Which of these sound like statements a scientist would actually say?

All of them.

Have some more:

lessee.

Mass media tends to be crap about properly reporting science.

Any given person can make a prediction that turns out to be wrong, because predictions, by their nature, are at best informed guesses. And, in fact, sometimes people misspeak, or say something that could be misinterpreted (for example, talking about a probable regional occurrence in such a way that it sounds like you're talking about the whole world.

But, some quotes from your articles that you might have glossed over:

"The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991."

As in, this article was discussing what *had been happening*.

"Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared." As in, he was not saying "there will never be snow in England again ever", just "snow, and especially heavy snowfall, will become increasingly rare". And I will note that this was under the assumption that warming would continue at the rate it had been. There has been, in fact, a slowdown (possibly even a pause) in surface warming, primarily because of the Asian brown cloud and the PDO.

"In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040." I don't think you can call him wrong on this one 'til at *least* 2020 or so. 2013 was an "as early as" date, not "it will definitely be" date. In fact, later he says "My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of."

"Mark Serreze, a scientist with the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), still believes 2030 is a reasonable estimate, deeming Wieslaw's projections as "a little aggressive" --as in, the 2013 number was by no means the prediction of all of science. It was, instead, the prediction from one model.

"This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates". There's still 2 more years to prove this one wrong...

edit:

Paul: still an informed guess. There could be a freak cold snap in July and/or a freak warm spell in November. It's not likely--that's why that prediction is an *informed* guess, not just wild speculation--but it's possible.

And I never said that differential equations have no value, I have no real idea where you got that notion from. I believe I said something once about them not necessarily being the only way to get some result. Sometimes, you twist other people's words worse than the denialists do.

And it's flunky as in assistant, I believe I've never failed a science class in my life.

sagebrush"No scientist in his right mind would say that the earth will be free of snowfall. That is not science. That is fortunetelling"

While the prediction cited by your fellow kook was wrong, one of the main purposes of science is to make predictions. Just because some predictions are fortune-telling does not mean all are. Ironically, it should also be pointed out that just because one guy who believes in global warming made an error does not mean everything is erroneous.

Furthermore, it is hardly crazy to say that at some point the Earth will be free of snowfall.

rdit

chem_flunked: "... predictions, by their nature, are at best informed guesses."

Yeah right--I'm just guessing it will be colder in Alaska in November than it was in July.

Not surprising that she said that, being that she previously indicated that she thought differential equations have no value.

We should start a new category here - "Failed Predictions in Global Warming by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change" - and narrow down what is really happening on a Global scale.

It seems that true alarmists are taking things stated by science out of context and posting this garbage, but it seems to be the fault of the IP CC and its socialistic political view of the world and what they write up in their AR reports. The most recent report (AR5) makes statements of facts (probabilities) based on assumptions that can't possibly be quantified on what they actually know is true.

No scientist in his right mind would say that the earth will be free of snowfall. That is not science. That is fortunetelling. They must be getting this stuff right out of Al Gore's crystal ball.

Don't forget the 50million climate refugees by 2010, they got so embarrassed by that they dumped the map,

http://ph.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A2oKmKxjnWNSv0wA...

3rd/5th

Why dont you tell us , precious , right after you actually read the links you regurgitated