DAY!

Fact: Coal's health costs nearly double the cost of coal!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

Fact: when these 'externalised' costs of coal are accounted for, today's clean safe nukes like the AP1000 are far cheaper, and prepare us for the day coal runs out! Coal pollution in China is not only a health crisis, it is an international embarrassment. In short, coal is deadly, expensive, and finite.

Nuclear power, on the other hand, is SAFE, cheap, and could run the world for a billion years on uranium from seawater (which is constantly topped up by continental erosion).

Modern breeder reactors like the Integral Fast Reactor eat nuclear waste, and can convert America's waste into 1000 years of clean energy for America and the UK's waste into 500 years of clean energy for them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor
It also has passive-safety, which means a power failure will shut it down.
GE have an IFR ready to go. It can be mass produced on the assembly line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(reactor)
China are perfecting the LFTR, a reactor that includes all the advantages above but also cannot melt down as it is already a liquid.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change

Tony153,

"The graph you posted above shows definite downwards trend in snow depth. "

You chaps are hilarious. The graph shows a declining trend of less than 1cm per decade. That is less than 1mm per year. I know it won't mean much to you or ant but that yields a statistically insignificant trend which statistically means the trend is effectively zero. Whatismore, that trend includes the 50/60s when temperatures were falling globally and therefore snowfall was higher. If you take the trend from 1970 when you claimed to discern a "sharp" decline, the trend is indeed zero.

Yet here you are taking fright at this indicator that we're all gunna die. Its just too funny.

But it truly is serious. After all, at this rate the Australian Alps will be completely snow free by the year 4000 CE. Honestly!!

ant,
I'm sorry that you couldn't follow the logic or the maths that I showed. I dumbed it down as much as I could.

Try thinking of it like this. If you've got 1000 locations, on average one of them will get a 1-in-1000 year event every year. If you've got 6000 locations there'll be 6 1-in-1000 events each year. The more locations, the more likely events. The more years you count the more likely events. The more types of events, the more likely events.

When you tote it all up and do some probability calculations, its rather likely that one of the 10's of thousands of locations will get 6 1-in-1000 year events over a five year period.

Perhaps if you acquainted yourself with the Birthdate Paradox it'd make more sense.

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

Mhaze
So you do agree snow depth is decreasing - big turnaround for a dogmatic denier.

But, with not accurate eyeballing, I see about 80cm decrease since 1960s, using line of sight averaging. Of course, most deniers are fruit pickers, particularly cherries. You probably chose two peaks that best fit your befuddled views.

No more comments from me though - some what's tiresome. I will remember you as a haze in which it is not possible to discern truth from myth but, on second thoughts, truths could not exist in that environment - all myth.

Tony153,

Check the graph.

See the line across it marked Linear. That's the linear trend line. It shows a slight decline across the entire period. No cherry picking - the entire period.

Everything else you said about 80cm etc indicates a complete misunderstand of what these graphs show which, I'd opine, might make it difficult to understand anything about the issue.

Still understanding isn't required when you just have to believe whatever the priesthood tell you.