This is a deeply flawed analysis. Let's take a look:

1. You wrote "As the atmosphere gets warmer, more moisture evaporates and is allowed to be suspended in the air. When the air cools, it condenses out as snow."

--The hydrological cycle is more vastly complicated than that. When you simplify something so much that your statement is no longer entirely true, you deserved to be called on it. Revise and resubmit.

--Warming and cooling effects in the same observation? Does the same process cause these opposite effects? Explain. Use additional blue books as necessary.

--Did I miss your post when you condemned alarmists for blaming droughts on global warming?

--This was offered as an explanation for the heavy snowfalls on the east coast this winter. These storms were Nor'easters and the moisture came from the ocean--kind of like lake effect snow for the east coast. If a strong low tracks up the east coast and the surface temperatures are below freezing it is going to snow a lot regardless of CO2 levels or any other ridiculous warmist metrics.



2. Then you wrote "Since the United States represents around 2% of the Earth's surface, you shouldn't draw any conclusions because it happens to be cold in February."

--I infer from this remark that you will join me this summer in denouncing those who will cite global warming as a cause of local hot spells.

--You have established that 2% is not a sufficient sample size with which to measure global trends. Since the earth is about 4.5 billion years old we will need more than 90 million years of accurate temperature records.



3. Then you wrote "Global warming," "climate change" and "global climate destablization" are all descriptive terms for the pendulum swinging further towards the extremes. The "warm" will get warmer and the "cools" cooler."

--A declarative statement that you have not justified. You are ascribing to the atmosphere the property of dynamic instability. I don't buy that--think of all the stresses (meteor impacts, volcanoes, ice ages etc.) that we have evidence of. The climate does not spin out of control. I'll call it dynamically stable until someone proves me wrong.



4. Finally you wrote that "It's official now, although Fox viewers haven't heard, the last decade was the warmest on record."

--I believe that you could also say that, during the last decade, the S&P 500 was the highest on record--but that does not mean it is speeding inexorably higher. It would be just as accurate and just as meaningless as the statistic you've used.

--Recall, too, that you established the 2% threshold above. One decade is something like 2.2X10e(-9) of the earth's age, which is a bit less than 2%.


I, for one, am looking forward to the perennial global warming that will begin in earnest in a month or so.

WW