In the midst of what is being called the coldest winter in Great Britain since records began being kept, some wags have been unkind enough to tweak the “you’re all idiots for not agreeing that only world government can save us” climate change zealots by circulating a 2000 article that ran in the Independent, the nation’s most enthusiastic pro-global warming newspaper. Some excerpts:
“Snow is starting to disappear from our lives. Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.
… 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.
Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.”
Global warming advocates love to ridicule climate change skeptics when they point to short term cold snaps as proof that climate science may not be as indisputably accurate as Al Gore says it is, but the so-called “warmists” have been equally guilty of making sweeping assumptions based on incomplete data. For two hurricane seasons now, for instance, climate scientists predicted more. and more violent, storms; instead, we had two of the mildest seasons on record. Never mind, said the climatologists. It doesn’t mean anything. We’re still right.
Maybe they are, but I think those of us who have doubts deserve a little respect, and some leeway to find fault with their methods. When the weather supports the doomsayers, the wonks in East Anglia point and say, “See?” When it confounds their predictions, we are told—patiently, condescendingly–that only the unsophisticated see significance in isolated anomalies like the current English winter. Then we are reminded of the Independent article, and the thought hangs in the air: Boy, these guys sounded awfully cocksure in 2000 that snowy winters in the British Isles were things of the past, thanks to global warming, and it just wasn’t true. If their models can’t do better than that when assessing what the next decade will bring, how can Al, Nancy, Barack, Harry, and all the insufferable denizens of the New York Times op-ed pages, few of whom were whizzes in their college earth science classes, be so certain about the longer term climate estimates that have Boston underwater and palm trees in Wisconsin?
Oh, they can’t, at least not credibly or believably. They might well be right, but their strategy of bulldozing debate and contrary views by claiming unscientific certainty and phony predictability of the unpredictable has ruined their chances of convincing anyone with facts rather than appeals to blind faith. That’s an inconvenient truth, and so is this: they have nobody to blame but themselves.
Ethics Alarms 
You partially hit the underlying problem in your last paragraph “claiming unscientific certainty and phony predictability of the unpredictable”. The problem is your antecedent: “they.” If “they” are referring to journalists and politicians, sure. If “they” are referring to the aforementioned scientists, then you are incorrect.
There was nothing wrong with the science. The science was good then and is good now. The problem was with the way the science was misinterpreted, sensationalized, and disseminated by non-scientists. People who didn’t understand that 1 degree on average rise is very different from all locations go up 1 degree together.
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.”
Two short quotes from Dr. Viner. One a phrase, and one a sentence. From the use of quotes, they were clearly said at different times,but juxtaposed by the writer. Is this a fair and accurate reporting of what Dr. Viner said? Did he not say anything about variability? Chance? Likelihood?
Science journalism, in general, is horrible. Journalists misrepresent papers, quote mine interviewees, and generally misinform. They don’t even necessarily do it on purpose. They don’t understand the caveats of papers. They don’t understand what the main themes and takeaways are. These papers and the technically jargon used are not easy for the averagely intelligent layman to understand, and journalists are laymen. The jargon is necessary to be precise and accurate, but non-knowledgable people don’t understand misuse the information.
You have an argument to ignore the journalists and politicians, but not the scientists themselves.
I agree that the worst of the hypers are the journalists, closely followed by the politicians. But I’ve really followed this closely, and the scientists are too invested in being “right” rather than in being accurate. The reasonable scientists do indeed say “yes, global warming is probably occurring, but we can’t say with certainty how much, how fast, why, or what we can do about it.” Most of the East Anglia U. crowd, in contrast, publicly say the issue is “settled” while privately admitting that the models are fallible. The article from 2000 had an awful lot of quotes from climate scientists that presumed certainty that was far ahead of the data. I think its fair to say climate scientists have over-hyped their findings too.