For the sake of fairness you understand... Now that the record snowfall from that storm is gone, and the overall snowpack is actually well below average, we start to get a clearer picture of the real culprit.
Hottest January in UAH satellite record Human-caused global warming easily overwhelms much-hyped "cold snap" February 5, 2010 http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/...-satellite-record-roy-spencer-global-warming/
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature remained high, at +0.61 deg. C for February, 2010. This is about the same as January, which in our new Version 5.3 of the UAH dataset was +0.63 deg. C. February was second warmest in the 32-year record, behind Feb 1998 which was itself the second warmest of all months. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/03...obal-temperature-update-version-5-3-unveiled/
In all seriousness I don't give a crap and neither should anyone who's livelihood that does not depend on the hoax.
Are you aware that the UAH satellite record referred to above is prepared by Spencer and Christie - two of the few AGW skeptical scientists. It seems that the conspiracy has spread so far that even the skeptics are in on the "hoax" as well.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge and improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming. So this website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?
What debate? This is a matter of scientific evidence. Science does not function by means of debating. You seem terribly confused.
What a bunch of non-sense. That's like questioning discrimination against women and looking for it in peer reviewed women's studies literature.