"Global warming" does not mean no snow no matter what Philip Stott or any other non-specialist might prefer to believe. I'd suggest it's a tad premature to gloat that 'Global warming' is on hold folks.
I am no expert. But Robert B. Gagosian of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is one and he offers these remarks on Abrupt Climate Change
It is important to clarify that we are not contemplating a situation of either abrupt cooling or global warming. Rather, abrupt regional cooling and gradual global warming can unfold simultaneously. Indeed, greenhouse warming is a destabilizing factor that makes abrupt climate change more probable. (bold added -- DS)
I have no opinion one way or another; this is a complex scientific matter way beyond my knowledge. I am skeptical of any non-specialist who has a strongly-held belief on such a scientific question -- on what basis could they have a strong opinion on something about which they have so little knowledge? And I get especially nervous when I hear people imply that because there is a cold snap in the US northeast then global warming is just a ha-ha to be dismissed as hysteria.
(It's fine for amateurs to offer an opinion about the public policies which might/should flow from certain scientific conclusions, but it seems a bit out-of-our league for us to opine on the facts themselves unless we have some sort of scientific credentials in the area.)
Download PDF on Abrupt Climate Change from Woods Hole here.
UPDATE: It seems to me that the legitimate thing for amateurs to think about and discuss is decisionmaking under conditions of unlear information. I am quite puzzled why so many non-scientists can have such firm opinions on the science --- one way or another, I should make clear. Perhaps they think that faith can substitute for facts.
In any case, the puzzle for me is determining the wise/prudent thing to do when we can't be really sure what is happening. Of course that's all the more argument for intensive scientific research. I can't see how anyone can argue against lots of research.
UPDATE 2: A balanced and un-hysterical post on the general subject: Never Mind That Boiling Kettle....
UPDATE 3: One of the comments at Quark Soup also seemed right on:
Gore's mistake is in talking about global warming instead of climate change. If he were really in touch with science as much as he says he is, he'd talk about climate change. "Global warming" has become a touchstone phrase, a shibboleth, like saying "ancient forests" when you could be saying "old-growth forests." Gore could be leading the conversation a bit better, keeping the Drudges off guard.
UPDATE 4: Ironically, Philip Stott responds. Honestly, I had no idea that he was joking in the post to which I link, above. Now I am wondering if he means his whole blog to be humorous? Hitherto I had taken him seriously, even when I disagreed with his reasoning. Now I am not sure what to think.