Because of, you know, "the spores."

Al Gore's explanation is a lie. The same lie was offered last year. It's basically "well of course it's snowy because all this extra warm air coming up from the equator is loading the air with moisture and so it snows."

Except it's not just snowy. It's also cold. Al Gore's hot-air-causes-precipitation explanation can be used to explain precipitation -- but heat cannot be so used to explain cold.

And it is cold. Colder than the global warmistas predicted, of course, but who cares, that's Old School Science where you make predictions which are then either proven true or false, which in turn either provides or removes confidence from your working model. The New Science is It just is; we have said so; now shut up.

Clown Nose On, Clown Nose Off: That's how Treacher described Jon Stewart's very selective stance as to whether he was "just a comedian" and it therefore didn't matter if he was saying nonsense or whether he was a sage outsider commentator on political affairs.

The global warmistas have a similar tactic. When asked to explain why their predictions keep failing, they will say "Well, the environment is a very complicated thing and of course we don't have a perfect model of it yet."

But when their core claims are challenged, they claim the exact opposite: They have a perfect model of everything, with all variables perfectly weighed in the equation (that's why they know, to a moral certainty, that the sun has no more than a trivial effect on changing climate), so shut up, we got this, all of this.

Well which is it? They seem to toggle between Perfect Confidence in Our Perfect Modeling and Of Course All Models are Incomplete and Inaccurate as often as, well, as often as the weather changes, don't they? If the weather does anything congruent with their model, toggle on Perfect Confidence mode; if the weather does anything incongruent with their model, toggle on High Number of Variables That Of Course No One Can Perfect Model.

These are incompatible, of course. If it is true (as it is true) that they really have a very poor, shaky, and incomplete model of the climate, then they cannot have such confidence in their (almost always in error) predictions.

They can't admit that, of course. Same as charlatans claiming they can bring the rain to a droughted land can admit Shit, Boss, I really don't know why it rains or why it doesn't. The Charlatan's position at royal court depends on him being able to convince the king he knows what's going on, despite never being able to actually demonstrate an accurate working knowledge of what's going on.