Thursday, May 26, 2022
HomeLeft Column'Least extreme U.S. weather year ever?' 2013 shatters the record for fewest...

‘Least extreme U.S. weather year ever?’ 2013 shatters the record for fewest U.S. tornadoes — 15% lower than previous record — 2013 also had the fewest U.S. forest fires since 1984

-

Much to the chagrin of man-made global warming activists who want to tie every weather event to so called ‘global weirding’, 2013 has turned out to be one of the “least extreme” weather years in U.S. history.  See: New Study: ’2013 ranks as one of the least extreme U.S. weather years ever’– Many bad weather events at ‘historically low levels’

‘Whether you’re talking about tornadoes, wildfires, extreme heat or hurricanes, the good news is that weather-related disasters in the US are all way down this year compared to recent years and, in some cases, down to historically low levels.’

Extreme Heat: The number of 100 degree days may ‘turn out to be the lowest in about 100 years of records’

Hurricanes: ‘We are currently in the longest period (8 years) since the Civil War Era without a major hurricane strike in the US (i.e., category 3, 4 or 5)’ ( last major hurricane to strike the US was Hurricane Wilma in 2005)

The latest data show both tornadoes and now wildfires in dramatic decline.

#

2013 had the fewest US forest fires since 1984 – Via Real Science

 

Related Links:

save image

Morano: ‘Global warming promoters have essentially said many bad things will happen due to global warming and guess what, bad things happen all the time so there is no end to their alleged ‘proof’ of global warming induced extreme weather. Any weather event anywhere on the globe. and say ‘well global warming made it worse’ – ‘We have Sen. Barbara Boxer, head of our Senate environmental committee, go down to the senate floor on the day we had an outbreak of tornadoes in Oklahoma and claim this is why she advocates a carbon tax. As though a carbon tax would have prevented these tornadoes! This is medieval witchcraft in modern times.’ – ‘You almost feel sorry for warmists,. but it is the holiday season, so let’s be charitable to them and say they are just flat out wrong.’

LA Times: ‘US wildfire burn acreage far below average’ – ‘Among the quietest of the past decade’ – ‘A wildfire season that began with dire warnings that dry conditions had set the stage for a year of flames across California and the West turned out to be among the quietest of the past decade. Although 2013 was marked by two high-profile blazes, one in California and the other in Arizona, nationally the total wildfire acreage, 4.15 million, is far below the 10-year average of 6.8 million acres.’

Watch Now: Climate Depot Debates Global Warming on UN TV At UN Summit! UN Host to Morano: ‘There is no need to shout’ — Morano: ‘The UN IPCC is first and foremost a political process, not scientific’

Watch Video Now: CNN Hosts Rare Live Contentious Global Warming Debate – Marc Morano vs. Sierra Club’s Michael Brune & Philippe Cousteau Jr. – Full Transcript – Morano: ‘So record cold is now evidence of man-made global warming?

Climate Depot’s Morano At UN Press Conference in Warsaw Denounces Exploitation of Typhoon to ‘an unappreciative audience’: Morano ‘compared the belief that policy can change the weather to ‘medieval witchcraft’

UN Climate Summit Rejects Its Own Science – Links Typhoon Haiyan to Global Warming – UN Summit Degenerates Into Unscientific Claims to Advance Political Agenda – Climate Depot Special Report

 

467 COMMENTS

      • hmm

        so – if i have you understood correctly.
        left wing – which means a liberal, social viewpoint
        right wing – which means a conservative viewpoint..

        and somehow, you have managed to link a political stance with an ability to consult the science?

        More interestingly, and presuming you are a right-wing coward.. I mean, conservative. – demonstrably you do NOT read the science. I would have thought that a failure to educate yourself would be more strongly indicative of ignorance.

        so we have a right wing ignorant calling climate change scientists, when discussing their science, left wing ignorants?

        Ah, usa. I forgive you, you know not what you do.
        😀

        • Bonzono, left wing Loon. Critical thinking escapes you and you insist on proving your handicap by writing jibberish. What the hell are you talking about? Seriously, you are unable to think. You are only capable of regurgitating your gangster party’s propaganda. I know it is hopeless trying to explain things to you because you don’t have the ability to absorb it. It does please me, however, knowing you live in a dark, hopeless world ruled by political hacks to whom you have enslaved yourself. And for what? What the hell do you get out of justifying their rubbish? They laugh at you. They ridicule you in private. They KNOW you and your ilk are, actually, stupid.

          • interesting…
            so again. let me go back to the actual meanings of left and right wing….
            Of course, you know these are references to political slants – you do know that right? right?

            I’m confused you ask me what I was talking about – I really thought I used small words. let me be clear:

            left wing = political leaning
            right wing = political leaning.

            ability to read information, parse data and construct a logical, factually supported and substantiated argument (i.e. science), is not a political leaning.

            still with me? – okay, so I’m just wondering what science has to do with “left wing” or in fact, any political leaning.

            I know it’s pointless to ask, you’ve already shown you’re unable to answer – of course you couch that in evasion and slur, but that’s okay, we know you’ve got nothing else there.

            That’s all you have, isn’t it reggie? squirm squirm squirm – no problem, the facts and reason will nail your butt every time – and they are 😀

    • This is an ideal article for those who think the “USA” is the whole world. Canada’s tornado count went up from last year. Tornadoes are the result of differing air masses converging – the loss of conditions for tornadoes is a regional extreme weather shift.

        • Dear LOL moron,

          A drought caused by lack of dry air is not tornadoes, flooding caused by excessive moist air is not tornadoes… So your narrow viewer of “harms” is as closed minded as looking only at the USA for a global phenomenon.

          • There are only two kinds of global warming believers. 1. Radical environmentalists that believe humans are an infestation on their god. Everything humans do is bad. Not science, theology. 2. Big government fascists. They don’t care if its just an unscientific scam. They want to use it to increase taxes and grow government power. The earth has been cooling for 14 straight years in spite of CO2 increases. Its sun spot activity that makes small changes in earth’s temps. Also CO2 is a trace gas. Less than 0.004% of the atmosphere. Trace gas can’t do anything. Science not theology you tool!

            • oh, and 3. those who actually bother to read the science.

              as for trace gases not doing anything firstly, the current concentration of CO2 is 392 ppm (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global_data)
              Up from about 280 ppm ~100 years ago.

              That’s 0.04% – you’re wrong by a factor of 10.

              I might also point out that, according to http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/7446095.HTML
              inhaling mustard gas for 24 hours, with a concentration of 0.0005% will kill you.

              So much for trace gases ‘not doing anything’ – what you’ve been stupid about is the extent to which SOME gases are better at doing things than others, even in small amounts. Venus will verify that CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas, your mental ineptitude does not.

              Homework – yours – do it.
              thanks.

              • Your correct about 0.04%. There is 200 times more water vapor in the atmosphere than C02. Water vapor is the warming elephant in the atmosphere. To increase a warming gas quantity by this trivial amount does nothing. Poison gas can kill a human in small quantity but it does not effect climate or earth warming. Also 70% of all CO2 is produced naturally. Man made CO2 is 30%. If we decreased CO2 by 10% it would mean a quantitative decrease of 3% of the already small 0.04%. A minuscule reduction. Yet CO2 has been increasing for 14 years yet the earth is cooling. A scientist would conclude CO2 increases have no effect on warming. Grapes were once grown in Greenland hundreds of years ago before CO2 increases. Warming is cyclical, nothing to do with CO2. Of course with people like you its theology not science.

        • According the records from the Medieval Warming Period when it was 2-3 C warmer than at present it was better with longer growing seasons, more abundant crops, less famine, extended human longevity and less illness. The Vikings did their North Atlantic excursions when it was warmer and established settlements in Greenland that are now under ice. So there is every indication that a warmer climate is not necessarily harmful, but since when do lefties listen to history, let alone genuine science? BTW nice ad hominem argument–typical of those who have no substantive arguments of their own.

          • This constant reference to ‘lefties’ amuses me.

            Left wing is a political slant. It has nothing at all to do with an ability to read scientific literature.

            However, if you want to continue your … curious misuse of nomenclature, then obviously you assume ‘right wing’ to be more scientifically informed.

            Which would lead me to question one point you made ‘greenland which is now under ice’ – in the pre-industrial times, it usually was to a large event, covered in winter, but not in summer (for example: http://www.qunar.travel/greenland.html).

            As for ‘now it is covered in ice’.. well, your right-wing abilities for doing homework might have failed you on that one:
            http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html

            The homer ‘greenland’ – so the story goes, was given by Erik the Red, the viking exile, who returned to norway to garner appreciation for his exploratory endeavours, and wanted to advertise an new land he’d discovered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland). I can imagine that EtR was sailing in summer, of course, and was elated by the bit of green pasture he found.

            Facts really suck hey? but hey, don’t take facts from me, I’m a leftie 😀

            Apparently that means my liberal and informed views mean I don’t do my homework, or something…

      • The US has about 50 times as many tornadoes as Canada. The US has more tornadoes than the rest of the world combined. Wrong climatic condition to be saying that the US is not the “whole world.” Because as far as tornadoes goes, the US IS most of the world!

    • Not any more, they blew it when they started crying about global warming.
      They can call it what ever they want, but everybody already knows what they mean. The only ones who are stupid enough to believe they meant global climate change are these morons themselves!

    • Morano Worked In Communications For Climate Deniers Rush Limbaugh And Sen. James Inhofe.Marc Morano is not a scientist and has no scientific background. Prior to starting Climate Depot, he worked as a producer for Rush Limbaugh in the 1990s where he was known as Limbaugh’s “Man in Washington.” Limbaugh continues to use Morano’s material on his radio show to misinform his millions of listeners.

            • So finding the truth is too much work for you?
              http://rushtruth.net/

              1. “It has not been proven that nicotine is addictive, the same with cigarettes causing emphysema [and other diseases].” (Radio show, 4/29/94)

              2. LIMBAUGH: On the Republicans’ “Contract With America”: “The New York Times never ran anything on the contract ’til after the election. The rest of the news media hardly talked about it at all.” (TV, 4/6/95)

              REALITY: In the 42 days between the announcement of the “Contract with America” and the Nov. 8, 1994 election, the New York Times published 45 articles that mentioned the contract–more than one a day. The Nexis computer database reports that more than 1400 pieces mentioning the contract were published before the election.

              3. LIMBAUGH: “Banks take the risks in issuing student loans and they are entitled to the profits.” (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)

              REALITY: Banks take no risks in issuing student loans, which are federally insured.

              4. LIMBAUGH: Comparing the 1950s with the present: “And I might point out that poverty and economic disparities between the lower and upper classes were greater during the former period.” (Told You So, p. 84)

              REALITY: Income inequality, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, fell from the 1940s to the late 1960s, and then began rising. Inequality surpassed the 1950 level in 1982 and rose steadily to all-time highs in 1992. (Census Bureau’s “Money Income of Households, Families and Persons in the United States”)

              5. LIMBAUGH: “Oh, how they relished blaming Reagan administration policies, including the mythical reductions in HUD’s budget for public housing, for creating all of the homeless! Budget cuts? There were no budget cuts! The budget figures show that actual construction of public housing increased during the Reagan years.” (Ought to Be, p. 242-243)

              REALITY: In 1980, 20,900 low-income public housing units were under construction; in 1988, 9,700, a decline of 54 percent ;Statistical Abstracts of the U.S).In terms of 1993 dollars, the HUD budget for the construction of new public housing was slashed from $6.3 billion in 1980 to $683 million in 1988. “We’re getting out of the housing business. Period,” a Reagan HUD official declared in 1985.

              6. LIMBAUGH: “There’s no such thing as an implied contract.” (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93)

              REALITY: Every first-year law student knows there is.

              March 17, 2010 Pants on Fire! – An extreme false statement: Sort order: 6Rush Limbaugh: People “can’t go fishing anymore because of Obama.” — Pants on Fire!

              January 20, 2010 Pants on Fire! – An extreme false statement: Sort order: 6Rush Limbaugh: There are “high administrative costs” when you donate to Haiti relief through the White House Web site. — Pants on Fire!

              April 30, 2010 False – The claim is not accurate: Sort order: 5Rush Limbaugh: Alaska’s Prince William Sound “is pristine now.” — False

              December 10, 2009 False – The claim is not accurate: Sort order: 5Rush Limbaugh: A recent drop in the unemployment rate is questionable because it was calculated “over two days of the Thanksgiving week.” — False

              September 8, 2009 Mostly False – The claim contains some element of truth, but doesn’t tell the full story: Sort order: 4Rush Limbaugh: The government is “going to have the right to get into your bank account with the health care bill and make transfers without you knowing it.” — Mostly False

              September 8, 2009 Mostly False – The claim contains some element of truth, but doesn’t tell the full story: Rush Limbaugh: The government is “going to have the right to get into your bank account with the health care bill and make transfers without you knowing it.” — Mostly False

              August 27, 2009 Pants on Fire! – An extreme false statement: Rush Limbaugh: “President Obama . . . wants to mandate circumcision.” — Pants on Fire!

              July 14, 2009 False – The claim is not accurate: Sort order: 5 Presente.org: Rep. Adam Putnam was silent when Rush Limbaugh called Sonia Sotomayor a racist. — False

              July 9, 2009 Mostly False – The claim contains some element of truth, but doesn’t tell the full story: Sort order: 4Rush Limbaugh: On the day the House voted on the climate change bill, “there was not even a copy of the bill in the well of the House, which is standard. It wasn’t even written.” — Mostly False

              May 28, 2009 Mostly False – The claim contains some element of truth, but doesn’t tell the full story: Sort order: 4Rush Limbaugh: Sotomayor “ruled against the white firefighter — Ricci and other white firefighters — just on the basis that she thought women and minorities should be given a preference because of their skin color and because of the history of discrimination in the past. The law was totally disregarded.” — Mostly False

              April 10, 2009 False – The claim is not accurate: Sort order: 5Rush Limbaugh: “You can’t read a speech by George Washington . . . without hearing him reference God, the Almighty.” — False

    • Morano Is Paid Over $150,000 A Year By An Oil-Funded Organization. Climate Depot is sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a conservative policy and lobbying organization that has received funding from ExxonMobil and Chevron. CFACT also received over $300,000 in 2011 from Donors Trust, an anonymously funded group that PBS called the “number one supporter of the groups” that deny climate change. CFACT’s 2011 financial disclosure form lists Morano as its highest paid employee at over $150,000 a year. [Media Matters, 11/28/12]

      • And the global warming hysteria industry in Britain, Europe and North America is paid multi-billions in Taxpayer money.
        Taxpayers funded the New Ice Age hysteria movement 35 years ago, too, but not to the same degree.

      • So does that mean that this story is wrong? Just because someone is paid to advocate for a certain position he believes in doesn’t mean he’s lying about the facts.
        Obama’s ‘press secretary’ is well paid for representing his boss to the media and public. Is everything he says a lie? Never mind – bad example.

          • Lemme think here a minute… Okay, so certain oil companies see a movement they believe is hell-bent on destroying their business using studies and opinions they believe have no merit. They then start a mutually beneficial organization to fight that movement. Sound about right? On the other side of the issue, you have a group of researchers (some of whom have been found to have ‘fudged’ certain of their statistics), politicians and other assorted grifters with much to gain in power and money, who are not entirely certain of their research and who certainly cannot prove it. Research which has for about 20 years been used to make dire and, dare I say it, catastrophic prognostications which have never yet come true and they are more credible in your eyes? You may be one of the grifters yourself.

              • Catastrophe! What catastrophe? You fools will still be telling us the sky is falling years from now. Weren’t costal areas supposed to be inundated by the seas a decade ago? Weren’t we supposed to have ‘global warming refugees?’ I’m sorry, after 59 years on this planet, I’m sorta jaded to the ‘catastrophe’ meme. I’ve seen all the movies.

                • The US Corps of Engineers has been spending buckets of your tax dollars rebuilding and protecting coastlines. So the damage is in your empty wallet. $14.5 billion in the Gulf since Katrina – $19.5 Billion pledged by New York City alone. With the reduction if Federal flood insurance subsidies expect to see more inundated areas abandoned. To see the damage look at maps from your childhood, not new movies.

                  • The US spends $84B on highways in a year. What of it? Is it the harbinger of a global crises?

                    Please CITE evidence linking Katrina to anything MAN MADE. Variation in climate conditions over time is called the WEATHER. The predictions by the alarmists over the last 10 years have not only been dismantled by data, but the hubristic thinking necessary to believe that ANY world government could regulate the weather is naive to the point of insanity.

                    At most, your idiotic rantings and conspiracy theories will dupe enough cretins to pressure the self-serving villains in Washington to implement punitive regulations upon the vast majority of human society. If you weren’t tipping such dangerous windmills this lunacy wouldn’t be worth responding to.

                    • You should follow threads. The old man asked why he had not seen the coastal flooding… I explained why. Your ‘bot needs tuning.

                    • You explained NOTHING. You pushed out some budget numbers in an attempt to make a correlation between human behavior and spending. If that is what you consider “explaining” your brain needs more tuning. Just more propagandist BS.

                  • So… your thesis is that 100 years ago we didn’t have hurricanes? We have more people and more infra-structure every year, what do you think will happen when we’re hit by hurricanes, less expense? And by the way, if I had my say, we wouldn’t be spending all those tax dollars to repair private businesses and residences. That’s what insurance is for. Also, if people had to pay for storm damage, perhaps they’d move where there are fewer storms but, once again the government subsidizes hurtful behavior.

                    • Follow the money. Increases in flood insurance rates is not the result of less flooding. It is the results of increased flooding.

      • One could only hope… but they hate the REST of mankind and consider themselves some kind of superior “evolved persons”. They are all atheists and worship themselves and their loathsome kind and that is why they have made a cult out of their politically cracked agenda of socialism, global warmism, homosexuality, “humanitarian” warmongering, police statism, and welfare statism.

        • I’m atheist and I don’t believe in this B.S.. Remember, not all liberals are atheists. There are many so called Christians and Jews who believe this. You are showing your narrow mind that lumping everyone from a certain group together. It would be the same if I lumped all Christians with the westburough Baptist church. That’s the problem with conservatives: too narrow minded. And I’m conservative also.

          • I didn’t say that all atheists are global warmites, but that all global warmites are atheists. Try to understand that oh so subtle difference. I don’t consider the so-calleds to be believers in God; it’s antithetical to the whole politically cracked agenda and dogma. There will always be some minor exceptions, or course, but generally speaking my statement is factual and I stand by it.

            • “but that all global warmites are atheists”

              Actually you’re going to need a citation for that, but I have to admit, I’d understand the correlation.
              MANY (not all) atheists are simply atheist because there is no intelligent reason to assume a god actually exists (weak atheism) – the DEMAND you validate your claim.

              The same is true for global warming, and it HAS been validated. thus, the basic requirement of the weak-atheists’ claim is fulfilled, in the context of global warming.

              As for your god.. puh.. I can understand why you’re so vitriolic – you simply don’t bother to consult the information, the material. you simply don’t bother to extend your brain past what some bigoted jock on the radio told you once. you’re unable to ask questions, you’re unable to actually seek out the data and CRITICALLY THINK about it.
              Your theism, and your failure to bother to think about global warming go hand in claw.

              • Your pompous presumptiousness (I don’t own a radio and couldn’t tell you who the “talk jocks” are; I’m “unable to ask questions, etc.”) and your insistence that your blind dogmatic Global Warmism “HAS been validated” despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary, and your atheism go foot in mouth.

          • I’m an atheist, and I consider my intellectual evolution superior to that of theists. It’s called education and intellectual honesty.

            That’s not to say that ALL atheists are the same – atheism has nothing to do with education, but gallup polls do show a correlation between poor education and religiosity.

            Anyhow, what amuses me most on climate depot, is the unfailing accusation that climate scientists are ‘lefties’ – I’ve yet to have anyone explain to me how a political leaning has anything to do with science.

            Based on the calibre of posts here, I strongly doubt one will ever come.

    • Liberals do not hate mankind. What they are doing is elevating themselves to gods. As if their actions can alter the universe. And yet all evidence points to the fact that they really cannot alter a thing.

      Why do they elevate themselves to god-like status? Because they hate the concept of God. No one forces them to believe. But they want to force you to disbelieve.

    • ClimateDepot.com is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues. Public tax filings for 2003-7 (the last five years for which documents are available) show that the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation and foundations associated with the billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime financier of conservative causes, including being the primary source of money used to fund attacks against Bill Clinton during theWhitewater and Monica Lewinsky eras of his presidency [1]. According to a report issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists, from 1998-2005, approximately 23% of the total ExxonMobil funding for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow was directed by ExxonMobil for climate change activities [p. 32].

  1. But….but….splutter, splutter…..”Climate Change!” “Global Warming!” Racism!

    Yeah, that’s it – RACISM! “The Man!” “I am the one I’ve been waiting for!”

    – Obozo Voter and Climate Alarmist

  2. If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie…It thus become virtually important for the State to use all of its power to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Nazi Propaganda Minister…
    So who is going to be the foolish one to believe in this global warming lies?

    • These days Morano is paid by an industry-funded group to run the climate denial website ClimateDepot.com. At Climate Depot, Morano serves as the de facto research department for the right-wing media’s attacks on climate science, and mobilizes his readers to target individual scientists and reporters for telling the public about climate change threats. The site was instrumental in manufacturing the 2009 “Climategate” controversy, which Morano incorrectly claimed exposed “deliberate manipulation of facts and data” by climate scientists. Morano is a darling of the organization most committed to climate denial, the Heartland Institute. He regularly speaks at their conferences and defended their controversial billboard comparing those who accept climate science to “murderers, tyrants, and madmen” including the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.

      • What right wing? If there were such a thing we would be on the moon mining its resources for the (never-clouded-out) solar power stations there to beam the energy back here to eliminate all coal burning, gas burning and nuclear power plants thus drastically reducing those emissions that ALLEGEDLY force the climate. Such technology has been around for the last thirty-five years yet all we hear about are silly, no, scary – geoengineering schemes.

        AL GORE – where is he now that we need all his hot air?

          • The adherents have NEVER figured out why, given that the sun was as active in the 20th Century as it was in the 11th Century, that we are not as warm as the Medieval Optimum, nor can their self-vaunted models go backward in time to “predict’ such changes as the Little Ice Age.

            HARUMPH!

            CLIMATEGATE (now I, II & III plus FAKEGATE) – the revelation that the pseudo-scientists at East Anglia University know just as much about the atmosphere as Harvard law professors know about the Constitution

          • Again, no data, just slander.

            If it was “just simple math” current CO2 measurements would align with whatever nonsensical predications the ecolofascists predicted. Since every one of those theories has been proven wrong by data gathered in the last decade, you have just declared the authors all morons (or at least incapable of “simple math”). As a True Believer of this pap, you have in turn declared yourself a follower of morons. I will give you credit for getting that much right.

  3. Oh my, the “Horror”!
    Of course we had fewer extreme weather events during the Medieval warming period as well, but that does not mean we are warming as much as enjoying the results of past warming.
    (And the nut jobs would have to admit we had warming before the industrial revolution to bring it up.)

  4. In the 70’s the claim as that we were heading for another ice age. When the planet warmed half a degree instead the claim was changed to global warming. Now the predicted disasters of AGW have come up short and the planet has not warmed in the last 17 years. So what will be the next disaster? How about this? OMG! The planet’s climate is staying the same! Oh no were all gonna die from the unbearable crushing boredom of climate sameness! And its all man’s fault.

  5. I’m thinking HAARP, or whatever they call themselves now, experimented enough in 2011. My hometown of Joplin, MO suffered these experiments as did many other communities in ’11 & ’12. That can rationally explain the drop in tornadoes in 2013.

    • Because it has nothing to do with the climate; it’s all about socialism in it’s various guises. If it were really about climate then you would think that the global warming crowd would be happy by the evidence that the earth is not warming but they are not – they need global warming to exist.

  6. I am highly skeptical of the global warning hysteria. if for no other reason, the only solutions offered are ones that tax the society to death and line the pockets of the tax collectors (Government) and feed them with more money and power. Sounds like a snake oil salesman to me. Since when is the air I expel from my lungs (Carbon Dioxie) a Toxic pollutant? Isn’t that what plants breath in? If that is the case then every liberal blowhard should be taxed twice as much!

  7. I think the global warming lunatics are beyond the point of being able to rationalize ANYTHING. Every rain drop, snow flake or gust of wind over 20 mph is caused by global warming, case closed. Won’t be long before high tide is blamed on global warming, with high CEO salaries also linked to it also

  8. Must be global warming. The US set the most records for cold weather this year. Must be global warming. Comet Ison was destroyed by the sun. Must be global warming. The sun came up in the east. Must be global warming. Justin Bieber is retiring. Must be global warming.

  9. One of the reasons why there has been fewer wildfires has nothing to do with the weather, it is because there is little left to burn. There were so many catastrophic wildfires because of the build up of fuels resulting from the lack of logging (because of Liberals) and also because of the amount of standing dead timber killed by the bark beatle which was able to flourish and decimate forests due to the stopping of spraying and use of DDT (because of Liberals) due to a completely bogus study and book “Silent Spring” (Liberal).

    To sum it all up, after 40+ years of failed forest practices and management by Liberals, our forests have been burned, decimated and destroyed along with the critters that call them home.

          • Actually we do have a lot of forest left to burn especially up in the Pacific Northwest and most of it is dead or dying timber or areas that
            are severely overgrown because of the lack of intelligent logging. The healthiest forests in the PNW are the ones owned by private industry
            which are logged and replanted regularly. The area in which I live has been witness to 4 major wildfires in the past 10 or so years including,

            The Biscuit fire in 2002 that burned 499,570 acres
            The B&B Complex fire in 2003 that burned 90,769 acres
            The South End Complex fire in 2006 that burned117,553 acres, and
            The Pole Creek Fire in 2012 that burned 26,285 acres.

            From 1933 which was the year of the Tillamook fire which burned 311,000 acres and the Jackson fire in 2000 which burned 108,000 acres, there were no major forest fires at all in Oregon.

            So the simple question is this, “What changed just prior to 2000 that caused a significant upswing in wildfires”. Using Occam’s Razor which is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the
            hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected and that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for
            greater explanatory power.

            So, with all that in mind, and by using critical thinking skills, the one constant that has changed is the reduction/elimination of logging and pest/insect control.

            • You made the assertion, did you not, that the lack of wildfires in 13 was due to the fact there is “little left to burn”?
              It seems to me that on you to offer some proof of that. Which you have not. You seem to be saying poor management led to more fires. Obviously.

              • Wow, are you a quick one. I am guessing that sarcasm is not your strong suit in regards to nothing left to burn.

                However, it is very realistic to say that it is directly because of poor management practices that has led to more fires in the past decade.

                Actually we do have a lot of forest left to burn especially up in the
                Pacific Northwest and most of it is dead or dying timber or areas that
                are severely overgrown because of the lack of intelligent logging. The
                healthiest forests in the PNW are the ones owned by private industry
                which are logged and replanted regularly. The area in which I live has
                been witness to 4 major wildfires in the past 10 or so years including,

                The Biscuit fire in 2002 that burned 499,570 acres
                The B&B Complex fire in 2003 that burned 90,769 acres
                The South End Complex fire in 2006 that burned117,553 acres, and
                The Pole Creek Fire in 2012 that burned 26,285 acres.

                From 1933 which was the year of the Tillamook fire which burned 311,000
                acres and the Jackson fire in 2000 which burned 108,000 acres, there
                were no major forest fires at all in Oregon.

                So the simple question is this, “What changed just prior to 2000 that caused a
                significant upswing in wildfires”. Using Occam’s Razor which is a
                principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and
                problem solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the
                hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected and that one
                should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for
                greater explanatory power.

                So, with all that in mind, and by
                using critical thinking skills, the one constant that has changed is the
                reduction/elimination of logging and pest/insect control.

      • Actually we do have a lot of forest left to burn especially up in the Pacific Northwest and most of it is dead or dying timber or areas that
        are severely overgrown because of the lack of intelligent logging. The healthiest forests in the PNW are the ones owned by private industry
        which are logged and replanted regularly. The area in which I live has been witness to 4 major wildfires in the past 10 or so years including,

        The Biscuit fire in 2002 that burned 499,570 acres
        The B&B Complex fire in 2003 that burned 90,769 acres
        The South End Complex fire in 2006 that burned117,553 acres, and
        The Pole Creek Fire in 2012 that burned 26,285 acres.

        From 1933 which was the year of the Tillamook fire which burned 311,000 acres and the Jackson fire in 2000 which burned 108,000 acres, there
        were no major forest fires at all in Oregon.

        So the simple question is this, “What changed just prior to 2000 that caused a significant upswing in wildfires”. Using Occam’s Razor which is a
        principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the
        hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected and that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for
        greater explanatory power.

        So, with all that in mind, and by using critical thinking skills, the one constant that has changed is the reduction/elimination of logging and pest/insect control.

              • Wow, you are too funny. Yes, it is my claim that there are no forests left in the United States thereby making it physically impossible for any future forest fires to exist.

                You are truly stupid….Thank you for the laugh.

                By the way, you still have failed (as all Liberals do) to debate the facts and evidence I provided to support my position.

                What is your position again???

                • your position was there’s fewer fire because “there’s nothing left to burn”, that was your original post, yes? You certainly provided no evidence of that!!
                  You’re nuts and a liar, and I’m no stinkin liberal! That’s always been my position, nutbar!!!

                    • Nutjob. My position remains you’re a liar as you have repeatedly demonstrated. Now off you go! Pollute someone else’s inbox with your insanity!
                      Kook.

                    • LOL too funny.. Your position remains…..what a joke. Enjoy Junior College, and watch out for those emotions, because they are owning you.. Remember to work on your punctuation, spelling and grammar. Also, learn to speak without the use of fragmented sentences, excessive propositions and for goodness sake let go of the colloquialisms and regional jargon. One last thing that I know will challenge you. College requires you to actually provide facts and proof to back up your position, so you may want to work on that as well.

                    • Sshhh, listen.. do you hear that? It is the sound of you losing at yet another in a long list of things in your life. On the bright side, as the pathetic Liberal that you are, you are probably pretty used to it by now.

                      On a side note, I noticed that the vast majority of your postings are simple one-liners. I am guessing that is because it the maximum amount of thought you can conjure at any one time.

                      Really though, please give post high school education a try.

                    • There is something seriously wrong with you. I’m no liberal and you are a liar. Are you asserting you’ve reviewed “the vast majority of my postings”, because that would be another lie! One line is all I need to make my point when dealing with a nutjob like you! Its kooks like you who have NOTHING to say who spend all the pixels.
                      You know nothing about me or my education, but continue to project, it says loads about YOU!

                    • Wow, looks like we are going on another emotional roller coaster… Fasten your seat belts. Typing in all caps really helps prove your point…ha ha ha….You are too easy….

                    • I did not type all in caps! What’s wrong with you? You just make chit up! That’s called lying and now we are back to my original “position”! You’re a liar and a nutjob to boot!
                      See? No caps!
                      Dolt.

                    • So in just two postings above you are saying that you did not type the word “NOTHING” in all caps? Thank you for proving my point… koo koo..

                    • Keep telling yourself that.. What ever helps you sleep at night. Funny thing though, most people actually require proof.

                      And now I am done with you. Pathetic little Liberals like yourself are fun to mess with, but now I have grown bored with you as you have proven you are incapable of either original thought or the use of critical thinking skills.

                    • I already told you I am not a liberal. More lies and kookery. Are you drunk or on meds that affect short term memory? There’s something wrong with you.

      • Is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used
        in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the
        hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected and that one should
        proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater
        explanatory power

        -http://wildfires.findthedata.org/d/d/Oregon-

    • The planet is about 16% greener today than it was 30 years ago. The US is also greener. All of this has been scientifically documented, but little reported. There is an excellent video lecture on this greening by Professor Ranga B. Myneni that can be found on the internet. It’s an hour and nine minutes long, but well worth the time.

  10. Where is ALGORE! Wasn’t he telling us that “climate Change” was going to cause these storms to increase? Didn’t he tell us that by 2014 that global warming would cause sea levels to rise because the polar ice caps would be melted? And right after he made the ‘ice comment’ didn’t he purchase a Malibu beach house?
    And the best question of all: HOW COME THEY CAN’T PROVE ALL OF THIS GLOBAL WARMING / CLIMATE CHANGE SHIITT???