I never joke about the NWO.
Do some research and you will find some VERY scary stuff.
I'm not confusing the two, I do know that how they are calculated are very different. What I am saying is weather patterns are part of it.
I don't agree with the statement that short term weather prediction has become very accurate - unless you consider a 50% hit rate accurate. If it was so accurate why do all the weather centres frequently disagree with each other? If you look at BBC and the Met Office they are often different (and the BBC is supposed to be the more accurate of the 2). Temperatures are often not far off the mark but precipitation predictions are poor.
We know climate modelling is difficult - the reason - because we aren't in possession of all the facts!
If what you say is true that this winter is within climate model predictions, how is it that all we've heard over the last few years is that each winter will get milder but probably with more rain/storms?
I've given up with 5 day weather forecasts these days. Certainly in this area ( south east Essex) they are worse than they use to be some years ago. No matter which ones you look at and I've tried a few they rarely help you in any planning whether it's travelling or gardening.
Maybe more accurate this week but I'm sure we could all do a a half decent job this week anyway.
Many friends/colleagues would also agree with this, just try talking to people round the coffee machines at work.
Sorry, slightly off topic but it's something that's annoyed me for sometime 
Agreed. I work outside all the time so take a keen interest. Days 4 and 5 of the 5 day forecast are a complete joke. Tempertaure is ferquently out by as much as 5 degrees and predicted heavy rain is often clear and sunny or vice versa. That's with the most powerful computers (and models) on the planet.
Well, I don't fully agree with you here, but have it your way if you must. In that case, climate modelling is easiest of all.
Because you're wrong. 'All we've heard' over the past few years is not 'that each winter will get milder', unless of course you've been reading a very narrow range of reports (or have selective hearing, which I don't believe for a moment).
What we have really been hearing is that the increased energy feeding climate change will result in more frequent and/or violent unusual weather events. This winter CANNOT be ascribed to climate change (nor could it if it were unusually warm), but it IS well within the sort of thing which might happen with or without it. Climate Change can only be measured statistically, not by looking at single events. All the statistics which have been gathered point unequivocally to change taking place (eg the past 10 years have been the warmest on record worldwide). As I say, when/if the new, warmer, global climate stabilizes, the UK may even end up with a colder climate than now, and winters like this will be the norm.
I wouldn't have thought this winter is to do with 'climate change' which is kind of my point. This is the kind of winter experienced many times before and probably will again. I've no doubt that the statistics point towards the climate changing. What I'm dubious about is that this change is anything other than the variation that we've seen over millions of years. It is perfectly normal for the climate to change.
The problem is we've been collecting accurate data over a very short space of time which in Earth terms is insignificant. We have less accurate data - tree rings, ice cores etc going back much further but they can't give us a day, week, month, year data readout. For us to be told that we're on the brink of runaway temperature rises (which has been quoted time and again in the news) I believe is naive and probably deliberately misleading. I see this as another form of the control that Nimby mentioned in his post regarding terrorism.
for me, this is the most annoying thing about today's media; some Z-list celeb who's PR company get them a quote in the media and its treated as some sort of enlightened, factual, public information broadcast. Happens an awful lot in climate change broadcasts.
....and this takes us back to the beginning.
The 'science' behind CC due to MMGW will only be 'proven' when the temperature is climbing at an alarming rate, faster than would be expected from Mother Nature alone.And then it will be too late.The predicted rate of climb is predicted to be beyond the rate at which mankind can successfully adapt.(ie successful adaptation = we won't have to kill each other in the scramble for viable land etc etc)
At the moment we have 2 things to bear in mind.
1/ the science may be 'wrong' (for want of a better word). There may be some facet of climate science that is way more important than the greenhouse effect of CO2, that kicks in when temperatures rise, but which is currently too complex to model successfully.
This is the option I hope for.
2/ The science is basically right, the concepts are correct and we are on the brink of tipping the balance.If this is the case, so the theory goes, if we plan to start acting sooner rather than later (ie in the next 10-20 years) we may be able to significantly slow the rate of change.
So, we can plan for the worst, hope for the best, and plan on doing something (which is what I support)
or we can bury our heads in the sand with a blind optimism that may or may not earn us the perpetual condemnation of future generations.
Do you feel lucky (on behalf of your grand-children)?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reducing pollution etc. But I'm not for having it rammed down my throat and being taxed on the false promise that the money will go into reducing emissions etc.
Does anyone know how long the CO2 persists in the atmosphere for?
I'm far more worried about an exponentially rising human population and the declining quality of global soil than I am about climate change - though should we be having an effect on our climate that further reduces our ability to feed the population then nature will have again found a way to limit the population of a species.
On that note, let's not forget that CO2 is an essental trace element amfd that commercial growers artificially increase CO2 levels from about current atmospheric levels of about 40 ppm to 1,000 to increase yeilds.