Sunday, November 28, 2021
Home Middle Column NOAA: 2185 cold records broken or tied in past week – 1913...

NOAA: 2185 cold records broken or tied in past week – 1913 Low Min Records Broken & 272 tied in 7 days


1913 Low Min Records Broken in Last 7 Days (272 tied)  according to the NOAA. (From 2015-02-19 to 2015-02-25)

Below is a screenshot showing location and the biggest difference between old record and new record.

The list is just the ones I could capture in a screenshot. Wow. Many records broken by over 30F.

Imagine … the old record was 15F and it is now -23F. A 38F difference.




        • “Casey is the AGW fanatics nightmare”

          Lol! Why would you think anthropogenic global warming needed “fans”?

          Did you think the molecules of CO₂ will only warm the planet if we cheer them on?

          Is that how you think physics works?

            • “Are you such an ass all the time?”

              When people say something as mind-numbingly ridiculous as what you just said, yes of course!

              I see no other possible option but to laugh at you.

              …now why did you say it?

              It has been known for over 100 years that CO₂ warms planets:

              “In January 1859, Tyndall began studying the radiative properties of various gases… Tyndall’s experiments… showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation”


              Is it likely that this “John Casey” person has overthrown over a century of science and is about to receive a Nobel prize?

              …or that he is one of many propagandists, including the people at Climate Depot, who are paid to lie about climate science?

  1. Don’t worry, once the “adjustments” are made to the data, the warming trend will become obvious to all… it’s funny how many people get upset at phtoshopped pictures of women, but have no problem with similarly photoshopped temperature data.

      • Here’s a challenge cupcake: can you find anything nefarious in the emails … there would be a great reward for you if you can as no one else in your denier tribe has, despite much searching. Until then, what you sprout is hearsay otherwise known as [email protected]

        • Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline. ad infinitum…….

          • So you thought that was nefarious? Thanks for sharing that you’re neither a scientist nor scientifically literate. This claim is patently false and shows gross ignorance of the science discussed. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960. Unless you think tree rings are more accurate than thermometers then there is no conspiracy.

            • I’m a self taught scientist. Much like Ben Franklin. Unless you have a thermometor placed in every square foot the entire earth over than you are not getting an accurate reading of “Global Temperatures”

              • The difference between you and Ben Franklin is that you’re complete opposites; he was smart and progressive. Anyway, thanks for clarifying why your remarks are facile and vacuous even though that was totally unnecessary as your ignorance is/was self-evident in your current and past comments.

                • Actually, Ben Franklin was only considered that in retrospect. How can you even pretend to know me and who I am you condescending pseudo intellectual. What have you accomplished in your life other than trolling sites that debunk global warming and spewing alarmist talking points with no scientific input to offer to the discourse.

                  • Your written words allow me to assess your capabilities. As to scientific input … scan the comments … you have provided zero science … on the other hand I have provided several citations to published science. Come back when you can do the same instead of parroting and regurgitating what you read in the denier echo chamber. As to being trolls, we are even … the difference is I’m scientifically literate and you’re totally ignorant probably because one of my many achievements in life was to have a BS at an age when you were probably still in HS.

                    • Those were terms of endearment for you dear fellow troll. Still doesn’t make you anything but ignorant when it comes to climate science.

                    • What makes you a genius is your ability to use that keyboard while in a straight jacket. It is nice that they give you so much time there in the computer lab at the state hospital, With your fellow scientists’ I’m sure.

                • Ben Franklin was “smart and ‘progressive’?”

                  Real History (not “progressive”)

                  “Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy.” Franklin replied, “A republic . . . if you can keep it.”

                  Now the jury is in, we could not keep it – we went “progressive” (trust the “leaders”) instead.

              • Repetitively stating vacuity about science being provable will not make it so. In essence you’re afraid that reality will bring change whether you deny it or not. So denialism is where you seek refuge, as is common, for the ignorant and/or uneducated according to psychiatrists and psychologists. You assuage your fears by grasping at straws of junk science readily offered to the ignorant, uneducated and gullible from the denier echo chamber.

                • This was the premier science of the most educated people in the USA one century ago

                  This is a science not of proof but of belief;

                  Are you saying the 1960’s radicals who have taken over the US college campuses are more “enlightened” how did this happen? I know they smoked more dope?

                  “Proponents of eugenics included Yale president James R. Angell, celebrated football coach Walter Camp ’80, primatologist Robert Yerkes, and Yale medical school dean Milton Winternitz. Stewart Paton, who pioneered mental health services for college students during a two-year stint at Yale in the 1920s, was a eugenicist. So was Rabbi Louis L. Mann, a lecturer at Yale, who told an audience at a 1923 birth control conference that, even in ancient times, the wise men of Israel had realized the necessity of checking the multiplication of the unfit.”

                  The seminal work of the American eugenics movements was a 1916 book by Yale graduate Madison Grant – The Passing of a Great Race – which extolled the superiority of Nordic stock and warned against its “corruption” by Jews, Blacks, Slav and any other race that lacked blond hair and blue eyes. In 1930 Madison Grant received a letter of thanks and appreciation from a rising political star in Germany – recently released from prison – Adolf Hitler. His book Mein Kampfdisplays an intimate knowledge of Grant’s theories, as well as anti-immigrant and racial legislation in the United States, which Hitler believed Germany should adopt immediately.

                  And, once in power, Hitler implemented eugenic principles in ways the American proponents could only dream of. While sterilizations were common in the US, the Americans watched in wonder and admiration as the Nazis introduced systematic euthanasia – and then extermination on a mass scale.

                  As a Harvard PhD, I wish I could take some pleasure on this terrible blemish on the history of Yale University – a dreaded rival. But Harvard was also a hotbed of eugenics – indeed it was the center of eugenics research. Charles Davenport, a Harvard-trained biologist, was the leading figure in the American eugenics movement, and a key advisor to the American Eugenics Society.

                  Another, unrelated, Harvard connection was Ernst “Putzi” Hanfstaengl, Hitler’s early advisor and a Harvard man through and through (see Hanfstaengl’s biography: Hitler’s Piano Player).

                  And Harvard’s contribution to pseudo-science in Germany continues today. A profound influence on the best-selling German eugenicist Thilo Sarrazin is Harvard graduate Charles Murray, a co-author of the Bell Curve.

                  Why is this “belief: now untrue and your AGW BS true?

        • ROFL – I love those people who complain about those email. Their IGNORANCE is quite amusing. Having earned a degree in mathematics I KNOW phrases like “used a trick” or “manipulated the data” are quite common and don’t mean what the non-professionals THINK they mean.

          BTW Phil and buyit -> you DO know that whoever put that chart together MANIPULATED THE DATA – don’t you?

        • Doesn’t need to nefarious, it just needs to be echo speak or group ignorance. The same ignorance which has caused billions of wasted dollars changing a coal plant over to natural gas for instance. Cost hundreds of miners their jobs. People are hurt by this stupidity, while the Al Gores of the world are raking in millions in speaking fees and fear mongering. This wouldn’t be possible without the complicit support of government and the ignorant disciples who believe this AGW stupidity. Most glaciers are growing, but you don’t hear about that, Arctic Ice and Antarctic Ice are at record levels. Oceanic temps have been stable for years.
          Before you continue down this road of ruin, you might want to do some independent research. Begin with John L. Casey’s “Dark Winter”, then keeping an open mind, look at the other supporting data which those who scream warming, warming, warming, don’t want you to see. THERE IS NO MEASURABLE MAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING!
          As P.T. Barnum said, there is a sucker born every minute!

              • That’s interesting. Al Goron has been saying Polar Bears are becoming extinct due to Globull Warming.
                Now it looks like their populations are increasing, which makes Manmade Globull Warming zealots LIARS once more.
                BTW – Polar Bears who threaten human settlements are shot.
                They will tear you to pieces if given the chance, just like Grizzly Bears in Alaska.

                    • You were told, but prefer to live in a permanent state of self imposed ignorance.

                      Why do you blame leftists for your own personal failings?

                    • Gee – maybe its because Leftists have held control of each House of Congress for 62 of the last 82 years – and the White House for 46 of those years – including the last 6 !) Leftists are destroying America – and you want to help….

                    • Don’t concern yourself with VD – he’s actually a Canadian Janitor, just google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” and you’ll see what I mean….he’s a useless waste of O2

              • Complete nonsense.

                There were no limits on polar bears in the USA until it became and embarrassing counter point to the leftist narrative. There is still no limit on US Polar Bears if you are an Inuit. Until very recently when the false polar bear narrative was foisted on ignorant people by the NY Times anyone could buy a polar bear hunting permit from the Inuits in Alaska. Want to kill ten Bears – buy ten permits. Now the Inuits can no longer sell these permits so they get more welfare instead

                As for Canada


                • Liar.. Liar… Pants on fire….

                  Unregulated hunting of polar bears—except by native peoples—ended in 1973 with an international agreement among the polar bear nations of Canada, the U.S., Russia, Norway, and Greenland. Polar bears had been severely depleted by overhunting.

                  Today, legal hunting continues on a limited, regulated basis for native peoples.

                  Norway is the only polar bear nation that protects polar bears from all forms of hunting. Three of the other four nations permit native hunts—a traditionally important cultural activity and source of income. Canada is the only nation that allows sport or trophy hunting by non-natives and non-citizens.

                  Natives hunters are subject to a quota system that divides permits among native communities. In Canada, these hunters often sell their permits to sport hunters for large sums, creating a windfall for communities that have no other source of income. Interestingly, this often results in fewer bears being killed, as sport hunters are not as skilled as native hunters.

                  U.S. hunters are no longer permitted to take their trophies out of Canada now that the polar bear is listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. However, other nations allow importation of trophies from Canadian hunts.

                  • One of these mutually contradictory statements is an idiot by your own measure.

                    a) “virtually all polar bear hunting – has been banned since the 1960’s.”

                    b) “Today, legal hunting continues on a limited, regulated basis for native peoples.”

                    Can you identify which one of the authors of theses statements is clueless? Is it the Hyde or the Jeykll author?

                    Don’t believe your lying eyes now:


                    Want to go on a polar bear hunt Jeykll, Read this because this is what your guide Hyde will either insist or recommend that you bring to the hunt:

                    The following list is recommended and mandatory:

                    Down parka with fur trimmed hood and down wind pants

                    Warm mittens, large enough for inner gloves, heavy woolen shooting gloves

                    Face mask and tinted snowmobile goggles (to avoid frostbite and snow blindness)

                    Fur hat with flaps that tie down around ears and back of neck. I use mine for sleeping also

                    The warmest boots made by Cabellas, Timberline or Northern Outfitters. Boots designed for extreme cold with insulated liners. EXTRA LINERS!

                    Heavy sweater or ski-jacket for around camp

                    Camp boots, easy to put on and pull off, for around camp

                    Pure wool or wool/polypropylene long-handle underwear

                    4 or 5 pairs heavy wool socks, 4-5 pairs thinner wool socks

                    Pair heavy wool pants and 2 heavy wool shirts

                    A down-filled sleeping bag rated for –40F and set of wool, long underwear for sleeping

                    Sharp knife and sharpening steel

                    High-quality binoculars

                    Soft-padded gun case for the sled

                    High-powered rifle with 30-40 rounds. (300 magnum with 220 grain bullets recommended)

                    OK champ, your off to get your first polar bear.

                    Next are polar bears a separate species from other bears?

                    Are Inuits a separate species from other humans?

                    Finally you are off message: I thought it was supposed to be “glowball warming” that has been exterminating all those cuddly white bears, instead of mean white hunters, have you abandoned the movement?

          • TroyGale -> come back with scientific evidence that backs up YOUR claim.

            Newsflash – personal attacks against Al Gore is NOT proof. Just CLAIMING you’re right isn’t proof. Making FALSE claims about glaciers and what scientists are report or not reporting are not proof.

            Where is all this “supporting data”? BTW – I don’t mean denier’s web sites or some book someone wrote TO MAKE MONEY. I’m talking peer-reviewed scientific papers.

            Do you have any? No? Then troll away…

              • Anyone who doesn’t understand what scientists mean when they say the manipulated the data should keep their UNTRAINED mouths shut.

                BTW – as I noted before – whoever put that chart together manipulated the data. And that’s a fact!

                  • Your link has NOTHING to do with the climate-gate email scandal. And the phrased used at the time is – manipulated the data. And my claim of “that’s a common phrase in science” and doesn’t mean “they falsified the data” still goes.

                    I also claimed the maker of the chart manipulated the data but nobody has asked what I meant. Easy, look at the difference column. They manipulated the data, in this cause they sorted it from lowest to highest.

                    In college I took a course on mathematical modeling. We were given raw data about the population of large cities and the average time it took people to walk 100 yards. Now since it was over 20 years ago I don’t remember to exact solution BUT I do know I had to “manipulate the data” twice in order to see a pattern emerge. I had to change the units from number of seconds into some other unit like feet/minute. I also had to change the population using (I think) natural logarithms and after I did that, I could easily see a pattern. That’s why scientist “manipulate the data”.

                    Next was that the scientists said that they used a trick. Again to the non-scientists that meant they were trying to TRICK everyone. But it is a VERY common phrase used in mathematics. Here is a simple example. Solve ax^2 +bc + c = 0. In this form we can’t, but what can we do. First, let’s divide by a giving us x^2 +(b/a)x + c/a = 0 . In math you can add a zero to one side without affecting anything. So now we have ax^2 +bx + 0 + c = 0. Nice but that doesn’t do much. But we can USE A TRICK. Any number subtracted from itself = 0. So using this TRICK we can now write x^2 + (b/a)x + (b/2a)^2 – (b/2a)^2 + c = 0. Now we have a perfect square and can go on to solve the quadratic equation.

                    The point is that “using a trick” and “manipulating the data” are NOT some sort of sinister plot to fool people. They are everyday figure of speeches used by scientists.

                • Are you holding forth that there exist a class of government paid bureaucrats who call themselves scientists but who oddly have never discovered anything at all are superior beings who don’t lie cheat and steal ?

            • The IPCC reported that

              “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).”

              Is this science or Bullshit?

                • For the THIRD time – when a scientists says he manipulated the data he doesn’t mean he’s falsifying the information.

                  They mean they did something mathematical in order to see patterns that might be hidden otherwise.

                  As I stated earlier – the above chart had the data manipulated. They sorted in on the last column from lowest to highest.

                  Would you criticize a scientist for using a microscope? After all, a microscope “manipulates the data”, it bends the light in order to magnify an object making it easier to see.

                  I’ll try with another TRUE example. My son and I were watching a program about a mass extinction. The scientist being interviewed was standing near a rocky base of a cliff and was explaining that there was something that occurred every 20 or so years and that evidence of this cycle could be seen in the rock cliff behind him. The camera showed the rock cliff but one couldn’t see the 20 year old bands in the rock cliff the guy was talking about. Then the scientist explained that while it’s hard to see just with the naked eye the pattern could be seen by taking a digital photo of the rock face and then by MANIPULATING THE DATA in the photo using a computer program, the bans would become visible. Sure enough, after the program had MANIPULATED THE DATA, probably by coloring the backing using the various subtle changes in the luminance, the bands were quite visible.

                  If you can’t understand this simple phrase then maybe you should just keep quiet.

              • Liar.. Liar… Pants on Fire..

                Gore made no such statement. And even your own link shows that.

                Why do you post a link that contradicts your own claims that you make against Gore?

                Are you mentally ill?

                You see, once you actually click on the link inside your dishonest reference – the one that makes the accusation against Gore it states the following….

                “Former US Vice President Al Gore cited Professor Maslowski’s analysis on Monday in his acceptance speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo.”

                It is only though dishonesty on your part that you would claim that citing the research of another person is equivalent to making a forecast.

                I have never encountered a Republican who wasn’t a congenital and perpetual lair.

                Both you and the author of the reference you cite (Alex Newman), are liars.

                • Actual pronouncements by climate “scientists”:

                  1970- We’ll be in an ice age by 2000.

                  1976- Global cooling will cause war by 2000.

                  1989- Global warming will wipe entire nations off the map by 2000.

                  1990- We have 5 years to save the rainforests.

                  1999- The Himalayan glaciers will be gone in 10 years.

                    • How about you find a scientist rather than a right wing tabloid rag when you make such claims.

                      Honesty doesn’t appear to be one of your qualities.

                    • Don’t waste your time Wing – Vendicar (aka Scotty Douglas the Canadian Janitor) isn’t worth the time. Google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” and you’ll see what I mean. Ignore him

                    • Didn’t even read the article did you, asshat? It’s from March of 2000 and this nugget is from one of the leading climate “scientists” at that time. So how about you find any AGW speculation which has proven to be true? ANY!

                      “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.”

                    • I did read the article, and it clearly shows that you were lying when you asserted that Gore said that “snowfalls are now a thing of the past.”

                      How about you find a scientist rather than a right wing tabloid rag when you make such claims.

                      Honesty doesn’t appear to be one of your qualities.

                    • You need to re-read EVERY reply I’ve made on this thread. Not once have I mentioned your high priest….. only false claims made by your actual “scientists”. And for the record, I still haven’t called out the washed up VP by name.

                      David Viner

                      Exceptionally Experienced International Climate Change Expert: Science, Impacts, Resilience, Adaptation and Mitigation

                      Over 23 years experience working globally in all aspects of climate change.

                      Aim: Working internationally across the public and private sector to develop and deliver strategies aligned to organisational objectives that will deliver high impacting business, environmental and social benefits.

                      Principal Adviser working for an global company. Responsible for Strategic Business Development, Project Director, Stakeholder Management and Strategy Development.

                      My Climate Change Programme at the British Council was described by the Foreign Office as a “National Asset”. Throughout my career I have developed and delivered ground breaking strategies, these have built and strengthened organisational capacity. I have built and developed high performing teams in the academic, governmental and commercial sectors.

                      Specialties: All aspects of the Climate Change and Development, working at the highest international level in global roles since 1991.

                      Global Director – Climate Change, Environment and Sustainability

                      British Council

                      2008 – June 2011 (3 years)

                      Reporting to Executive Board, created a strategy and subsequent programme that met global corporate objectives (engagement of 85m people in 2010), delivered by colleagues based in 109 countries and 250+ offices. The Programme has been described by the UK’s Special Envoy on Climate Change as a “National Asset”.

                      The programme was responsive to local needs, politics, and partnerships and flexible in order for colleagues to tailor activity to local operating models and utilise the innovation and imagination of internal and external stakeholders. The Climate Programme was multifaceted and developed in a manner that required different levels of priorities to meet local conditions, funding streams and partner aspirations.

                      Additional achievements and responsibilities:
                      • Senior Advisor for the Environment and Sustainability Policy.
                      • Lead on the development and delivery of our internal Sustainability Strategy
                      • Thought Leader on Climate and Sustainability.
                      • Developed a unique evidenced-based strategy to delivering a ‘cultural relations’ approach.
                      • Developed an integrated portfolio of activity with a joint annual budget of £105million.
                      • Lead a global matrix team, managing complex matrix based budgets to deliver on a range of strategic delivery targets
                      • Constructed the internal business systems and the key metrics and KPI’s used for monitoring and evaluation.
                      • Lead substantial cost reduction programmes through increased efficiencies, savings and innovative ways of working.

                      Principal Specialist – Climate Change

                      Natural EnglandFebruary 2007 – February 2008 (1 year 1 month)

                      Developing an evidenced based programme of research to deliver integrated landscape scale adaptation for the Natural Environment. Providing support for policy development and management of stakeholders.

                      Senior Research Scientist and Climate Change MSc Director

                      Climatic Research Unit, University of East AngliaSeptember 1991 – February 2007 (15 years 6 months)

                      Developing a Cultural Relations approach to address climate change, Climate change science, developing integrated approaches to multifunctional landscape scale adaptation, policy development for conservation and climate change, climate change and the rural economy, biodiversity and climate change, the interactions between climate change, tourism and sustainability, scenario construction, impacts assessments, knowledge transfer and science communications, the construction and provision of climate data sets for the international climate change research community, insurance and integrated assessments.

                      Undertaken numerous TV, Radio and media interviews, Guest presenter on BBC’s Inside Out.

                      Legend 🙂 (See? He’s a legend in his own mind!!!!)

                      University of Salford1988 – 1991 (3 years)

                      How about you find any AGW “scientist” whose predictions have proven to be true. ANY!

                      Honesty doesn’t appear to be one of your qualities.

                    • So you agree you’re simply wrong, making false claims and instead of agreeing David Viner is a leading “scientist” in the AGW movement, you attempt to smear the source of his insane comment…. so I posted his bio and this is the best reply you can come up with????

                      Anything on the “AGW prediction that has borne fruit” front?

                      Honesty doesn’t appear to be one of your qualities.

            • Dark Winter John L Casey. Peer reviewed, and available online or at your local barnes and noble. Look around you if you live in the mid-west or New England. Some folks are just easily fooled…you are one of them.

          • Thank you for sharing that you’re neither a scientist nor scientifically literate but rather obnoxiously ignorant by choice apparently when it comes to climate science. Totally beyond me why anyone would be so proud of being completely scientifically illiterate. Most people would be embarrassed but not you deniers, you put it right out there for all to see. As to know measurable global warming there is a plethora of published science research and you may be a tad better informed doing some reading on the topic. A good start would be doi:10.1038/nature14240.

            AGW stupidity

            AGW theory is accepted by every current climate scientist worldwide who is researching and publishing on climate science. They’re all wrong and you the denier is correct? The greenhouse effect was discovered in 1824, nearly two centuries ago. Do a little research sometime. It’s all a long con started by Fourier, picked up by Tyndall, then Arrhenius, now carried into modern day by all the PhD’s who work in the field according to your simple denier intellect.

            • “AGW theory is accepted by every current climate scientist worldwide who is researching and publishing on climate science.”
              Your moronic fairy tales and pathetic brainwashing, are tiresome. Yeah, just keep lying, denying all scientific fact, and realtiy itslef, so your communist masters can enslave you and the rest of the world. FOaD, loser.

              • Your puerile vacuity removes any credibility you deemed your words had. So cupcake here’s a challenge: right now there’s simply no alternative model to the greenhouse effect, there’s no alternative hypothesis, that explains the temperature on this planet … why don’t you forgo the comforts of your quilting circle and publish your research and conclusions in science publications where it will get the treatment and contempt it rightly deserves.

            • Define scientist.

              I hold that climatology is not science at all but rather a political ploy to deprive (stupid) people of their liberty. Therefore, ANY climate “scientist” whether they support my position is probably a fraud.

              Real science is self affirming, i.e. we don’t need to “believe” in Maxwell’s Equations or Newton’s laws of motion or universal gravitation do we, but why is thsi ?

              Because they ALWAYS work for the purposes intended, no exceptions.

              Now we come to “faith based” science in which we must swear “belief” or be punished for denying.

              Here we have a plethora of examples: How about the Ivy League (Harvard, Princeton, Yale) developed science of eugenics with its sub-field of phrenology. Are you aware that Hitler advanced his genocide based entirely on our own U.S. Ivy league developed faith based sciences in racial inferiority.

              Besides being dead wrong what makes your faith based climate science more “believable” than the Ivy League race sciences Hitler “believed?”

              • Care to substantiate your evidence-free post or are you just parrotting and regurgitating what your glean from the hearsay in the denier echo chamber that is designed to sucker the gullible and/or ignorant?

                  • So in essence you cannot support your vacuity and cling to a basically fictional account of the future which has been thoroughly debunked by climate science and reality as your go to source for science. That’s gross ignorance on the topic.

                    • Uh…look around you. Cold and Ice building in Arctic, Antarctic, the Great Lakes, Siberia, Glaciers are gaining mass. Nothing Casey has said was debunked. His projections are happening today, all around the world, and if you don’t believe that, just wait a decade. The IPCC has been wrong time and again, yet lemmings like you defend the political babble generated by those whose paymasters benefit by your ignorance and fear.
                      His theory is peer reviewed, and sonny boy, if you think 2 degrees of warming is bad, just wait till you see 2 degrees of cooling to the average temps looks like. Think crop failures in the grain belts of the world. Now, you go worship at Al Gore’s feet, because you are too block headed to consider 2 sides of the debate. Oh, and one other thing to consider is that Science is wrong more times than it is right.
                      Think about that.

                    • Cold and Ice building in Arctic, Antarctic, the Great Lakes, Siberia, Glaciers are gaining mass

                      the historical record and CryoSat-2 evidence shows your sentence is vacuity on steroids as is the rest pf puerile screed.

                  • Similarly weight only exists in smoothed data. … If so, please make that life short, There…

                    So the question is, after whining like a little bitch about everyone else’s capitalization and punctuation, do you intend to remain a moron the rest of yours?

                    • Similarly weight only exists in smoothed data.

                      Do you intend to remain a moron for the rest of your life?

                      If so, please make that life short, There are some smart people who want to get in.

                    • Yes, please do repost the same mistakes you made while telling others they’re idiots for their bad punctuation and capitalization.

                    • Similarly weight only exists in smoothed data.

                      Do you intend to remain a moron for the rest of your life?

                      If so, please make that life short. There are some smart people who want to get in.

                    • Hmmm, I guess you think you’re getting less idiotic the more you post that….
                      If recollection serves, you did the same thing last time we had a conversation and you were unable to rationally make an argument. Meh, I’d expect nothing less.

                    • Similarly weight only exists in smoothed data.

                      Do you intend to remain a moron for the rest of your life?

                      If so, please make that life short. There are some smart people who want to get in.

                    • Yep, Warmists are about control not science. Marxism failed, so you wrapped your disgusting evil in environmentalism.
                      AGW apologists use the exact same logic, and level of proof, as communist economists did. You’re a fraud, you know you’re a fraud, and yes, you will kill people to get your way.
                      But as I said,I seriously doubt you have the stones to attempt it yourself. You’ll have agents of the state do it for you. Because for all of your smugness, you are a coward.

                    • I see, so in your view Marxism failed and therefore the worlds thermometers are wrong, and there is a global conspiracy to keep you stupid.

                      If you weren’t such a mindless kook, you would realize that you are a mindless kook.

                      My 7 year old niece thinks you are a kook, and she is sitting here beside me, laughing at you.

                    • In my view you are a sadistic statist ass, that will lie, falsify, and intimidate in order to Lord over others. On a personal level I’d say you and I both know who and what you are.

                    • Don’t worry, you won’t hold those views for very long once you are hanging by a noose from a tree branch.

                      Your crime. Treason against man, nature, and country.

                    • I’d absolutely love for you to give that a shot in person, but we both know how that would end for you. We also know that little girls are about the limit of your courage.

                    • There is nothing in the world that you fear more than true justice. You resent people who are better than you , more successful, happier. You are consumed with dragging them down to you pathetic state.

                    • Don’t concern yourself with Vendicar (aka Scotty Douglas the Candaian Janitor) – just google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” and you’ll get the picture. Ignore him

                    • TSZodiac, that’s funny. I had him pegged. As a janitor, he’s just as qualified to be a Leftist “thought leader” as Obama and Castro. He probably rang up $100k in student loans before finding out he was unemployable. Thus his festering hatred of success.

                    • I don’t think he went that far – he’s one of those graduates of Google U…and there’s no chance of having an actual conversation with him. All he does is puke out the Lib Party Line talking points and then insults you to try and put you on the defensive. Just ignore him…have a great rest of the week!

                    • I don’t think you even believe this AGW horse crap. It’s just a convenient vehicle for your statist control fantasies.

                    • Unlike you, I don’t think that the Warming Globe is really a global conspiracy between the alien Egg Men and the world’s Thermometer makers.

                      But hay, in America you have the right to be as stupid as you want to be.

                      The question is why you want to remain stupid?

                      Are you too stupid to know any better?

          • I can think of no jobs better lost than coal mine jobs.


            Actually it has been measured and comes in at 0.8’C, or 1.4’F for the uneducated.

                • Re-read the thread my friend. I was calling out the other guy for his support of AGW, I respect the miners, and have felt my whole life that they are the only people who ought to have a Union.
                  And, as an aside, the Republicans are not the enemy of the middle class. Congress is, your State Legislature is, your local township is, the EPA is, OSHA is, and every other damn agency you can name with the everyday American now joining the attack on business.
                  It wasn’t the American wage that destroyed the world’s greatest economy, it was people electing politicians who enabled the government to rape business. Well, with the added burden of Obamacare, we are seeing even more businesses going under or moving overseas. I say good for them, perhaps the American People will stop the stupidity of attacking business, calling the owners rich, and greedy. When no one has a job but the IRS, what do you think will happen?

                    • Liar, Liar.. Pants on fire.

                      Gore said nothing of the kind.

                      I have never encountered a Republican who wasn’t a congenital and perpetual liar.

                    • Liar, Liar.. Pants on fire. Gore said nothing of the kind.
                      Except of course, when he said there’d be no artic ice by 2013-2014.
                      Nice try tho, but evidence seems to indicate, you’re the liar.

                    • Liar, Liar.. Pants on fire…

                      Gore never said that.

                      You tried earlier to make that claim and even provided a link to support your accusation.

                      Much to your public humiliation, the link showed the exact opposite.

                      Awwww. You Poor Little Liar.

                    • You apparently don’t know there are actual REAL videos of it. Lmao! Imbecile.



                      “Gore had warned in 2007 while accepting the Nobel Peace Prize that within seven years the ice cap would vanish in summer”
                      Care to deny that ManBearPig also claimed the earth is millions of degrees under the crust? I can post a video of that too, imbecile.

                    • Sorry, none of your links show that Gore said what you claim he said.

                      In fact everything Gore says in those links is exactly correct.

                      Are you mentally ill?

                      How can you be so stupid to make claims that even your own references refute?

                    • Oh, so you can’t read or hear? Sorry poopy pants, it’s not my mental illness, it’s yours. I hear that crazy people like you don’t know when they’re crazy. Is that true?

                    • Nope. You’re running around telling everyone else their nuts while lying, and feigning the inability to even read or watch a video.

                    • HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

                      “Wow…. we have a guy using the name Scott Nudds (Scott Douglas)
                      (Vendicar Decarian etc. etc. )
                      The American that ran away to Canada, working as a janitor at a school in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

                      Apparently he got arrested once or twice for threats to one of the
                      Bush presidents of the U.S. and the Canadian R.C.M.P. police picked
                      him up for their friends in U.S. security.”

                    • Considering that in the past “several hundred thousand years” there have been three ice ages, I would hope it is warmer now. Considering that the ice ages are cyclical and we are in the latter part of an interglacial, I would hope it stays warmer than it has been in several hundred thousand years.

                    • And earth will be warmer than it was during those glacial periods but also warmer than during any interglacial in the period stated.

                      Without a reduction in the rate of emission of CO2, the Earth will end up looking like Venus.

                      That won’t happen of course because man will die out long before he can increase the CO2 to that level.

                      But Republicans will try. They are content to destroy humanity.

                    • LMAO. Like Venus? Seriously? CO2 is not even 1% of the atmosphere. It is a trace gas and 95% of all greenhouse gas is water vapor. That is so ridiculous I don’t know if I should worry about your sanity or pity you. Perhaps both.

                      And as for the incorrect claim that the current interglacial is warmer than any interglacial during the period stated you might want to take a look at the trend line for the last 3 million years. Those interglacial periods used to get a lot warmer than now.

                      If CO2 was such a great driver of climate, explain why during the during the medieval climate optimum that temperatures rose with no change in CO2 levels as nd then fell during the little ice age – again with no change in CO2 and with CO2 levels 35% below current levels.

                      Anyway, if man has found out a way to stave off the next period of glaciation, you should be proud. Think of all the lives that will be saved; that won’t feeeze and die.

                    • Without a reduction in the rate of emission of CO2, the Earth will end up looking like Venus.

                      That won’t happen of course because man will die out long before he can increase the CO2 to that level.

                      But Republicans will try. They are content to destroy humanity.

                    • No. It won’t. The earth is not Venus and it is a pathetic analogy. The atmosphere on Earth, presence of water vapor and distance from the sun all factor in. Never happen. Not with what man is doing. It is always interesting to note actual paleoclimate information such as CO2 levels have been substantially higher at times in the past without runaway globaloney warming. It is funny because for someone as smart and arrogant as you present, you don’t seem to remember 3rd grade science where plants actually use CO2, and they grow better and with less water when CO2 levels are higher.

                      And I would argue that it is the Warmistas who are destroying humanity. The warmistas have real deaths on their hands by forcing the use of fuels that are made from food. But for Warmistas, the consequences of action are less important than their intent that they “care” and want to save the planet.

                      I suppose what is most fascinating in this little exchange is that you cleverly just repeated your inane “republicans want to destroy humanity” and “we will be like Venus” lies rather than respond to the problem with your theory that cannot account for actual changes in the climate, both warm and cold, that were irrelevant of CO2 levels. That is why climate change/globaloney warming are not even theories. They cannot even account for known data.

                    • Without a reduction in the rate of emission of CO2, the Earth will end up looking like Venus.

                      In fact, without a reduction the universe would be filled completely with CO2.

                      There exists 4E8 gigatonnes of Coal currently in the ground.

                      Man is emitting about 7 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere per year which raises atmospheric CO2 levels by about 3 ppmv per year

                      Sufficient carbon therefore exists to increase atmospheric CO2 levels to 170 E6 ppmv, which is enough carbon to replace the atmosphere 170 times.

                      Of course Oxygen will run out long before then.

                    • Yeah. That’s bloody brilliant. Not.
                      Current CO2 levels are about 402 ppm. That is what, less than half of 1%? It is theorized that plants evolved in an atmosphere of 1000 to 1300 ppm. Greenhouses try to keep the CO2 levels at about 800 to 900 ppm because it increases water efficiency and substantially increases growth yields by about 33%.

                      Using your number of humans adding 3 ppm per year of CO2, that would mean that it would take 167 years of adding 3ppm per year just to reach 900 ppm, the level that growers prefer in greenhouses to minimize water usage and increase plant yields. And I am supposed to worry about that?

                      We are no where near the CO2 levels of when plants evolved. We are no where near the optimum levels of CO2 that growers use on their plants in greenhouses. The relationship between CO2 and climate does not even account for know climate variations in the absence of CO2 level changes and you want us to worry about a non-existent problem. Sigh. Maybe try another hobby to find meaning in your life, this is definitely not it.

                    • Don’t waste your time, 6 – Vendicar (aka Scotty Douglas the Canadian Janitor) will only spew the same tired old Party Line talking points and then make up stats – just google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” and you’ll get the picture !

                    • Vendicar (aka Scotty the Janitor) is unaware of the third grade concept of The “Goldilocks” zone around a star – and the irony of the Venus analogy while he simultaneously argues that the Sun’s activity is an insignificant factor vis a vis changes in the climate on Earth is lost on poor ol’ Scotty V, I’m afraid.

                  • Global Average 2014.

                    Equilibrium temperatures will peak roughly 1.4’F higher than current 2014 temperatures, even if CO2 emissions were immediately brought to zero.

                    A rise of 8’C is a human extinction level event.

                    • Yes did you know a lot of people are saying that wearing a copper bracelet can cure cancer; it just isn’t so but its fun to believe in nonsense things. Nonsense like the earth’s temperature is 1.4 degrees F (0.778 degrees C) warmer than it was last year; if you want to believe this its up to you, I don’t even care if you believe in the tooth fairy.

                      Most people are concerned about their own extinction event and socialism (government in control) is one of the stronger influences on human extinction (50 million dead from European experiments with socialism).

                    • “wearing a copper bracelet can cure cancer” – Sigareth

                      Isn’t that part of the Libertarian health care plan?

                      “Nonsense like the earth’s temperature is 1.4 degrees F (0.778 degrees C) warmer than it was last year” – Sirgareth

                      You seem to have the time scale wrong by 2 powers of 10.


                      Can’t you even get that straight?

                      How much medication are you on?

                    • I think the libertarian health care “plan” works much the same as its food plan, its housing plan, its work plan, its energy plan and it entertainment plan. I think the libertarians don’t value government planners all that much although the followers of Hitler and Stalin are bound to disagree.

                      Time scale? Now thermometers used to measure the passage of time ; I think you are confused aren’t you?

                      I realize this math stuff is difficult but by my lights 1.8 F = 1.0 C are you with me so far?

                      Now comes the profound part that unless you have a PhD you wont be able to follow:

                      1.4F x (1 C/ 1,8F) = 0.7777777……C (I rounded before, sorry)

                    • “I think the libertarian health care “plan” works much the same as its food plan, its housing plan, its work plan, its energy plan and it entertainment plan.” – Sirgareth

                      And their border immigration plan…

                      IMMIGRATION – Libertarian Party Platform

                      We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.

                      We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.

                      Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference.

                      We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.

                    • Who told you I was a libertarian, if we need more ignorant peasants on welfare, all we need to do is too keep funding more government education.

                    • Just ignore him SirG, Vendicar (aka Scotty Douglas the Canadian Janitor) isn’t worth the time – just google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” and you’ll see what I mean

                    • Indeed…. escapee from the Island of Misfit Toys – all he does is puke out the same tired old talking points and then insults you. Good Luck !

                    • “1.4F x (1 C/ 1,8F) = 0.7777777……C (I rounded before, sorry)” – Sirgareth

                      Since there is only 1 decimal place of accuracy in the values on the left hand side of the equation, the same should be true of the computed value on the right hand side.

                      So you round up from 0.777777’C to 0.8’C

                      Other than that failure, you used your calculator correctly.

                      I didn’t think you had the capacity. Good boy.

            • Over what period of time? Is this completely unprecedented in the history of the planet? If so, how did you accurately measure tenths of a degree from the historical record? How much is “natural” and how much is supposedly “man made” and what is the PROVABLE basis for this supposition? What is the correct temperature for the planet and are we above it or below it and how did you reach the conclusion of what you believe to be the correct temperature?
              I’ve seen many comments on this thread telling the skeptics to prove the negative…. that AGW isn’t happening when we all know it is impossible to prove a negative. Those who claim a postulate is true ALWAYS have the onus of proof. At this the true believers are failing miserably.

                    • His reading comprehension skills are very poor.
                      Mmmm nope, but your punctuation and capitalization sure do suck. Remember, I posted examples correcting you, dolt.

                    • Poor Malcolm. His reading comprehension skills are very poor.

                      Republicans are typically like that. I blame inadequate training as a youngster for his mental condition.

                    • LOL! So far you’ve posted globull warmist fake data and called everyone else stupid for p&c mistakes while making MANY of them himself.
                      You sure showed me!

                    • If you can prove fakery, then write a paper, get it published, and win yourself a Nobel Prize for overturning all of the science developed over the last 150 years.

                      What is keeping you?

                    • Remember, I’ve posted several links. Your mental illness didn’t allow you to even read them.

                      What is keeping you?

                      Oh, nothing. Not a thing. I can go on with you for quite awhile. As a matter of fact, I think I may follow you so that I can harass you for the utterly idiotic things you say….

                    • And all of your links contradict the very statements you claim they support.

                      You are quite nuts.

          JUST NOT IN TRIBES .




          • It is truly amazing when a simpleton suddenly thinks that all those smart educated scientists didn’t have a clue about the Earth’s dynamic climate systems and were totally oblivious to all the known physical phenomena that impact it and ignored them to determine what they currently glean from the evidence. Caps makes your puerility and vacuity worse. What does it feel like to be dumber than other people? And, on top of that, ignorant too?

            • Science is driven by proof, not belief.

              I don’t listen to arguments that begin with” I’m smarter than you so trust me on this.”

              This is not part of real science but is the sum and substance of cultism.

              • Science is driven by proof, not belief

                those words are from a person who is clearly neither a scientist nor scientifically literate and purposely by choice rather ignorant about science. Proof is used for math, alcohol and courts of law but not science. Science explains all physical phenomena by theory which is the best knowledge humanity possesses. Theories can last for centuries before evidence and explanations confirm them (or alter or negate them) e.g. Bohrs atomic structure theory or Galileo’s heavier than air theory of flight for humans. AGW theory is nearly 200 years old and is confirmed by observations and evidence. There are no scientific arguments that counter or provide alternates. You reinforce your dumbness and stupidity referring to climate science as a cult.

                • I am a retired electrical engineer. Engineering is science. By your reasoning I am more qualified than you to render judgement on true of false science.

                  You are wrong about proof.

                  scientific method: a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

                  “Empirically” means based on experience (not theory) and “tested” means to verify or disprove.

                  • Sorry cupcake but engineering is an art based on science. Here’s a challenge: use your search tool provided with your web browser software and substantiate your vacuity. Repetitively stating vacuity will not turn it into reality. Feel free to visit the many websites around the world where science is taught at tertiary level … you will not find what you write. Even your own poor definition of the scientific method disagrees with what you state.

                    • Got it,

                      designing a the moon the rocket was just engineering, Newton did the physics, Maxwell did the electronics, and Lavoisier et al did the chemistry.

                      But that was all in the 1700’s and 1800’s wasn’t it?

                      But going out in the backyard and counting four leaf clovers every year is “real science” as long as you make a record of it. You can do a of of global warming theories based on four leaf clover populations cant you?

                    • You love Newton so much but yet fail at honesty. Einstein’s relativity theory modified Newton’s gravitational theory and Einstein’s has subsequently been modified by modern physicists. Science is dynamic it doesn’t stand still but the advances don’t detract from what Newton the alchemist did nor what Einstein contributed. So which gravitational theory do you subscribe to? There are currently two competing theories that are about equally followed by scientists, so there is not a consensus in the fraternity. In fact, we know more about AGW theory than we do about gravitational and the consensus among all climate scientists is 100% as evidenced by there being no opposing nor competing theory.

                    • You have no idea of how real science works. I said Newton’s laws work for their intended purposes and do so every time. So do Einstein’s Special and General Theories of Relativity. Neither would hold that they had it all correct. Science does not offer truth. It offers utility. The truth may be sought but it is unobtainable because universal truth is beyond human intellect, coincidentally it is beyond even that of an orangutan.

                      This means that gravitation, mass, quantum theory etc etc are pretty much bullshit; they are simply useful for the intended purposes

                      Beyond enslavement, I have yet to detect a useful purpose for AGW theory.

                    • You have no idea of how real science works

                      not even a retired electrical engineer would make the elementary mistake of referring to real science if somehow there was an unreal science. In essence you’re afraid that reality will bring change whether you deny it or not. So denialism is where you seek refuge, as is common, for the ignorant and/or uneducated according to psychiatrists and psychologists. You assuage your fears by grasping at straws of junk science readily offered to the ignorant, uneducated and gullible from the denier echo chamber. As a scientist and an engineer with advanced degrees in both it saddens me if you were indeed a college educated electrical engineer, I have my doubts.

                    • Very well you now say phrenology was psuedo-science. I agree. But it wasnt’ always so was it?

                      Do you have any idea of the process that transformed phrenology from peer-reviewed “settled science” into pseudo-science?

                      Is wasn’t dis-proven in a “peer reviewed true-phrenology magazine”, it wasn’t dis-proven by “data adjustments” either.

                      It was actually “dis-proven” by the Nuremberg War Crimes commission.

                      ….And at Harvard, Yale and Princeton all the “scientific phrenology journals” were burned; only a few survived. This is how settled science becomes pseudo-science.

                    • Got it,

                      designing a the moon the rocket was just engineering, Newton did the physics, Maxwell did the electronics, and Lavoisier et al did the chemistry.

                      But that was all in the 1700’s and 1800’s wasn’t it?

                      But going out in the backyard and counting four leaf clovers every year is “real science” as long as you make a record of it. You can do a of of global warming theories based on four leaf clover populations cant you?

            • Those same intellectually gifted climate scientists you speak of did an exceptional job with there climate models with near total failures of accuracy at all levels with predictions and what has verified to date. Even seasonal and monthly model output from the climate prediction center is grossly inaccurate at times and reverts to using probabilities which can never be truly measured for accuracy. Example of which was a blow torch warm November predicted for much of the US by NOAA and a very cold November is what verified.

              • As usual your vacuity arises from confusion. Weather forecasting is done off meteorological models that provide great forecasting ask any person whose livelihood depends on them, like commercial airline pilots. Fifty years ago forecasting was nowhere near as precise as current so your words are hollow and show your disdain for science. Climate models are different and make no forecasting but simulate possible outcomes by projection. Want to know how accurate climate modelling has been even in its infancy when it was far less rigorous and even excluded some parameters … read doi:10.1038/nclimate1763?

                • OMG, you have no clue predicting the weather is much more than model warship and models are only a tool which is utilized in the overall forecast. Climate models are no different this shows your true ignorance, as all models are a simulation of a presumed outcomes. This really shows you are simply a blowhard with no facts to back up your gibberish. So projections of possible outcomes is not a forecast? If that is the case then the climate scientists need to use there vast knowledge to create climate models that can make correct simulations of possible outcomes by projection which so far have failed miserably.

                  • There are about 150 climate models around the world. All have unique identifiers and most are available to the public. Pick one and walk us through from inputs to outputs what you don’t agree with in that particular simulation. I’m guessing you wouldn’t know where to begin. Maybe you should have read up on the science citation I gave you. Climate models don’t predict weather.

          • If you’re going to upset the applecart of climate science, you’re going to have to really really do your homework, because you’re up against some of the brightest people on the planet in this field of expertise. They know their shit, and demonstrate it regularly. If you suspect that they don’t know the physical phenomena that change the Earth’s dynamic climate then you’re dumber and more ignorant than most on here when it comes to climate science. To be near the bottom of the 30 percentile in our society who are pervasively ignorant about science is no mean feat and not something one wears as a badge of honor.






              • Please provide some science with citations otherwise you modern day flat Earthers are just that and here’s some science from the plethora of published articles that challenges your vacuity about CO₂: doi:10.1038/nature14240.



                  THAT MAKES YOU THE SIMPLETON .



                  • I gave you the means where to find what you’re looking for. As you’re neither a scientist nor scientifically literate and display virtually no grasp of the topic I gave you an excellent current science citation where you can find what effect CO₂ is having on warming the planet. What impediment to you now have that prevents you from finding the answers? Research will do you the world of good and hopefully lift you out of gross ignorance.

        • If you come up with a cockeyed theory that the politicians will pay you to “prove” it will be proven provided you control the data, how it is collected, how it is manipulated, and how it is presented.

          These are the same clowns that said snowflakes “might” become a thing of the past. Theories that couch their predictions with modifiers like “could,” “maybe,” or “might” are utter nonsense to one disciplined in real science. However, Its good enough for the communists as long as it suite their agenda.

          • So what exactly are you trying to say about the supposedly nefarious emails or are you being puerile for the sake of desperation? In essence you’re afraid that reality will bring change whether you deny it or not. So denialism is where you seek refuge, as is common, for the ignorant and/or uneducated according to psychiatrists and psychologists. You assuage your fears by grasping at straws of junk science readily offered to the ignorant, uneducated and gullible from the denier echo chamber.

            • No desperation here. Belief and faith have no place in real science. Now tell me how your “belief in anything” or anyone else belief in anything qualifies as science.

              Why do you call me ignorant for challenging you? You have no idea of who I am so stick to the issues unless you cannot.

              You command me to believe; I choose not to? This is your “climate science?”

              • Cupcake you have presented no challenge as that would require you to provide some science and all your posts are puerile, emotive and vacuous opinion. To paraphrase Mark Twain, “Never argue with a fool; readers may be not able to tell the difference.” So I’ll leave this dialogue since you simply don’t want to get informed as evidenced by you writing such a puerile and ignorant screed devoid of science and reality.

          • Here’s one of the most current research with conclusions from published science about polar bears: Read it, not only will it be interesting but will make you a tad better informed.

        • here’s a challenge for you…why couldn’t they provide context for those emails and why is it that media had to take it upon themselves to speak for them? – they said everyone was taking them out of context yet couldn’t clear the air themselves. Even better, why did they need to be granted blanket immunity from any prosecution by the U.N. around Rio summit?

        • Guy, I hear you. But if there were to be an actual trial to establish that definitively, there was man made global warming occurring, it would at best be a hung jury. Why? because as long as you can demonstrate that the primary data sources are corrupted, invalid or otherwise tampered with, it negates every conclusion that follows. Now, if we want to switch topics and talk about stopping pollution and nasty stuff, I’m all for it, I love hyper efficient cars, solar homes, recycling, etc. but when you’re talking purely warming data, at best, the jury is out…

          • primary data sources are corrupted, invalid or otherwise tampered with

            repeating hearsay at best or vacuity at worst does not make what you state reality. Why don’t you substantiate your evidence-free statements? You have none, period. Data are always fiddled/manipulated with as it’s an essential part of the measurement process; what do you think calibration means in science? That’s science 101!

                • so now you’re saying we adjust the data rather than the instrument after taking measurements? Or calibrate it before? seriously? An you still haven’t said whether it was AGW. I really think at the end of the day, we bottomed out in a cold spell and we’re cyclically recovering somewhat… the primary difference is we were all here to notice…

                  I would point you to exhibit 2 of the attached. Note the changes in slopes of the lines throughout almost every chart. The problem with this giant Jenga block argument that has been built up around AGW, once a few of the right blocks get pulled, it all falls…


                  • Full marks for ingenuity in your (unsuccessful) attempt to avoid the point I made in the post. Why can’t you explicate what your links were meant to illustrate? Is that the message you want to get across? Thank you for sharing that you glean your junk science from debunked denier sites.

                    • YOu have literally offered nothing but your opinion. Not a single thing. Your data is disprovable, but because you have a pre-existing bias, you insult, denigrate and are generally obnoxious. And that is why you continue to fail to make the AGW argument. You’re like the religious that say “well it’s in the Bible…” not a single counter point offered. Sad.

                    • Your data is (sic) disprovable

                      I’d agree too as I didn’t present any. The original thread started with

                      Phil Jones and Mike Mann refer to them as climate tricks

                      neither you nor your fellow deniers have provided any evidence yet beyond hearsay which is b$llshit!

              • bottomline as long as the data is (sis) questionable, the whole theory is questionable

                you can state the data are questionable repeatedly but without evidence it is hearsay and bullsh!t! AGW theory is supported by multiple lines of evidence and here is a recent publication of the increase in back irradiation as a consequence of increasing CO₂ between 200o and 2010 from a plethora of peer-reviewed publications on the topic: DOI:10.1038/nature1424

                • So, we’ve gone from problems in the original data for which I’ve provided evidence, to correcting the data after the equipmet doesn’t “measure it right” to insults and BS So far, all the “methane” has been coming from you. I am happy to look at it.

                  • You’re extremely deluded if you believe that you presented a case for problems in the original data. I, on the other hand, have supported AGW theory with a current scientific publication that shows observed and measured empirical data supporting it. I don’t think you will find an insult in my post … why embellish?

        • You have to hand it to trolls like this clown. Despite proof that “Climate Change” has been a lie for years now, they keep on trying. Sadly, we all know there’s only one way to kill a vampire, and this appears to be the only way we will rid ourselves of them.
          Let the purge begin, I say .

          • Deniers like to avoid science and always link to tabloids or other denier echo chamber junk information. I’m so very pleased that you know how to conform and display your obnoxious ignorance to the public.

            • In other words, you’re an imbecile and nothing will convert you from your religion. LMAO, yea, it really helps when you automatically dismiss everything that indicates you’ve been duped.

              Warmists like to avoid science and always link to scaremonger echo chamber junk information (you know, it’s all been fabricated).

              The question is, since globull warming is obviously a religion, will you nutbags insist on completely separating it from the govt. Naahhh, of course not, then it’d dry up and die on the vine.

                    • if it smells like a troll then it is most definitely an uneducated faux news watcher.

                      You may now go back to your scheduled dinosaur denialsm.

                    • Noted.

                      You’re too stupid and uneducated to have heard of UCLA’s research on media bias and accuracy let alone actually read it.

                      BTW… live in the waning years of the Holocene interglacial dummy.


                    • You’re obviously too enamoured with those pretty girls to have an understanding of the scientific method. There is no scientific method without “deniers”. Didn’t you know that it was scientific consensus that heavier-than-air flight by humans is impossible? Just saying…check your history.Then submit your data for peer review.

                    • Lacking a coherent argument, Vendicar (aka Scotty Douglas the Canadian Janitor) YET AGAIN resorts to ad hominem attacks – google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” for the info…

                    • Just Google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” and you’ll get the truth…and Thank You for your service Thor!!

                    • In the borrow-and-spend department, the Republicans are most definitely in distant second place. I agree that they’re also at fault, though. Until the populace votes in 60% fiscal conservatives, it will continue happening.

                    • Good comment and observation. Unfortunately, the Republican party is not composed of 100% fiscal conservatives. John McCain has been in office for 30+ years, and although a true war hero, not much has changed during that time.

                  • Actually Republican Capitalist Economics are the reason we have a country and a working economy. Democrat Socialist Economics are the reason we are still in a recession in this country and that France, England and Germany economies are sliding down a rat hole. Try to keep up Binky

                    • The biggest reason why we have recessions and depressions is because of the unscrupulous activities of the Federal Reserve, which is, by the way, highly supported by both parties. As for France, England, and Germany, they, like the U.S., are under the control of central banking institutions which create money (debt) out of thin air and pass it off as something that has intrinsic value. This system has been tried repeatedly throughout history and on every single occasion, it has failed miserably.

                      This is the reason why we have seen our economy get worse and worse over the years regardless of which party is holding power.

              • The majority of people pushing Global Warming are political science majors, not honest scientists.

                Another example of Liberals and Leftists NOT believing in scientific reasoning is the
                Global Warming Hoax.

                Even a kid in 7th grade who has to memorize the steps in proving a scientific theory can
                understand that the Global Hoaxters have skipped the steps in proving anything.

                You see: We don’t all have to be scientific geniuses to understand the flaws in Global
                Warming theory. All we have to do is get a “B” in 7th Grade Science Class.

                All we need is a good education to understand how much America has been conned.

                So we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a worthless unproven theory that
                has more real evidence against it than for it.

                Global Warming has never been proven.

                While reading the following, keep in mind that Al Gore’s prediction more than 8 years
                ago that the World would burn up within 10 years of his prediction has proven
                that his prediction was incorrect.

                The ability to make accurate predictions hinges on the seven steps of the Scientific

                The Global Warming Hoaxters have not completed the seven steps of the Scientific Method.

                Even an art major can figure that out. Even a 7th Grade kid can figure that out.

                Step 1. Make observations.

                Step 2. Form a hypothesis.

                (It should be testable and potentially falsifiable. In other words, there should be a
                way to show the hypothesis is false; a way to disprove the hypothesis.)

                Step 3. Make a prediction.

                Step 4. Perform an experiment.

                Step 5. Analyze the results of the experiment.

                Step 6. Draw a conclusion.

                Step 7. Report your results.


                • “Step 4. Perform an experiment.”

                  What “experiment” would you have them perform?

                  “…unproven theory…”

                  Do you know of any “proven” theories?

                  “…Al Gore’s prediction…”

                  Seriously, why are you so concerned with what Al Gore says?

                  “…pushing Global Warming…”‘

                  How do you “push” AGW?

                  “…accurate predictions…”

                  What is an “accurate” prediction?

                  • Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his part of explaining how bad Global Warming, er…Climate Change…um, sorry…Climate Disruption….oh hell, Climate Chaos is.

                    Ever wonder why the elites that can afford to pay more for things have to increase their carbon footprint flying all over the world by more than most of us use in a year just so they can tell us peons the sky is falling?

                    • Tamra wrote: Seriously, why are you so concerned with what Al Gore says?

                      Because he won a Nobel Peace Prize for his part in promoting the notion of Climate Change, that’s why people should care.

                      You should care because those that are telling you you should care about Climate Change are the biggest contributors to Climate Change.

                    • Well, I don’t care. He’s neither a scientist nor an expert related to the matter of global warming and climate change.

                    • Okay, Tamra, here’s another reason care.

                      Simply put, the people and organizations that have promoted the notion of global warming/climate change/climate disruption or whatever they want to call it, have the money to pay more for things. The more the energy companies have to pay for their carbon footprint, the more all of us have to pay for EVERYTHING. Do not think for a moment that those ‘big bad oil companies’ are not passing any increases they have to pay to the government on to us, the consumers. The consumers of the ‘big bad oil companies’ are also the ‘big bad corporations’ who will also pass on any costs of doing business on to us little guys, by, of course, raising the price of goods.

                      So, the elites at the top, the Al Gores of the world, might have to pay more, but they don’t care, they can afford it…meanwhile, the rest of us are paying more and we can’t afford it. The rich are getting richer and the poor (and not so rich…middle class, if you will) are getting poorer. Eventually, there will be only the upper crust elites and the very poor. That is the way they want it, because behind their public image of, “I just want to save the planet” their real agenda is to create a world where their kind doesn’t have to look at the likes of our kind…not on the road, in airplanes, in restaurants, etc etc They do not believe we are as good as they are in anyway and they won’t stop until we are all poor and living off the scraps they decide to throw our way.

                      If they really did care, they would be trying to minimize their impact on this planet instead of flying around in private jets and heating pools that use more energy in a week than many of us use in a year.

                    • I still don’t listen to Al Gore or oil company shills. I get my information from scientific sources – skeptical ones as well.

                    • Nick, aka Tamra…it’s good to hear that you don’t just get your information from one source, but do you realize how many people do? And when a former VP of the United States wins a Nobel Peace Prize for his part in telling the rest of us that the sky is falling, a lot of ill-informed people listen and believe it must be true because it has come from Not a Scientist Al Gore.

                      For any “scientist” to come out now and state that Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, or whatever the nom-de-jour is today–to claim it is settled science cannot be much of a scientist, because science is about theories and theories are never just that, theories. Perhaps they keep changing the name of it because, when, for that brief period of the earth’s life that the climate got warmer, they could say that Global Warming was settled science, because the climate was warmer than it had been during the brief time of the earth’s life there were records of temperatures.

                      And, again, Climate Change is settled science, because the climate has always changed and always will. The new term, Climate disruption, they stopped using…I wonder why–is it because they would have to define how and who is disrupting it and stand behind their questionable assertion that it’s settled science. Just my two cents…

                    • OK, so the two words “settled science” from a non-scientist has you all bent out of shape.
                      Got it.

            • If you ask the average global warming Nazi on the street what the difference is
              between Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide, they probably can’t even tell you.

              We have been hearing repeatedly that we all must stop driving cars, which
              produce Carbon Monoxide, in order to reduce Carbon Dioxide.

              The Fraudsters at the top of the Money Chain probably know the difference, but
              their willingly ignorant followers on the ground think that CO = CO2.

              What else do the gruberites believe?

              They believe that CO2 is just like water pollution, soil contamination, and
              litter thrown on the street.

              It has never been proven that CO2 causes the Earth to get warmer.

              It has never been proven that all the money in the world would ever make a dent
              in the amount of CO2 that exists in the environment.

              The only thing that has been proven is that there are a lot of greedy people
              tricking a lot of stupid people into giving the greedy people a lot of money to
              solve a problem that does not exist.

              In fact, one of options the fraudsters had going was “indulgences”.

              You see: They never actually planned on reducing the CO2.

              They planned on charging industries billions of dollars for the privilege of
              producing more CO2 or other air pollutants FOR A FEE!

              So: As long as the industry or company keeps paying the government MORE
              MONEY, they could keep operating, regardless of the CO2.

              Wasn’t that brilliant?

              And the government would have lots of cash to keep wasting on the fake
              “scientists” who should be washing dishes in the restaurant, instead
              of making up stories and stealing our money.

              • Ordinary American 2014: I’m not a believer in Global Warming, but I want to provide some information regarding CO and CO2. Once CO is produced by internal combustion, much of it is converted to CO2 through catalytic conversion. The remaining CO can exist for a while but will eventually go through a chemical process and become CO2. However, a huge amount of CO2 is released in the atmosphere from deacying materials. All that being said, the “scientists” who claim Global Warming exists are not doing real science. They are creating models, fabricating data, and ridiculing and real scientist who questions what they are doing. Real science demands questioning and evidence…no science is ever settled.

                • Although I agree with you, scientists have been able to measure the amount of C02 produce by man from the radioactive isotopes of the CO2.

                  I find the best joke is that 99% of the models are currently WRONG. That’s consensus.

                  • “scientists have been able to measure the amount of C02 produce by man from the radioactive isotopes of the CO2.”

                    That’s absolutely true! Humans have increased the amount of CO₂ in the air from 290PPM before the industrial revolution to 400PPM today.

                    Because of our activity, it continues to rise every year:


                    If it’s so likely that polar ice caps will be able to withstand CO₂ as high as we’ve pushed it, why isn’t there a single example of them doing so in Earth’s history?

                • I’m sure you would have scientists doing manual labour instead of doing research!

                  …because you don’t actually care about what’s true.

                  How many high temperature records were broken, worldwide, during the same period?

                  Why didn’t Climate Depot report on that?

                  If you know your sources of information are misleading you about threats to your well-being, why would you continue to rely on them?

                  Are you suicidal?

                  • Pretty chart, but give me a reference to the source data. The data is being manipulated. Since you posted the chart, are you able to explain what a Joule is? Some of us already know. Better go to Wikipedia to find out.

                  • CB, They didn’t include the record high temps because they’re pointless. The “warmest year on record” was
                    . 02 degrees higher than previously recorded temp. The margin error of data collection for ground temp readings is +/-. 01. A fraction of temperature change over 20 years. REALLY!?! Now look at the data on this chart….. Maybe the data we should be looking at is the connection between world economic decline and the “Global warming” hype. The powers that be are simply pushing for a global tax on industrial plant emissions. Which would be enforced by the UN under pain of economic sanctions

              • If it’s that worthwhile to humanity at large, private funds should be used Skippy. But it’s all conjecture, lies, obfuscation, and government money, i.e. taxpayer dollars,that flow by the billions into research with very little, if any, return on the investment. The money just disappears, ala Solyndra and a hundred other boondoggles. The government doesn’t expect results.
                Case in point, the State Department and a dozen other government agencies have studied the Keystone Pipeline for over 6 years now and have confirmed it will not harm the air or water or ground, that it will create thousands of jobs, yet the Head Liar In Chief keeps knocking it down saying it hasn’t been studied adequately. Really? 6 1/2 years isn’t enough when all agencies agree it wouldn’t be harmful?
                It’s a money game, pure and simple, and it’s Obama’s people getting rich off of it.

                  • There are (literally) hundreds of thousands of miles of pipelines in this country, and even more running under the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, that carry, crude, NG, and all kinds of products that could harm the environment – one more pipeline is not going to make a difference. It is a political issue, nothing more.

                    • This pipeline crosses international borders and must be approved by the State department, not the clown show that passes for the US Congress.

                    • And why is Congress meddling in affairs of State when they can’t even do simple things like fund Homeland security?

                    • For a week. If they don’t want Obama’s amnesty… they can fund a bill for $54 billion to deport 11 million people, or pass an immigration bill of any type.

                    • As a former USBP Agent with friends still working, unfortunately it is closer to 20 million illegals and counting…

                    • The word ironic would be especially well placed were you to lose your job to an illegal immigrant. Those that have, don’t think much of this policy to reward illegal activity.

                    • If an illegal immigrant could do my job, she would be very highly skilled and talented. Would probably have no problem getting citizenship.

                    • Hardly any of the illegal immigrants are as well-educated as you claim to be yourself.

                      I have spoken to a lot of immigrants. I have met a lot of them.

                      I did an extensive study in linguistics comparing the speech patterns of Latinos from 12 different regions of Latin America.

                      I have met a lot of these people.

                      The best educated and successful and honest stay home in their own countries.

                      Those lease able to survive travel to the United States.

                      Almost all illegals that I have met entered the United States with about one year of education, before they had to go back home and help the family make a living.

                      I visited one school in near the west coast of Mexico, which was typical. The kids went to school either in the morning or in the afternoon. This means that they are in school 1/2 the time that American children are in school.

                      They have no special skills. Many cannot read or write in their native language. Most cannot speak English with even a 6th-grade equivalency.

                      The U.S. standard for education is a 12-year high school diploma or GED.

                      The standard in Mexico is a 9-year diploma. Some go to high school and to a university or trade school, but the best educated stay home.

                    • Which was exactly my point. The jobs they compete for are low wage jobs most Americans would be loathe to do.

                      If we deport 11,000,0000 people, who is going to clean our houses, wash our cars, and pick are vegetables?

                    • I don’t have a good answer for that, but I think some of those young people watching TV all day long and all night long might need a job.

                      I don’t think we have to deport 11 million people.

                      I think we have to turn off the immigration waterfall and get first get control over who is entering the country.

                      Some of those 11 million need to go back with their entire family. In fact, we could PAY THEM to go back, giving them enough cash to live for several months while they get themselves together in their native country.

                      We can absorb a lot of new people coming into the country, but we can’t take them all at once, and we need to filter out those who are destructive to the country and its people.

                    • Ever been to McDonald’s or any other fast food place. Lot’s of Spanish spoken there. Ever hired a painter or taper? Lots of Spanish spoken there. Ever buillt a house? Guess who the framers are now. Who does your yard? These are just a few examples beyond the liberal bumper sticker you quote. Are these jobs that Americans just won’t do? Minimum wage laws and illegal immegrant labor take from teens and those who need to enter the labor force and start their working careers AND disportionately blacks. How about we just adopt the immegration policies of Mexico. That would be fair wouldn’t it?

                    • I am an organic vegan. I have not been to a fast food restaurant in decades.

                      The average age of a minimum wage worker is 35.

                      Being Latino doesn’t make a person illegal.

                    • organic vegan”!? Ha! Ha! Ha! If you aren’t just a poster child for mind numbing liberalism! Ha! Ha! Ha! Do you live in Portland or Seattle? Clearly you are out of touch. That’s average dumbo. Eighty eight percent are younger than 20. Like I said, entering the workforce.

                    • You are delusional. Or your choice of media personalities are lying to you. Perhaps both.

                      According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2013 only 24.2% of all workers who were paid a minimum wage or less were 16 – 19. those 16 – 24 represented 50.4%, the other 49.6% were 25 or older.

                    • You mean that same BLS that doesn’t count people who have stopped looking for work as unemployed? That BLS? The BLS that counts part time work as full employment? That BLS? Who’s delusional now? How about some stats that aren’t two years old?

                      Seriously, do you live in Portland or Seattle?

                    • I think it is obvious who is delusional here.

                      I cite the government agency that is responsible for collecting labor statistics, while you pull numbers from your nether regions.

                    • Why don’t you look up how they count unemployment figures there organ vegan? If you do read the periodicals that care about stuff like that, you’d know that they didn’t come from
                      “nether regions”. Any government angency is far more likely to Nether Region stats to make things look nice to keep the money rolling. Telling your bugeteersYour blind trust in

                    • So is there a median or a mean associated with any of these statistics you quote, and wold you understand of there was?

                    • He was describing Portland and Seattle.

                      You are copying and pasting BLS statistics that appear to describe all workers.

                    • Regardless, “Oscarphone” was speaking from his perspective (Portland, Seattle) and implying employment in that area. He was likely to be using hyperbole, anyway.

                      Do not be blinded. The BLS figures citing working for minimum wage or less are 25 or older, is not a good economic sign.

                    • Americans are not loathe to work, they are loathe to work for less than the job is worth. By importing cheap desperate labor, you have prevented wages for those jobs from going up. A roof has to be shingled, it’s hard work. Their is a price point at which I would gladly give up my 6-fig job and roof, other Americans would jump at it at a lower price point, but instead, you’ve cut out wage competition. Then you bitch that wages aren’t going up.

                    • I didn’t import cheap labor, but I agree that the minimum wage should be a living wage, IE, it should be enough for a full time worker to be above the poverty line.

                    • Agreed, except that entry-level jobs (newspaper delivery, fast-food preparation) were never meant to be careers.

                      There has not been a recovery (13 million jobs recovered and 1-2 million new, lower quality jobs created). Keynesian economics is a failure for all practical purposes.

                      The $6 trillion added to the publicly-held portion of the national debt could have directly employed 10 million people at $50K per year for two years, for perspective.

                    • all you will do is get rid of entry level jobs. Many jobs simply aren’t worth what it costs to sustain a family of four in a house with two cars. So your proposal is to get rid of all jobs for entry level workers. That sucks for the poor. And yes you did import cheap labor.

                    • I didn’t say raise the minimum wage to support a family of four with a house and two cars. But it should at least be above the poverty line.

                      Raising the minimum wage increases demand for goods and services since poor people spend most of their money as soon as they get it.

                    • Would you pay someone $5 to bag your groceries, most won’t. So you don’t magically create great jobs via mandate, you just mandate people out of jobs.

                    • Whole Foods, how did I know? Any how, no one can buy a house, buy cars, raise kids, etc. for $10 an hour. Why don’t you pay them more? No one is stopping you. Seriously, pull out you wallet and give those employees enough to get them up to $35 an hour. That might get them out a decent lifestyle. Hell, I’ll quit my stressful job, and I’ll bag groceries and stock shelves 80 hours a week. No wait, I’d rather sell icecream or sit in a library for some of that 80 hrs.

                      Have you ever wondered why your ideas failed in the USSR, Cuba, and now Venezuala?

                    • That is $22,400 a year working full time. It is enough for one person to live on, but not much more. A living wage depends on the area but for a family of 4, 2 adults working, a living wage is $15 -$20 hour.

                    • I lived on less than $5000 a year, without taking any assistance, but I think you are heartless. If you are going to mandate a minimum, why so low? If doubling or tripling the minimum wage is good for everyone and increases the GDP, aithout costing jobs, why not make the minimum wage $30, $40, or $50 per hour? I think I must cafe more than you do.

                    • It is the law of diminishing returns. Raising the minimum wage in phases to a living wage and pegging it to the cost of living makes sense. You phase it in so that it is not disruptive. Raising higher is arbitrary and returns no added benefit.

                    • Sky, here’s another way to look at it. Instead of mandating minimum wages, why don’t you mandate maximum prices on the things that you think people need? Do you understand the economic result of that? There is no difference. Studies to the contrary are garbage in garbage out, we have real world examples of what really happens. Hopey, wishful thinking might make you feel like a better person, but real people suffer real pain because of it.

                    • There is a huge difference between minimum wages and maximum prices. There is no one to one relationship.

                    • Same exact thing. How can you not see that? Why won’t I pay Jimmy $500 to mow my lawn? The same reason that if you tell Jimmy he can only charge $5 per yard, he won’t mow my lawn. You live in an imaginary world where workers, employers, and customers have no price sensitivity and there are no unintended consequences to your interfering with their free will and cost benefit decisions.

                    • History shows that raising the minimum wage has a negligible effect employment. While history shows that putting a cap on prices has a negative effect on supply.

                      The two are not the same.

                    • In this economy, my children are actually doing that, and I may need to, myself (See Good STEM jobs are disappearing.

                    • tired, poor, wretched, they would come and start a free from tyrants life… now they come for the free stuff and the tyrant to keep them from starting a life..

                    • LOL… you mean you actually have a job? I mean, other than OFA-Hole work? Your rebuttal ought to be funny… I haven’t had to work since i retired at 37…

                    • $54 billion was just one month’s recent Quantitative Easing (creating money from thin air) at the Federal Reserve.

                    • If the Republicans hadn’t blew up the budget and broken the economy, or if they would have cooperated with the administration in fixing it, The Fed would not need to keep stimulating the economy.

                      Raising the minimum wage would go a long way toward stimulating the economy and increasing revenues.

                    • The debt went from $10 Trillion in 2008 to $18 Trillion under Obama in 2015 with 2 more years to go.

                      From 2009 to 2011, for two years, the democrats ran a complete dictatorship. They owned it all.

                      From 2011 through 2014, Obama continued running a dictatorship with the help of the Democrat Senate.

                      Don’t go blaming Republicans for raising the debt 80% in 6 years.

                    • The structural deficit was over $1 trillion, the economy was shedding 700,000 jobs a month, and the GOP has been actively sabotaging the President and the economy for six years. In spite of all that, the deficit is halved, and the economy is sound. After two years of the GOP clown show in Congress, Hillary will have a Democrat Congress and the threat of GOP devolution will be apprehended.

                    • You are such an amateur.

                      Bush was President during very good economic times until 2008.

                      In the fall of 2008, the American economy was degrading.

                      And then Obama pushed it off the cliff.

                      Obama’s election actually accelerated the deterioration of the American economy.

                      The economy was shaky in the fall of 2008, and then Obama killed it in less than 10
                      weeks while the Coronation Ceremony was being prepared and the deals were being

                      OBAMA PROMISED to destroy everything in America that creates jobs and economic prosperity
                      for everyone.

                      The “economic fire” was burning in late 2008, and then Obama’s election threw
                      gasoline on the fire.


                      I spent a little time studying a chart on unemployment put out by the U.S. Department of
                      Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics.



                      There is evidence that THE ELECTION OF BARACK OBAMA is what caused most of the damage
                      that we saw upon Obama’s Coronation.

                      The following are some of my observations:


                      Unemployment was low 2000 through 2001, the beginning of the George W. Bush Administration,
                      which is about as far as Clinton could be given any credit or blame.


                      From January 2002 through October 2008, unemployment was always somewhere between
                      4.4 and 6.5.


                      The rise in unemployment did not accelerate quickly until October 2008, just in time for a slick inexperienced know-nothing
                      to lie his way into the Executive Office.

                      After Obama won the 2008 election, it was about 10 weeks before he would actually
                      assume office.



                      In the interim period before the Coronation, unemployment jumped to 7.8% and then
                      continued rising to 10% in October 2009, after the unimpeded Democrat
                      one-party-rule government did almost everything they had wanted to do in
                      Washington D.C.


                      There are many economic factors involved in rising unemployment, but it is true that
                      between the November 2008 election and October 2009 after Obama was President 9
                      months, unemployment went UP 3.5%, or almost 23% since before the November


                      The Obama Administration has blamed Bush, banks, rich people, small businesses with
                      receipts of $200,000, speculators, Congress, Wall Street, Japanese and Indonesian tsunamis, ATM’s, and bad luck – for our highest unemployment in many years and our longest recession since the 1930’s.


                      Obama’s supporters blame anyone who does not fit the radical social-engineering agenda.


                      I believe that employers, investors, and ordinary people believed Obama when he PROMISED
                      in 2008 that he was going to make all those dirty-rotten investors,
                      corporations and small businesses PAY for all that evil that OBAMA-supporters


                      That was probably the last time anyone outside of the liberal bubble believed Obama.


                      Obama PROMISED America in 2008 that investors, corporations, and small businesses
                      would no longer be welcomed or appreciated by a new Obama Administration or in
                      America in general.


                      (Sort of like when Governor Cuomo told Conservatives to take a hike out of New York – “and bring all your stink’n
                      money with you!”)

                      Obama PROMISED that anyone in business would be taxed to d e a t h, regulated to death, and then be
                      blamed if Obama’s socialization agenda didn’t work out.


                      The unemployment problem is Obama’s problem, and about all he did with all that stimulus money
                      was to stimulate the bank accounts of his political supporters.


                      During the summer of 2012, Obama acted like President Hoover did before the great depression, and
                      he acts like President James Buchanan did before the American Civil War.

                      In 2013 and 2014, he wasted all his time pushing Global Warming and Gun Control, instead of
                      working on our economy.

                      Obama refuses to negotiate or to spend any time making friends with the opposition. He only knows how to be a dictator, not a


                      He just sits there with his thumb in his mouth.

                      Now, every once in a while, Barack Obama mentions “job creation” just for laughs.

                    • You should come out of your bubble more often.

                      What are you going to do in 2017 when a new President takes over and all the bad things about Obama that you’ve been warning everyone about for 8 years don’t come to pass.

                      It will be like the ACA Death Panels and calling yourself a TeaBagger. You’ll just pretend it never happened as you pick up the next talking points to rail against Hillary.

                    • More to the topic at hand, you wrote: “What are you going to do in 2017 when a new President takes over and all the bad things about Obama that you’ve been warning everyone about for 8 years don’t come to pass.”

                      What are you doing NOW that all the bad things that Al Gore has been warning everyone about for 10 years haven’t come to pass?

                    • SH:
                      You have now claimed that you don’t know who Al Gore is.
                      If you were in an auditorium, you would now be walked to the door in silence.

                    • We’ve already had the weakest recovery in 100 years… and our allies are dropping like flies. What more do you want?

                      And we’re nearly at 110 percent debt to GDP ratio… What more do you want? 150% like Greece?

                    • It’s all part of Obama’s Plan: Create civil unrest by any means possible, whether it be economic problems, some “social injustice”, or anything else.

                      THEN DECLARE MARTIAL LAW.

                      THEN INVITE THE UN, RUSSIA, CHINA, and any other of America’s enemies to send in their military to “help us”.

                      Obama’s Economic plan is WORKING! (…to destroy the American economy.)

                      -Almost PERFECTLY!

                      (See www.

                      Labor force participation rate hits 34-year low. 93,000,000 Americans out of work, tens of millions gave up looking for unemployment.

                      Food stamp enrollment up 70% since 2008.

                      Average family income down 5%.

                      Highest poverty rate since the 1960’s.

                    • No, YOU liberals call conservatives “teabaggers”. You have no truth to back up your failed policies so you go on the ad hominem attack bandwagon.

                    • The Tea Party self identified as Teabaggers. Liberals just chuckled and played along. It was hilarious to see your reactions when you learned that tea bagging is an oral sex act popular with gay men.

                    • You are right except for one thing. It was not a coronation, it was an immaculation. They believe Obama is the definition of perfect. This is their perfect world if only they could kill all the Republicans.

                    • U.S. Jobs 2007: 138,359,000 (at the peak)
                      U.S. Jobs 2014: 139,225,000

                      This is less than 1 million new jobs since the 2007 peak. (BLS)
                      The real rate of unemployment is 23.2% (John Williams – ShadowStatsDotCom)
                      There has not been an economic recovery. (Stefan Molyneux)

                    • Why are you telling me? You should write your Republican congresscritter and tell them to stop repealing Obmamacare and do something constructive.

                      The GOP blew up the deficit and broke the economy under Bush, then did all they could to sabotage it in their efforts to discredit the President. Obama turned it around and kept it going. So the best argument you can make is that the recovery was weak. Well yes it was, but it was a recovery nonetheless, and in light of the active efforts by the GOP to shut down the government and hamper the stimulus, the economy is doing fantastic.

                      Obama won, the GOP lost. That will be his legacy. A black President who twice beat the party of old white men.

                    • Obama is a criminal. That is his legacy.

                      Here are 1,000 well sourced examples of Obama’s lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy, waste, etc. –

                    • They are mostly half truths.

                      He wanted to close Gitmo, but Congress wouldn’t fund it.

                      Tim Geithner was the most familiar with the crisis, he was a good choice at the time, in spite of his petty tax cheating.

                      Haliburton was set up by Dick Cheney during the Clinton era to be an indispensable contractor to the military he privatized under George H. Bush. I don’t know the exact details here, but I do know that when the accusation was made during the Iraq occupation, that was the bottom line, often there was no other qualified contractor.

                      My biggest complaint about Obama is that he tries to hard too placate the opposition. He should have gone for a bigger stimulus and single payer when he had Democrat majorities. The backlash would have been the same, but the results would have been better.

                    • Hey “Skyhunter” – I think you may have suffered from being too close to Vendicar the Canadian Janitor..
                      FACTS: The Left Wing Party has held control of each House of Congress for 62 of the last 82 years – and held the White House for 46 of those years, including the last 6 !

                      MORE FACTS:
                      African American Republicans: Thomas Sowell, Michael Steele, 50 Cent, LL Cool J, Stacey Dash, Condoleeza Rice, Justice Clarence Thomas, Sheryl Underwood, JC Watts, Herman Cain, Dr Ben Carson, Karl Malone, Lynn Swann, Larry Elder, TD Jakes, Armstrong Williams, Janice Rodgers Brown, Tony Dungy, Star Parker, Ward Connerly, Walter Williams, Edward Brooke, James Meredith, Ken Hamblin, Erika Harold, Roy Innis, Deroy Murdock, Shelby Steele, ALVEDA KING, Amy Holmes, Ken Blackwell, John McWhorter, Angela McGlowan, Stephen Carter, Stanley Crouch, Dale Wainwright, Michelle Bernard, Winsome Sears, Richard Parsons, Alphonso Jackson, Carol Miller Swain, Sophia Nelson, Rod Paige, Michael Williams, Keith Butler, Gary Franks, Vernon Robinson, LA Shawn Barber, Robert George, James Harris III, Akindele Akinyemi, Randy Daniels, Erik Rush, Lee Walker, Jesse Lee Peterson, Eric Motley, Wallace Jefferson, Mychal Jessie, Gary Franks, Mia Love, Tim Scott, and DONT EVER FORGET: DR MARTIN LUTHER KING was a REPUBLICAN!


                      Yet MORE FACTS:

                      First woman appointed to the Supreme Court – by a Republican
                      First African American Secretary of State – appointed by a Republican
                      First African American Woman and Second African American appointed Secretary of State – by a Republican
                      First Hispanic Attorney General of the US – appointed by a Republican
                      First African American National Security Advisor – appointed by a Republican
                      First Woman appointed as National Security Advisor – by a Republican
                      Slavery in the United States – ended by a Republican
                      First Non-White Governor of a State – a Republican
                      The first SEVEN African American members of Congress – all Republicans
                      First “Environmental” President Teddy Roosevelt – a Republican
                      First Female Congresswoman – a Republican
                      1921 Dyer Anti-Lynching Laws established by – Republicans
                      First Female Ambassador to a Major foreign power (Clare Booth Luce) – a Republican
                      1955 First African American appointed to a Executive position in the White House by Pres. Eisenhower – a Republican
                      First Hispanic Treasurer of the US – appointed by a Republican
                      First Hispanic to serve as a Cabinet Member – appointed by a Republican
                      First woman and first Hispanic to become a Surgeon General – appointed by a Republican

                      How about you and Vendicar (you “seem” to upvote a lot of his CRAP) stop puking out the Liberal talking points and actually ADD something to the conversation, huh? Don’t be a Dope !

                    • True, the economy has improved somewhat since the price of oil has dropped in half and the USA has become a net producer of oil. Obama is looking for ways to destroy this growth.

                    • You’re wasting your time presenting the truth and facts to someone suffering from a mental disorder. To date, there is no known cure for the mental disorder called Liberalism.

                    • By all means, let’s increase the minimum wage to $50 an hour. Oh,wait, let’s try $100 an hour! That would make everyone rich and really really stimulate the economy.

                    • I say $1000 an hour. After a hard day flipping burgers a guy should be able to enjoy a relaxing evening on his yacht.

                    • Liberalism is a mental disorder and you display it quite nicely. Facts seem to bounce right off you. Wish there was a cure.

                    • Six years of Obama, and at least six years of a Democrat-controlled Congress (before and after the start of Obama’s first term) has increased the publicly-held portion of the U.S. National Debt by at least $6 trillion.

                      That is a broken Democrat budget, and a Democrat “blowing-up” of the National Debt.

                    • Clinton left a budget surplus, Bush left a $1 trillion deficit and an economy shedding 700,000 jobs a month. The facts are clear. Democrats are fiscally responsible, Republicans are not.

                    • All Federal U.S. budgets begin in the U.S. House of Representative, which was Democrat-controlled at the end of G.W. Bush’s presidency.

                      After six years of Obama and Democrat control (U.S. Senate until 2015), the Federal Reserve has printed (created from nothing) trillions of U.S. Dollars (a total now of $6 trillion of the publicly-held portion of the national debt) and loaned it to the U.S. Treasury.

                      This is Democrat fiscal irresponsibility.

                    • Motivated reasoning. Not reality. That has become a serious problem with the right, ever since they abandoned science in favor of Agenda 21 conspiracy theories.

                    • I see your lack of knowledge of economics is in line with your lack of knowledge of statistics.

                    • Totally disengenuous and you know it. Obama is breaking the current law of the land, in order to import Democrat voters, and your response is, if they don’t like lawlessness, pass more laws. I’ll warn you now, you aren’t going to like this precident you’ve started of enforcing only the laws you like to further your political will.

                    • Obama is not breaking the law. He is not importing anyone. He is trying to solve a pressing problem that Congress cannot. They can’t do it because the GOP has gone bat-shit-crazy ever since they detached themselves from the scientific method in order to deny the existence of climate science.

                    • He’s breaking the law, pure and simple. Don’t tell me that up is down and expect respect in return. The Left is driving this country toward a civil break. Ignoring the Constitution, violating personal liberty, and selective enforcement. There is no moral reason to abide by the authority of lawless leaders. You may think it’s oh so clever to violate the law to get to your ends, but the natural outcome of such crap will not be pretty and it will be on your hands. I’ve reached the point where I no longer think you even believe your nonsense, so I’m done with you. The same is coming about nationally. This is what you have wrought.

                    • Congress has no trouble funding DHS, they just don’t want to relinquish their Constitutional authority to control immigration to the executive branch.

                    • Since when does the State Department do anything right? Let’s discuss Benghazi, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran, etc., etc., etc.

                    • Truth is truth is truth is truth.

                      Truth is neither left nor right.

                      Truth is truth.

                      Benghazi is a coverup to hide Obama’s arms shipments to ISIS.

                      The Syrian Civil War was supported by Obama so that another Middle East government would be ruled by the MB like Egypt and Libya.

                      Obama took out Qaddafi so that the Muslim Brotherhood could take control of Libya.

                      Obama supports Iran’s acquiring nuclear missiles and bombs, which they have promised to use in the massacre of 6 million Jews in Israel and then other American interests, such as AMERICA.

                      You may disagree with my comments and debate them, but I will prove I am correct every time. So come and get me.

                    • I believe that Obama is an atheist and that he wants to use any means possible to destroy the United States, Israel, Christians, and Jews.

                      For Obama, supporting ISIS and Iran are just tools.

                      For Obama, using communists to take down the country is just a tool.

                      Barack Obama thinks the United States must be brought to her knees.

                      He believes that Western powers, such as the United States were terrible bullies and that they must pay for their sins of the past.

                    • Democrats ask,

                      “Why is Congress meddling in the running of the Federal Government. All we need is one dictator to make all decisions about everything.”

                    • The executive order for the Keystone XL State Department directive is from GW Bush. Last time I checked, he was a private citizen, not a dictator.

                    • The “clown show” just happens to be the elected representatives of the American people (and some illegal aliens). I can understand, you being a statist and a socialist, that you prefer the Stalinist model in which Obama aspires to, but that’s our system, and it has worked well for more than 200 years. The State Department and it’s head socialist, John Kerry, do what the dictator wants it to do.

                    • I ask myself that same question all the time. I keep forgetting that I’m not dealing with a rational, sane person.

                    • Approval by the State Department was created by this administration. We used to work with Canada as our closest ally.

                    • And the Sate Dept has since been HIJACKED by liberal statists like yourself who do Obama’s bidding. Over 100 studies have been done showing the pipeline would have NEGLIGIBLE impact on the environment and our national security. If the State Dept wasn’t doing Obama’s bidding they would have issued a statement in favor a LONG time ago.

                    • A liberal used the word, “clown” again.

                      Everyone take another drink of water.

                      Calling people names is not “scientific” and does not contribute to the discussion.

                      If you want to prove something, prove something.

                      Bullying other people proves nothing and gives everyone a bad impression of your intellect.

                    • After countless fruitless arguments with liberals I have come to the same conclusion as Dr. Michael Savage. Liberalism IS a mental disorder. You’ll eventually reach that conclusion as well.

                    • No it doesn’t you boob. That part was built years ago. The part that Obama won’t approve is in the middle of the country.

                    • You have it exactly backwards. There would be no need for State department approval if it was a domestic project.

                    • In 2011 the State department approved the project. Giving the go ahead to begin the process of environmental impact studies and public comment. The final EIS was published in January 2014, with errata published in June. The final decision to approve construction has not yet been made.

                  • There is NO GLO-BULL climate anything … at least caused by man. And, if someday you happen to meet a radical environmentalist, just ask them; “”wasn’t it supposed to be an ice age by now?” (they said so, and predicted as much, back in the late 1960’s, 1970’s and early1980’s); then when that didn’t pan out, they changed it back in 1990’s and early 2000’s, to GLO-BULL warming, (again they said so, and predicted that the oceans would have covered much of the low lying planet with up to 20 feet of higher water levels, and no polar ice caps.) OOPS, looks as if that didn’t work as expected either; now it’s “climate change”, so that any unusual weather event is covered under this blanket non-fact. But wait!, but wait!, I do believe in “climate change”, what! you say, yes I do, I really, REALLY do. It’s called SPRING-TIME (global warming); SUMMER-TIME(global getting quite toasty); FALL-TIME(global cooling); and WINTER-TIME(global darn cold).

                  • As are your sources lying to you. There is a reason that investors in Solyndra made hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and it wasn’t because they were smart, just highly unethical and friends with the right people to send money their way.

                  • Normal people understand that the industries that facilitate the production that meets most of the world’s energy needs are in the business for profit, and normal people don’t begrudge them for it.

                    Are you not aware that the sources for your narrative are lying to you for political reasons, i.e., to destroy capitalism, reduce the population, and attain totalitarian control?

              • “The Government” doesn’t fund anything. The TAXPAYERS fund EVERYTHING. If I am funding it, it better be rigorous and beyond reproach with no political agenda attached – “man-caused climate change” breaks all three of those criteria.

                    • 2+2=5. does it make them false? Like your doctor, you can keep him, You like your insurance, You can keep it. I am angry as anyone . I’ll get to the bottom of this. Not a smidgen of corruption at the IRS. FAST AND FURIOUS, is that a movie? TEE time . etc..

                    • That you believe these are scandals says the world about you and where you get your narratives.

                    • That you don’t know they are scandals says that you are in denial — or ignornant of the facts. It would be better for the world if you would be in De Nile (with the crocodile). If you think that the government should use its agencies to punish and harass political enemies, then you are beyond help.

                    • No, he’s not in denial. He’s a willing PARTICIPANT of a corrupt system. Liberals believe in the ends justifying the means. They KNOW they are lying but don’t care, so long as it furthers their agenda.

                    • I the fact you don’t says even more about you. Criminal investigation now pending on the hiding of Lerner ‘ s emails.

                    • What is in the emails that was worth hiding, and who hid it?

                      The GOP Congress has spent most of it’s time and millions of our tax dollars on the faux scandals, instead of doing the peoples business. The IRS did not target PACs for political reasons.

                      Now they are trying to what, prove someone deliberately hid the fact that there was a backup of the crashed hard drive?

                      What is the punishment for that?

                      What about the progressive PACs that were targeted?

                      You are a tool being used for all your worth, and will be discarded when you are no longer useful.

                    • Which progressive groups were affected? Can any compare to True the Vote? How could they decide if it was political without all the emails.?

                      You are too funny.

                    • Good Reference

                      Lois Lerner sent out this email on June 29, 2011 just three weeks after the House Ways and Means Committee asked the tax agency was targeting conservatives: “No one will ever believe us” if our hard drives crashed.

                    • You won’t get an answer yet. He’s still checking his Mother Jones website for any disinformation he can throw at you and hope you won’t be able to see through it.

                    • Anybody who actually read them can easily tell these aren’t scientists… they are activists….Or as i prefer, climastrologists.

                    • For example, Email 19, where they admit ….

                      Email 19

                      1. There are few tree-core series that extend beyond the early 1980s. This is because
                      many of the sites we’re using were cored before the early 1980s. So most tree-ring records
                      just don’t exist post 1980. [Phil Jones]

                      If you look at the figure in the attached article in Science by Briffa and
                      Osborn, you will note that tree-ring temperature reconstructions are flat
                      from 1950 onward. I asked Mike Mann about this discrepancy at a meeting
                      recently, and he said he didn’t have an explanation. It sounded like it is
                      an embarrassment to the tree ring community that their indicator does not
                      seem to be responding to the pronounced warming of the past 50 years. Ed
                      Cook of the Lamont Tree-Ring Lab tells me that there is some speculation
                      that stratospheric ozone depletion may have affected the trees, in which
                      case the pre-1950 record is OK. But alternatively, he says it is possible
                      that the trees have exceeded the linear part of their temperature-sensitive
                      range, and they no longer are stimulated by temperature. In this case
                      there is trouble for the paleo record. Kieth Briffa first documented this
                      late 20th century loss of response.

                      Personally, I think that the tree ring records should be able to reproduce
                      the instrumental record, as a first test of the validity of this proxy. To
                      me it casts doubt on the integrity of this proxy that it fails this test.

                      Jeff [Severinghaus]


                      It is also interesting to note that many of the coral records utilised by
                      Mike Mann also
                      failed my screening procedure.
                      The attached figure shows normalised series of the 5 coral records that go
                      back to 1801 in
                      my ‘SST sensitive’ data-set. The y-axis has been inverted as the series are
                      correlated to SSTs.
                      Only one record (MAL = Malindi: western Indian Ocean – Julia Cole) shows an
                      inferred cool
                      year in 1816.

                    • Let me know if you want some more, in the meantime… Which progressive group was affected… I am still waiting.

                    • I don’t see a problem with those emails. But then, I am not biased. I see private discussions between scientists attempting to do something very difficult, that had never been done before.

                      The results speak for themselves, the hockey stick is the shape of the data.

                    • No, the data has been manipulated to form the hockey stick. Again. Look at NAS data from the 1970’s… EVERYBODY agreed we were cooling since the 1940’s…. That’s why Global Cooling was the media rage in the 1970’s. There had been cooling, It was undeniable. Whether people predicted the cooling would continue… is a whole other topic… Now look at the data… THAT COOLING HAS DISAPPEARED FROM THE HISTORICAL RECORD. Now it just shows flat from 1940 to 1970 instead of the .6C drop that used to exist. … IT’s total BS.

                    • Berkeley Professor Richard Muller:

                      “McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.”

                      “Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called “Monte Carlo” analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!”

                      “That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen?”

                    • M&M did discover an anomaly with principal component analysis, but it did not affect the results of MBH98/99. Even though they did discover something of interest, their paper was deeply flawed. They improperly excluded 3 of the 5 significant PCs.

                    • No one uses PCA anymore, I believe the preferred methodology is RegEM.

                      Here is an old link.


                      Wikipedia has a page about it.


                      And the National Academies Press published the North report.


                    • Thank you.

                      I see I will end up doing some research and capturing relevant publicly-available data and writing my own computer programs for analysis and display, for my satisfaction.

                      I hope to avoid most of the climatology research papers. The students/professors come up with theses that are interesting ideas, but are apparently not testable by direct experiment.

                    • Hey moron. Look at his references. He references NSA data. He references James Hansen’s 1999 report. Look it up… He provides all the links.
                      Yes that is what they show NOW…..
                      They all showed cooling from 1940-1975 up until a few years ago.

                    • I don’t need to have my science filtered through Steve Goddard. He is a joke, not worthy of my time.

                      If you have a global paleoclimate reconstruction published in the scientific literature that does not have a hockey stick shape, let’s see it.

                    • Yes, you like the filters you have on now.
                      Again. he provides no original data…. He links back to what they said 30-35 years ago.
                      Were they lying then? What happened to the cooling SkyHunter. What happened to it? Did it never exist? Was it a big global cooling conspiracy?

                    • What filters? I already told you, I go directly to the published research.

                      SG is just spinning a specious narrative, it is not the truth. He is the one telling lies.

                    • No one is lying, science is not static, as new information becomes available, it is incorporated and the scientific opinion evolves. Global cooling in the 1970’s was a minority opinion, only 10% of scientific publications from 1965 – 1979 predicted cooling. Clean air legislation worked, the SO2 was washed out of the atmosphere and the GMST started to rise again.

                      The NASA link shows a slight cooling trend from 1940 to 1975 of ~0.1°C. The latest analysis from GISS shows a trend on -0.001°C. Science evolves. Once the station data is adjusted for Time of day, station moves, equipment changes etc. the older data was found to have a warm bias.

                      The newsweek article is about air pollution causing solar dimming, the NCAR graph shows only 0.5°F cooling.

                      The last article is very speculative.

                      There were literally

                    • The article is speculative. The temp chart is very specific. So… people couldn’t tell if it got colder or hotter? LOL… and Hansen… he isn’t slanted… doesn’t have an opinion either way… just a good perfect scientist.. LOL. that gets arrested every so often… LOL. We couldn’t tell if it was getting warmer or colder… LOL.

                      Hansen’s got a bridge to sell you… OH wait… you already bought it.

                    • The global temperatures were flat, hard to determine whether it was warming or cooling. The GHCN had not been homogenized in 1975, so scientists couldn’t determine with any accuracy whether the Earth was warming or cooling.

                    • Yes. Suuuuure they can. Lol. And if they are wrong how does anyone know? LOL
                      But still much lower than predicted. Real scientists would question the theory. Climastrologists look for excuses.

                    • What theory is that? CO2 absorbs IR that is a fact. The theory says that will result in 1.5°C – 4.5°C per doubling. The warming trend is consistent with the theory.

                    • And their application of that theory says temps should be rising much faster. They aren’t. Thus… somethings is wrong… unless you think like a climastrologist. And of course there are several other indications that the theory is wrong. Like the fact that historically co2 lags temp.

                    • No it doesn’t. Temperatures have risen about 1°C in response to the increase from 280 – 400 ppmv. Well within the equilibrium sensitivity range.

                    • Only after they adjust the past colder to fit their theory. You still have no explanation for the last 18 years. Not one.

                      and almost half the rise came prior to 1940 before CO2 significantly increased.

                    • You can’t measure ocean heat accurately. There aren’t enough probes deep enough and you have no historical record so you don’t know how much it fluctuated before even if you could measure it reliably. You are only looking there because surface temps aren’t rising in a statistically significant manner.

                      100 percent hand waving. Funny how you haven’t mentioned the satellite rrecord. oh yeah. Because that is barely rising.

                      The surface record is much more reliable because you can make all sorts of reasons up to tweak it while claiming UH I is insignificant. LOL. Joke after Joke after joke.

                    • Who said UHI was insignificant?

                      If you use all the raw data, the warming trend is greater, since most of the adjustments reduce the trend.

                    • Ahhh. Ask your high priests. They are the ones that say it is insignificant. You don’t know? What does common sense say?

                    • i don’t have any high priests. I am an atheist. The UHI is adjusted for, and it never was a great problem, just a popular talking point.

                    • Figures. So how much is the UH adjustment. Oh. You just have FAITH that they are doing it right? How much is it?

                    • I post uppers on all of your posts but here at climate depot after a couple of hours they are erased.

                    • It is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of reason and logic.

                      You use ideology to determine what science you trust. I use science to determine what ideology to trust.

                    • And you are willfully ignorant, I have provided you with the tools to answer for yourself, but you prefer to curse the dark instead of lighting the candle.

                    • I ain’t looking up squat for you. You have proven your faith. If you aren’t curious enough to do the research you certainly aren’t going to give up your faith in Climastrologists until you start to look up things for yourself. I show you data. You blow it off. Certainly you believe the UHI may be significant. Find out what your High Priests say first for yourself. Are you going to believe them or your own common sense?

                    • You asked the question, I thought you knew the answer.

                      I should have guessed. You are just another conservative ignoramus .

                    • And you don’t know either apparently so you are just another blind worshipper.

                      THE ANSWER IS. IT DEPENDS WHO YOU ask. But generally less than 0.2C.

                      I read your link and it was quite unimpressive. From the description, assumes that UHI can only affect one station at a time In a given area. If it affected multiple ones in the same time the algorithm wouldn’t pick it up.

                    • You asked:

                      planet8788 SkyHunter • 15 hours ago

                      How many temp stations have been lost in the USA in the last 20 years?

                      to which you answered:

                      generally less than 0.2C.

                      I think you might be half a bubble out of plumb.

                    • You were resplyung to a question on UHI. Sorry… I’ve got more bubbles than you.

                      No I wasn’t. You appear to be in your natural state, confused.

                      Seek help before you wind up in a home for the terminally bewildered.

                    • James Hansen 1999: What’s happening to our climate? Was the heat wave and drought in the Eastern United States in 1999 a sign of global warming?

                      Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.


                    • Did you think that scientific opinion is set in stone?

                      You must not be familiar with the scientific method. Here is a primer;

                      In an infinite universe, it is impossible for a finite being to know everything about anything. Therefore we must begin from the logical premise that everything we know is wrong or incomplete. The best we can hope for is to learn why we are wrong or discover more missing pieces, becoming less wrong.

                    • Oh, so because scientists think that everything they know is wrong, that is why my electricity rates are soaring? Absurdum infinitum.

                    • They work very well in the summer, long days, and that is when you need your AC. You chose to live there.

                    • Still need lights all year round. And ovens and refrigerators. but you are still dodging the issue… Condo also probably wouldn’t allow it.

                    • What you just said is absurd. What does Hansen’s refusal to link a single event to climate change in 1999 have to do with thermometers in the 1970’s?

                    • It’s not about a single event. It’s about the entire lack of warming in the USA for 30 years. And how that has now disappeared from the charts and distorted in other ways too. It’s about changing history.

                    • And how accurately can you measure the .002 C change it took to get there? LOL
                      Even several warmists don’t buy that poppycock.

                    • Clean air legislation in America and Europe was passed and SO2 levels dropped. Sulphur dioxide reflects sunlight back into space before it can warm the surface. This was offsetting the increased back radiation from added ghg’s.

                    • BLA BLA BLA… And recently MIT scientists found that we still have SO2 much higher up in the atmosphere than they have ever looked before. So they have no idea how much was up there before…

                      The climate is way too complex to model. We don’t understand the basics of cloud formation yet and we’re talking all kinds of stupid actions based on a bunch of poppycock. The models are bogus… which is why their predictions haven’t been worth the toilet paper I used today.

                      Real scientists change their hypothesis when proven wrong… Climastrologists keep yelling louder…. make up stories about missing heat “hiding in the ocean” and then start investigating skeptics… At least McCarthy was after a real threat…. You guys are completely worthless. How many years more do your models have to fail before you admit they are worthless?

                      The climategate emails, the politics, the rewriting of the past all show that this is all a bunch of handwaving..and there is nothing to it.

                    • It’s all laid out for you. He provides no original data.. He just links back to their own research and their own history. But you can’t think for yourself… because you are a MORON Climastrologist of the highest order. A complete knucklehead who can’t think for himself.

                    • He is misrepresenting and spinning a narrative. Useful tools like you are taken in and exploited. I have no interest in anything SG has to say.

                      Obviously you are not capable of making your own argument, so why should anyone trust your ability to judge the veracity of SG’s?

                    • I followed his links and verified them… It’s easy to do. Except for a moron like you I guess.

                    • The argument has been verbalized one million times. The fact that you can’t understand it is very telling.

                    • What argument, all you have done is link a well known liar’s blog.

                      What is it that he is saying that you believe to be true?

                      Verbalize the argument and I will respond to it.

                    • You have a reading comprehension problem? Goddard sums it up quite succinctly and has links to all of his data sources… but I did sum them up for you again in one place.

                    • Why do you think Global Cooling was all the rage in the 1970’s… because it was heating? because temps were staying the same? Were all of those scientists stupid? How big of a moron are you…. It’s looking pretty big from here.

                    • Tell that to the New York Times. So it wasn’t cooling considerably from 1940-1975… Again your confusing what happened with what was being predicted in the future. We were cooling. Everyone knew that. The NAS, James Hansen… Everyone. But now that cooling has vaporized. It doesn’t exist in the historical record.
                      I realize these details are too much for your puny mind.

                    • You are projecting your own puny mind onto me. A common psychological phenomenon with science deniers.

                      There were a few papers in the 1970’s that were studying global dimming in the northern hemisphere from air pollution, there were also a few that noted our current orbital cycles favored cooling. But the bulk of the published research was about global warming.

                    • And you fail to understand the very clear point.

                      The USA and the northern hemisphere cooled from 1940 to 1975. That amount of cooling no longer exists in the historical record. History has been tampered with. That is the point. Which should be obvious.

                    • Climate experts believe the next ice age is on its way.” – Leonard Nimoy, 1978.

                      Media articles:

                      1970 – Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
                      1970 – Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
                      1970 – New Ice Age May Descend On Man (Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970)
                      1970 – Pollution Prospect A Chilling One (Owosso Argus-Press, January 26, 1970)
                      1970 – Pollution’s 2-way ‘Freeze’ On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970)
                      1970 – Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 1970)
                      1970 – Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
                      1970 – Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century (Boston Globe, April 16, 1970)
                      1970 – Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
                      1970 – Dirt Will Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970)
                      1971 – Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground (The Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971)
                      1971 – Pollution Might Lead To Another Ice Age (Schenectady Gazette, March 22, 1971)
                      1971 – Pollution May Bring Ice Age – Scientist Rites Risk (The Windsor Star, March 23, 1971)
                      1971 – U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
                      1971 – Ice Age Around the Corner (Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)
                      1971 – New Ice Age Coming – It’s Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
                      1971 – Another Ice Age? Pollution Blocking Sunlight (The Day, November 1, 1971)
                      1971 – Air Pollution Could Bring An Ice Age (Harlan Daily Enterprise, November 4, 1971)
                      1972 – Air pollution may cause ice age (Free-Lance Star, February 3, 1972)
                      1972 – Scientist Says New ice Age Coming (The Ledger, February 13, 1972)
                      1972 – Ice Age Cometh For Dicey Times (The Sun, May 29, 1972)
                      1972 – There’s a new Ice Age coming! (The Windsor Star, September 9, 1972)
                      1972 – Scientist predicts new ice age (Free-Lance Star, September 11, 1972)
                      1972 – British Expert on Climate Change Says New Ice Age Creeping Over Northern Hemisphere (Lewiston Evening Journal, September 11, 1972)
                      1972 – Climate Seen Cooling For Return Of Ice Age (Portsmouth Times, ?September 11, 1972?)
                      1972 – New Ice Age Slipping Over North (Press-Courier, September 11, 1972)
                      1972 – Ice Age Begins A New Assault In North (The Age, September 12, 1972)
                      1972 – Weather To Get Colder (Montreal Gazette, ?September 12, 1972?)
                      1972 – British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)
                      1972 – Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)
                      1972 – Science: Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
                      1972 – Geologist at Case Traces Long Winters – Sees Ice Age in 20 Years (Youngstown Vindicator, December 13, 1972)
                      1972 – Ice Age On Its Way, Scientist Says (Toledo Blade, December 13, 1972)
                      1972 – Ice Age Predicted In About 200 Years (The Portsmouth Times, December 14, 1972)
                      1973 – The Ice Age Cometh (The Saturday Review, March 24, 1973)
                      1973 – ‘Man-made Ice Age’ Worries Scientists (The Free Lance-Star, June 22, 1973)
                      1973 – Fear Of Man-made Ice Age (Herald-Journal, June 28, 1973)
                      1973 – Possibility Of Ice Age Worries The Scientists (The Argus-Press, November 12, 1973)
                      1973 – Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)
                      1974 – Ominous Changes in the World’s Weather (PDF) (Fortune, February 1974)
                      1974 – Atmospheric Dirt: Ice Age Coming?? (Pittsburgh Press, February 28, 1974)
                      1974 – New evidence indicates ice age here (Eugene Register-Guard, May 29, 1974)
                      1974 – Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)
                      1974 – 2 Scientists Think ‘Little’ Ice Age Near (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)
                      1974 – Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)
                      1974 – Imminent Arrival of the Ice (Radio Times, November 14, 1974)
                      1974 – Believes Pollution Could Bring On Ice Age (Ludington Daily News, December 4, 1974)
                      1974 – Pollution Could Spur Ice Age, Nasa Says (Beaver Country Times, ?December 4, 1974?)
                      1974 – Air Pollution May Trigger Ice Age, Scientists Feel (The Telegraph, ?December 5, 1974?)
                      1974 – More Air Pollution Could Trigger Ice Age Disaster (Daily Sentinel, ?December 5, 1974?)
                      1974 – Scientists Fear Smog Could Cause Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 5, 1974)
                      1975 – Climate Changes Called Ominous (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)
                      1975 – Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)
                      1975 – B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)
                      1975 – Cooling Trends Arouse Fear That New Ice Age Coming (Eugene Register-Guard, ?March 2, 1975?)
                      1975 – Is Another Ice Age Due? Arctic Ice Expands In Last Decade (Youngstown Vindicator, ?March 2, 1975?)
                      1975 – Is Earth Headed For Another Ice Age? (Reading Eagle, March 2, 1975)
                      1975 – New Ice Age Dawning? Significant Shift In Climate Seen (Times Daily, ?March 2, 1975?)
                      1975 – There’s Troublesome Weather Ahead (Tri City Herald, ?March 2, 1975?)
                      1975 – Is Earth Doomed To Live Through Another Ice Age? (The Robesonian, ?March 3, 1975?)
                      1975 – The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)
                      1975 – The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
                      1975 – Cooling trend may signal coming of another Ice Age (The Sun, May 16, 1975)
                      1975 – Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)
                      1975 – Summer of A New Ice Age (The Age, June 5, 1975)
                      1975 – In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)
                      1975 – Oil Spill Could Cause New Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 11, 1975)
                      1976 – The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? [Book] (Lowell Ponte, 1976)
                      1976 – Ice Age Predicted (Reading Eagle, January 22, 1976)
                      1976 – Ice Age Predicted In Century (Bangor Daily News, January 22, 1976)
                      1976 – It’s Going To Get Chilly About 125 Years From Now (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, January 23, 1976)
                      1976 – Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
                      1977 – Blizzard – What Happens if it Doesn’t Stop? [Book] (George Stone, 1977)
                      1977 – The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age [Book] (The Impact Team, 1977)
                      1977 – The Ice Age Cometh… (New York Magazine, January 31, 1977)
                      1977 – The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
                      1977 – Has The Ice Age Cometh Again? (Calgary Herald, February 1, 1977)
                      1977 – Space Mirrors Proposed To Prevent Crop Freezes (Bangor Daily News, February 7, 1977)
                      1977 – We Will Freeze in the Dark (Capital Cities Communications Documentary, Host: Nancy Dickerson, April 12, 1977)
                      1978 – Ice! [Book] (Arnold Federbush, 1978)
                      1978 – The New Ice Age [Book] (Henry Gilfond, 1978)
                      1978 – Winter May Be Colder Than In Last Ice Age (The Deseret News, January 2, 1978)
                      1978 – Current Winters Seen Colder Than In Ice Age? (The Telegraph, January 3, 1978)
                      1978 – Winter Temperatures Colder Than Last Ice Age (Eugene Register-Guard, Eugene Register-Guard, January 3, 1978)
                      1978 – Little Ice Age: Severe winters and cool summers ahead (Calgary Herald, January 10, 1978)
                      1978 – Winters Will Get Colder, ‘we’re Entering Little Ice Age’ (Ellensburg Daily Record, January 10, 1978)
                      1978 – Geologist Says Winters Getting Colder (Middlesboro Daily News, January 16, 1978)
                      1978 – It’s Going To Get Colder (Boca Raton News, ?January 17, 1978?)
                      1978 – Another Ice Age? (Kentucky New Era, February 12, 1978)
                      1978 – Another Ice Age? (Reading Eagle, ?February 13, 1978?)
                      1978 – Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
                      1978 – The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, Host: Leonard Nimoy, May 1978)
                      1978 – An Ice Age Is Coming Weather Expert Fears (Milwaukee Sentinel, November 17, 1978)
                      1979 – A Choice of Catastrophes – The Disasters That Threaten Our World [Book] (Isaac Asimov, 1979)
                      1979 – The New Ice Age Cometh (The Age, January 16, 1979)
                      1979 – Ice Age Building Up (Ellensburg Daily Record, June 5, 1979)
                      1979 – Large Glacial Buildup Could Mean Ice Age (Spokane Daily Chronicle, June 5, 1979)
                      1979 – Ice Age On Its Way (Lewiston Morning Tribune, June 7, 1979)
                      1979 – Get Ready to Freeze (Spokane Daily Chronicle, October 12, 1979)
                      1979 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)

                    • How many of those articles are published in the refereed journals?

                      Media sensationalism is not the equivalent of scientific research.

                    • And here lies your true motive. Side? It’s all about sides for a partisan hack like you. Pathetic.

                    • True the vote? You mean the white supremacists who try and intimidate black voters?

                      You believe they should have tax exempt status?

                    • Lol. Intimidate voters how? Any proof? By pushing voter I’d laws?
                      Yeah. Because in the age of Obamacare nobody needs an I’D when they go to the doctor. Really. Are you thatstupid?

                    • Oh, you mean the ONE progressive PAC for every 100 conservative groups that were targeted? Yeah, that sounds fair and balanced. No wonder you hate Fox News so much.

                    • Lois Lerner’s email were destroyed…oops…we found 32,000 of Lois Lerner’s email. How? We asked the IT guys. Now, if you can understand that little scenario and still believe there was no corruption, you have a pair of the strongest Rose-Colored glasses ever created by man.

                    • Another kooky conspiracy theory. 32,000 emails and all you can accuse anyone of is not being able to find them.


                    • They are Partisan-Colored glasses so thick he doesn’t even know what planet he’s on. And he PROJECTS his partisanship on others accusing them of the very thing he does. In summary, he’s a liberal.

                    • 2+2=5. does it make them false? Like your doctor, you can keep him, You like your insurance, You can keep it. I am angry as anyone . I’ll get to the bottom of this. Not a smidgen of corruption at the IRS. FAST AND FURIOUS, is that a movie? TEE time . etc..

              • If it can’t get private funding, then it probably isn’t worth studying. Government is good at wasting money on studies such as shrimp on treadmills, or on spending $750,000 for a new soccer field for terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay while at the same time planning to close it.

                  • The Government may have birthed the Internet (as a piece of Cold War warmongering, you know), and as long as The Government had it, it was a half-dozen computers tied together with tin cans and string. ONLY when it got out into private commercial hands (specifically, CompuServe) did it start to resemble anything like what we have now.

                    And The Government had NOTHING to do with the development of cell phones. Would you like a lecture on how the Telecommunications Act of 1934 throttled innovation in telephone technology in its cradle? Oh, by the way, that’s the same law that this woefully misbegotten, misnamed teratologism “Net Neutrality” has been given to us under. Isn’t that grotesque? I am a grandfather, and the Internet has just been commandeered under a law that was enacted BEFORE MY MOTHER WAS BORN.

                    • Actually TCP/IP was the governments “internet” and it is merely a protocol like many others.

                      IBM had already linked its hundreds of mainframes across the world with its SNA in the late 1960s.

                    • What the mindless liberal is trying to say is that government funding science is GOOD under liberal socialist administrations and BAD if conducted under the auspices of a republican administration. It’s ALL about politics in their drug addled minds.

                    • No, plenty of research I saw done by engineering graduate students at my university, under the direction of their professors, was *privately* funded.

                      Isaac Newton invented Calculus as a student during a black plague, without government funding, several hundred years ago.

                    • I love the way you Randians rewrite history to fit your fairy tale.

                      Cambridge is a public university, and was publicly funded in Newton’s day as well. Science has historically been government funded. The private funding at your university is private companies exploiting the commons for private gain, in particular, cheap labor in the form of grad students.

                      Those with leverage exploit those without. That is how it has always been. The “free market” does not change that. Only a democratic government with an educated and informed electorate can change that.

                      As evidenced by the comment section here, America lacks an informed

                    • And SkyHunter stands alone to fight against the uninformed, ignorant hordes that populate these comment boards. Gee, where are all your “educated” comrades rallying to your defense? Could it be that YOU are the odd ball blathering your ignorant specious diatribes? No, you’re obviously too arrogant to even consider that. Where do people like you come from? And how are you created? I would support a government funded project to answer THOSE questions.

                    • When Private Enterprise funds graduate-student research, it pays for the students’ tuition, healthcare, and a 20 hours-per-week generous salary.

                      I would know, since my graduate research was funded.

                      The amounts spent by private companies are not “cheap”, in the least.

                    • Cheaper and more effective than doing it in house. I am not against private public relationships. Just pointing out that your fear of government is irrational. It is generated by plutocratic propaganda. The only thing stopping powerful private interests from doing whatever they want is the government. Therefore they need to manufacture opposition to the government. It isn’t hard to do once you understand how humans form beliefs it is easy to manipulate those beliefs.


                    • “Just pointing out that your fear of government is irrational.” (SkyHunter)

                      —->I have no fear of government-funded research.

                      I am refuting your claim, and your implication, that ALL “Science has been government funded since there was science.” (SkyHunter)

                    • I said most, not all. You are reading more than I am writing. A common human trait. We fill in the blanks from our own experience.

                    • Government has certainly wasted the most money of all entities funding research in ‘science’, but most science since the Industrial Age has been funded by private industry through investment in R&D. ‘Government funding’ of anything is courtesy of the taxpayer. You’re welcome.

                    • Lecturing a liberal is a complete waste of time. They have stopped up their ears to anything that doesn’t further their agenda. Truth and lies are merely tools they use to accomplish their demented plans. A sorry, dangerous lot.

                  • I’m already in a cave, although I call it my “man cave.” Most innovations affecting the Internet and cell phones seem to come from bright college students and not scientists, and they become stinking rich while the scientists are busy pimping for taxpayer funding to study whether cocaine makes Japanese quail engage in sexually risky behaviors. That’s a real study, by the way.

                  • Wherever do you get your sources of misinformation? Government funded research is not of any real value except to those getting grants, loans and subsidies. The cell phone owes nothing to government. The internet did leverage off DARPA-funded but that was a command and control project that was exploited by industry.

                  • Right after you give up all the benefits of petrofuel industry funded research and products, including everything you own and use containing plastic. Also Vaseline, flooring materials, contact lenses, dishware, dyes, paints, varnishes, adhesives, and synthetic rubber. Double-talking, red herring-dragging hypocrite.

                    • But he got an A in political science and sociology at one of our finest liberal institutions of learning.

                  • Yeah, like Solyndra and windmill power and the development of buggy whips, BTW these storms and earthquakes are caused by the use of windmills. The blades draw heavy cold air through the blades, cooling the air more. The imbalance of the blades cause a vibration in the earth’s crust accounting for more severe earthquakes. This effect is amplified by the proximity of solar panels to the windmills. Tesla experimented with vibrations and found them indeed dangerous .

                  • We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message. Here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention.

                    What the Government Climate Scientists Say

                    The climate models. If the CO2 level doubles (as it is on course to do by about 2070 to 2100), the climate models estimate the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1°C x 3 = 3.3°C.

                    The direct effect of CO2 is well-established physics, based on laboratory results, and known for over a century.

                    Feedbacks are due to the ways the Earth reacts to the direct warming effect of the CO2. The threefold amplification by feedbacks is based on the assumption, or guess, made around 1980, that more warming due to CO2 will cause more evaporation from the oceans and that this extra water vapor will in turn lead to even more heat trapping because water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. And extra heat will cause even more evaporation, and so on. This amplification is built into all the climate models. The amount of amplification is estimated by assuming that nearly all the industrial-age warming is due to our CO2.

                    The government climate scientists and the media often tell us about the direct effect of the CO2, but rarely admit that two-thirds of their projected temperature increases are due to amplification by feedbacks.

                    What the Skeptics Say

                    The skeptic’s view. If the CO2 level doubles, skeptics estimates that the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1°C × 0.5 = 0.6°C.

                    The serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The argument is entirely about the feedbacks.

                    The feedbacks dampen or reduce the direct effect of the extra CO2, cutting it roughly in half. The main feedbacks involve evaporation, water vapor, and clouds. In particular, water vapor condenses into clouds, so extra water vapor due to the direct warming effect of extra CO2 will cause extra clouds, which reflect sunlight back out to space and cool the earth, thereby reducing the overall warming.

                    There are literally thousands of feedbacks, each of which either reinforces or opposes the direct-warming effect of the extra CO2. Almost every long-lived system is governed by net feedback that dampens its response to a perturbation. If a system instead reacts to a perturbation by amplifying it, the system is likely to reach a tipping point and become unstable (like the electronic squeal that erupts when a microphone gets too close to its speakers). The earth’s climate is long-lived and stable — it has never gone into runaway greenhouse, unlike Venus — which strongly suggests that the feedbacks dampen temperature perturbations such as that from extra CO2.

                    What the Data Says

                    Hansen’s predictions to the US Congress in 1988, compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites.

                    Hansen’s climate model clearly exaggerated future temperature rises.

                    In particular, his climate model predicted that if human CO2 emissions were cut back drastically starting in 1988, such that by year 2000 the CO2 level was not rising at all, we would get his scenario C. But in reality the temperature did not even rise this much, even though our CO2 emissions strongly increased — which suggests that the climate models greatly overestimate the effect of CO2 emissions.

                    A more considered prediction by the climate models was made in 1990 in the IPCC’s First Assessment Report: It’s 20 years now, and the average rate of increase in reality is below the lowest trend in the range predicted by the IPCC.

                    Ocean Temperatures

                    The oceans hold the vast bulk of the heat in the climate system. We’ve only been measuring ocean temperature properly since mid-2003, when the Argo system became operational. In Argo, a buoy duck dives down to a depth of 2,000 meters, measures temperatures as it very slowly ascends, then radios the results back to headquarters via satellite. Over 3,000 Argo buoys constantly patrol all the oceans of the world.

                    Climate model predictions of ocean temperature, versus the measurements by Argo. The unit of the vertical axis is 10^22 Joules (about 0.01°C).

                    The ocean temperature has been basically flat since we started measuring it properly, and not warming as quickly as the climate models predict.

                    Atmospheric Hotspot

                    The climate models predict a particular pattern of atmospheric warming during periods of global warming; the most prominent change they predict is a warming in the tropics about 10 km up, the “hotspot.”

                    The hotspot is the sign of the amplification in their theory. The theory says the hotspot is caused by extra evaporation, and by extra water vapor pushing the warmer, wetter lower troposphere up into volume previously occupied by cool dry air. The presence of a hotspot would indicate amplification is occurring, and vice versa.

                    We have been measuring atmospheric temperatures with weather balloons since the 1960s. Millions of weather balloons have built up a good picture of atmospheric temperatures over the last few decades, including the warming period from the late 1970s to the late ’90s. This important and pivotal data was not released publicly by the climate establishment until 2006, and then in an obscure place.

                    On the left is the data collected by millions of weather balloons. On the right is what the climate models say was happening. The theory (as per the climate models) is incompatible with the observations. In both diagrams the horizontal axis shows latitude, and the right vertical axis shows height in kilometers.

                    In reality there was no hotspot, not even a small one. So in reality there is no amplification — the amplification does not exist.

                    Outgoing Radiation

                    The climate models predict that when the surface of the earth warms, less heat is radiated from the earth into space (on a weekly or monthly time scale). This is because, according to the theory, the warmer surface causes more evaporation and thus there is more heat-trapping water vapor. This is the heat-trapping mechanism that is responsible for the assumed amplification.

                    Satellites have been measuring the radiation emitted from the earth for the last two decades. A major study has linked the changes in temperature on the earth’s surface with the changes in the outgoing radiation.

                    Outgoing radiation from earth (vertical axis) against sea-surface temperature (horizontal), as measured by the ERBE satellites (upper-left graph) and as “predicted” by 11 climate models (the other graphs). Notice that the slopes of the graphs for the climate models are opposite to the slope of the graph for the observed data.

                    This shows that in reality the earth gives off more heat when its surface is warmer. This is the opposite of what the climate models predict. This shows that the climate models trap heat too aggressively, and that their assumed amplification does not exist.


                    All the data here is impeccably sourced — satellites, Argo, and weather balloons.

                    The air and ocean temperature data shows that the climate models overestimate temperature rises. The climate establishment suggest that cooling due to undetected aerosols might be responsible for the failure of the models to date, but this excuse is wearing thin — it continues not to warm as much as they said it would, or in the way they said it would. On the other hand, the rise in air temperature has been greater than the skeptics say could be due to CO2. The skeptic’s excuse is that the rise is mainly due to other forces — and they point out that the world has been in a fairly steady warming trend of 0.5°C per century since 1680 (with alternating ~30 year periods of warming and mild cooling) where as the vast bulk of all human CO2 emissions have been after 1945.

                    We’ve checked all the main predictions of the climate models against the best data.

                    The climate models get them all wrong. The missing hotspot and outgoing radiation data both, independently, prove that the amplification in the climate models is not present. Without the amplification, the climate model temperature predictions would be cut by at least two-thirds, which would explain why they overestimated the recent air and ocean temperature increases. Therefore,

                    1. The climate models are fundamentally flawed. Their assumed threefold amplification by feedbacks does not in fact exist.

                    2. The climate models overestimate temperature rises due to CO2 by at least a factor of three.

                    The skeptical view is compatible with the data.

                    Some Political Points

                    The data presented here is impeccably sourced, very relevant, publicly available, and from our best instruments. Yet it never appears in the mainstream media — have you ever seen anything like any of the figures here in the mainstream media? That alone tells you that the “debate” is about politics and power, and not about science or truth.

                    This is an unusual political issue, because there is a right and a wrong answer, and everyone will know which it is eventually. People are going ahead and emitting CO2 anyway, so we are doing the experiment: either the world heats up by several degrees by 2050 or so, or it doesn’t.

                    Notice that the skeptics agree with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2; they just disagree about the feedbacks. The climate debate is all about the feedbacks; everything else is merely a sideshow. Yet hardly anyone knows that. The government climate scientists and the mainstream media have framed the debate in terms of the direct effect of CO2 and sideshows such as arctic ice, bad weather, or psychology. They almost never mention the feedbacks. Why is that? Who has the power to make that happen?

              • Personally, I would prefer the government to stay out of funding since they know nothing of it and spend far too much money on useless crap. I really don’t need to know (nor should you) how long a shrimp can stay on a treadmill.

            • Huh! $2.5 billion dollars is a HUGE amount of money to most people…I know it is to me!

              But $2.5 billion dollars is just a ROUNDING ERROR for the federal government. The US Federal Gov’t spent $3,504 billion last year (FY 2014). The $ spent by our government on man-made Global Warming/Climate Change is .07% of the entire federal budget.

              To look at it another way, that works out to just about $7.81 per person in the US.

              Even so, it is still too much to spend out of my pocket for something based on “Junk Science”.

              • $2.5 billion is still a huge amount of money compared to … any amount of money leftists doggedly accuse Big Oil of spending on “anti Climate Change propaganda”. Example, Fred Singer got under $100k in honorariums from oil interests speaking about the falsehoods of AGW while the entire careers plus pensions of climate “scientists” (they are really just computer programmers playing with big computers), thrive on that $2.5B gravy train.

          • See more data manipulation by Global Warming cultists:


            There is too much non-Obama-government evidence refuting that the Earth has been
            getting warmer recently or that it is because of CO2.

            To make the Global Warming Hoax work, you have to prove both non-proven things:

            1. That the Earth is on a permanent trend leading to the warming and eventual burning
            up of the planet.

            2. That CO2 causes global warming.

            Just a parallel correlation is not good enough. If you say that CO2 level rose at the same time that Earth temperatures rose, then it is would be just as possible that global warming causes a rise in CO2.

            The fake scientists need to prove that one causes the other, and they never have.

            They’ve never proven anything.

        • Actually, it means a cleaver procedure to perform a desired task.

          For example: One trick you can use to see if a number is divisible by 3 is to sum it’s digits, and if the result is divisible by 3 then the original number was as well.

          Experts employ a wide variety of tricks to simply problems.

          If something has bilateral symmetry for example, you can sometimes perform a trick by doing a calculation once for one side and apply it immediately to the other.

          The standard method of deriving the quadratic equation for example is to first express the originating equation as a similar factorable equation and a constant error term, and then proceeding from there using standard methods.

          The trick to getting heavy oil out of the ground is trough the use of “fracking” fluids, etc. etc. etc.

          • OK, when you change the time at which you take the temperatures and then go back and “adjust” previous data as if (but not actually) it were taken at the new time, that’s manipulation. It’s not a “cleaver procedure” or anything else…

                • You can do that if you like, but then the corrections needed to compute a global average just come into the calculations at a different point.

                  Neither method is invalid as indicated by the fact that Berkeley Earth which uses your preferred method comes to precisely the came conclusions as the other temperature reconstructions that adjust the temperature data using the method you don’t like.

              • How does one asses the average kinetic energy of all the earth’s molecules or is it just a subset of them?

                Which ones do we include and which do we exclude and even more importantly why?.

                Why do we measure temperature when its heat that is supposedly going to be trapped?

                What is an average? Is it the daily high and low added up and divided by two? Or is it a fully integrated mean. How did people in 1890 decide when the daily low occurred? did they watch the thermometer round the clock?

                Do spacial average or temporal averages count more? If the globe is warming isn’t one thermometer strategically placed enough to illustrate a 30 year trend? Do we know where the globe is going to be warming in advance of it occurring do we know where it is presumably going to cool? If we don’t know this how can we be sure we have thermometers in the right place. Why do we care? The earth has milllions of climates not one.

                What does a mish-mosh of all it it put in a Jumbalaya stew prove?

                I agree, satellite data is bogus as is all of the rest.

                Why do even even care about atmospheric data when the fluid oceans contain at least 100 times more heat than the air. The heat machine of the oceans transport almost all the earths heat, not the air. The air is a sideshow.

                  • In your science you repeat what you are told, then you will be sure to have it right; ie as a mantra – is that how you learned everything you know for certain?

                    Others might call this brainwashing, but real science questions at all times; real science never lays down and “accepts” a mantra.

                    Temperature represents the average heat intensity of well mixed molecules of the same stuff (dry air, moist air, salt water, fresh water etc. How can you measure how much it has cooled or warmed without knowing what is was to begin with?

                    I presume that you are aware that moist air possesses quite a bit more heat than dry air at the same temperature, or is that being too presumptive? What is the average global heat anomaly of the earth day by day month by month, year by year, century by century?

                    How would you go about measuring the “anomalous” average speed of the worlds automobile fleet without knowing how fast or slow each of them were going on average to begin with?

                    How many automobiles are there in the worlds fleet of matter and what percentage of them would give you a precise figure?

                    How many molecules are there in the earths fleet and what percentage of them will give you a precise figure?

                    • Again your comment is non responsive, you simply don’t know the answer to my straightforward questions so you reach behind you, dig some poo out of your ass, and fling it in the air hoping we wont notice that your shit-storm doesn’t constitute an answer.

                      Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881): “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

                      Here is a primer on how to tell the differences between these three things when there are any.


                      You might find it enlightening.

                    • The dust bowl is irrelevant to global climate statistics. I am not going to play word games with you.

                    • You hit on a truth although I’m quite sure it was unintended. The globe has no climate, it has millions of climates. Likewise humans have assholes, millions of them but there is no global asshole although Detroit comes close. So one cannot say the global asshole sports hemorrhoids. Some individual assholes do. We can speak of the health of individual assholes but not of a global asshole

                      I live in a local temperate climate and of course the local climate is why I chose to live where I do. I prefer my climate to the temperate climate few hundred miles to the North of me.

                      Since the globe has no global climate, then global climate statistics are as useful as global assholes statistics

                    • I already set that nail a few posts ago.

                      Climate is weather statistics. Your local area has a climate, your region of the world has a climate, the Earth has a climate, the entire solar system has a climate.

                      You can’t grasp the whole concept because it contradicts your bias. The cognitive dissonance would be uncomfortable, so you convince yourself with a half truth.

                    • So how would you describe the world’s climate.

                      I can tell you that my local climate is temperate with mild winters and warm summers featuring even precipitation (between 2.6 and 5.2 inches per month, year round)

                      Now you have a pretty good idea of my climate.

                      Please describe the globe’s climate in a similar fashion?

                    • Why would I describe global climate in the same fashion you describe local climate?

                      You are parsing words and comparing apples to oranges as if they are the same fruit.

                    • In real science we assign meaning to words. We are now talking about words (and phrases) for which you cannot ascribe any meaning

                      (wacky weather, climate disruption, extreme weather, global climate)

                      All of these terms have no real meaning and they are further watered to nothing by terms like “might” “could” or “maybe.”

                    • Perhaps so, then its best not to “believe” in anything you are told unless you have rock solid evidence that what you are being told conforms with reality as your own senses and intellect inform you.

                      I probably have an advantage over you; I have lived longer, done more and seen more than you probably ever will; this is not your fault.

                      I am more or less immune to the sandwich board doomsayers because I have seen so many come and go.

                      I suspect like most devotees of this religion that you are not a broad reader or traveler. Both offer great opportunities to augment a wider perception of reality and an immunization against fantasy

                      Have you read or even heard of H.L Mencken.

                      He had an observation (probably penned in the 1920s) that you might find useful:

                      “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

                      You see the global warming hobgoblin hadn’t even been dreamed up yet so this is a universal observation that applied equally to the state’s favorite science hobgoblin of the 1920s (racial eugenics) as it does to today’s.

                      You probably think people are smarter now but that simply because you have such a limited perspective of the world that surrounds you; its really not your fault. Most people are easily malleable when you discover their primal fears.

                      Your generation his its own primal fear (the world of my childhood is going away and I want to to last forever or “sustain” it)

                      You have not yet synthesized the idea that nature appears to despise “sustainability.” All must be tested and all must die not just as individuals but as species. Nothing has permanence in nature.

                      This is the fear that make you tremble about the weather, my generation would hold that your fears are evidence of un-manliness but I suspect that value is unimportant to you

                      Ask a Sudanese refuge child if he is interested in “sustainability” and he will laugh in your face if he even could understand an alien creature such as yourself.

                    • In real science we assign meaning to words. We are now talking about words (and phrases) for which you cannot ascribe any meaning

                      (wacky weather, climate disruption, extreme weather, global climate)

                      All of these terms have no real meaning and they are further watered to nothing by terms like “might” “could” or “maybe.”

                    • Did you know that the personal behavior of about 1% of the U. S. population results in their CO2 footprint being 50 TIMES the actual average / person. As such, they are responsible for more than 33% of ALL U. S. CO2 emissions. How come all the plans proposed and promoted by the president and his party will allow this small group to continue to spew CO2 unabated, actually increasing their percentage, while financially hammering the lower income and middle class folks? By the way, you can PROVE this to yourself with a couple of hours of simple research using only published government data on emission sources relative to individuals. You do need to be able to do entry level algebra. I can help if you need help on this.

                    • I don’t repeat what I have been told. I learn and understand the concepts and how to apply them.

                      It is impossible for you to know the speed and direction of every molecule of mercury in a glass tube. bIt is impossible to know the frequency of every photon emitted by the Sun, or any black body object. However, we can calculate the temperature of a black body using the laws of physics. The mercury will expand at a consistent rate, so we can make a scale that correlates to the phase changes of water 0° = freezing 100° = boiling. And we can calculate the temperature of a star by measuring the peak emittance frequency.

                      So when you have a record of temperatures from instruments and paleoclimate proxies, you don’t need to know the exact motion of every molecule, you just need enough temporal data to see the changes, anomalies.

                    • Wonderful, i have read these same things and understand the proveable concept of physics perhaps more than you.

                      Of course things can be recorded and we might even call these records data. Its when we attempt to draw inferences from data that are toutally unsuitable for the purposes at hand that psuedo-science emerges.

                      Do you think spacial distribution is important when attempting to take measurements of of large geographically dispersed areas?

                      For instance if you wanted to take the “average rainfall” of Africa, would citing of rain gauges be important. Could you arrive at a figure by just averaging all of them up. What if there were no literally no rain gauges at all in the Sahara?

                      Can you jiggle data from elsewhere to make it represent the entire Sahara?

                      Here is the CRU map of global temperature monitoring stations. Are these stations geographically dispersed – how about the oceans and the air above them?


                      Global warming is agenda driven political science of the kind that has killed two of NASAs shuttle crew simply because its budget was at stake. In each case contradictory data was ignored that literally murdered two shuttle crews. Neither shuttle should ever have flown, in fact the whole program was a disaster but all the contradictory data it was glossed over by “government science”

                      NASA has had its wings clipped because it has fudged the data too many times. When they fudge climate data no one knows and we cannot identify the victims of its data fudging.

                    • You obviously don’t understand physics or statistical analysis. You opinion is based on your ideology. An ideology that is completely devoted to the idea that free markets solve all problems.

                      NASA has never “fudged data” that is a lie, that has become part of the ideological narrative that you believe.

                • The same way you measure the temperature of a cup of water.

                  With a thermometer.on in the case of the earth a series of thermometers.

                  It would be unwise for you to argue that there is no such thing as temperature.

                  • I see, how many cups of water are in the oceans.

                    Its rather easy to keep a cup of water well mixed while taking its temperature.

                    I’m curious, how do “scientists” keep 326 million cubic miles of ocean well mixed as they take its “average” temperature?

                    I’m sure you must know this since you “believe” what you are told.

                    How many thermometers are needed in this “series” to cover 326 million cubic miles of ocean from average depths of two miles to sounds as deep as 7 miles.

                    When you have pulled the figure out of yours or someone else’s ass tell us all which magic fairy tells you that you have the right number?

                    How would one take the “average” temperature of two points, one of the air at one meter of altitude in the center of the Sahara desert, the other at a similar altitude in center of the everglades. How would one record the average heat per unit unit of air in this instance

                    Is global warming supposed to be about heat trapping gasses or temperature trapping gasses?

                    If it’s the latter where are the heat records kept?

                    • “I’m curious, how do “scientists” keep 326 million cubic miles of ocean well mixed as they take its “average” temperature?” – sirgareth

                      What makes you think that they have to?

                      There is a network of tens of thousands of thermometers placed all over the planet. It is an interesting fact that the global temperature record can be reconstructed with a properly selected subset of just 60 or so of those thermometers.

                      Science is a powerful tool for understanding the world.

                      Why are you content with being ignorant?

                    • Science can be a powerful tool for self delusion: alchemy, phlogiston, eugenics, phrenology etc etc etc.

                      So 60 thermometers give us the “average” temperature of just what?

                      a) the fluid atmosphere (from what and to what altitude)

                      b) the fluid oceans (from the surface to which depths?)

                      c) both a and b

                      d) both a and b plus the heat of the non fluid surface – to what depths?

                      Show me how the number 60 was derived – not opinion, the data and the calculations.

                      How many sets of chicken entrails (how roman science predicted the future) were necessary to get an accurate reading by soothsayers of the day. Some say three other’s say more than a dozen, inquiring minds want to know?

                    • “So 60 thermometers give us the “average” temperature of just what?” – Sirgareth

                      They give measures of individual air temperatures around each thermometer.

                      The average is a mathematical process.

                      If you don’t understand how averages are computed then please visit a local public school and learn.

                      a) the global fluid atmosphere (from what and to what altitude)

                      About 1.5 meters from the surface of the ground or water.

                      That is where the thermometers are placed.

                      You silly little Toadie.

                    • Re “the average is a mathematical process”

                      This sounds so profound, but is it?

                      Which process? Describe it?

                      I know how to take a lot of averages, simple means of a few values, simple modal averages and even a simple median average

                      Which is the best way “average” the daily temperature and why?

                      Is the median better or worse than a mean of a few values?

                      why? please explain yourself?

                      But then there might be more suitable averages such as a fully integrated mean, would that be superior?

                      of course there are many more ways to “average” aren’t there so lets do a practical example

                      Here are some temperatures observed for the day hour by hour (24 hour clock)

                      0:00 to 8:00 —- 20 C
                      8:00 to 20:00 —- 30 C
                      20:00 to 22:00 —- 25C
                      23:00 to 0:00 — 0 C

                      I know this must be real simple stuff for a profound mathematician such as yourself – what would a global warming scientist claim was the average temperature for this day?

              • NASA and NOAA have always considered satellite data, since their introduction, to be more reliable than surface data. That is, until recently when satellite data belied the narrative they are trying to maintain. You and your posse are nothing but dishonest activists and propagandists.

                • The 80’s were a 10 year period, and all 10 year periods are dominated by weather noise, rather than climate change.

                  Climate change is only detectable over 20 to 30 year minimum time frames.

                  The statement made in by your source therefore has no relevance to Climate change.

                    • 2005, 2010 and 2014 have all exceeded the temperature for 2009, which due to El-Nino warming was an exceptionally unusual year.

                      A cold temperature mode switch in the PDO has already been triggered and still global temperatures are the highest ever recorded.

                      Awwwwwwww Poor Planet 8788. The world just doesn’t want to cooperate as you claim.

                    • LOL… All the warming is imagined. You’re an idiot and it becomes more obvious every day.

                    • The thermometers show cooling. Moron. Only after the “scientists” adjust the data is there any warming. And they should be adjusting it colder.

                    • “The thermometers show cooling. Moron.” – PlanetKook

                      And 911 was a bigfoot conspiracy. The YouTube videos prove it.

                    • Yup, the raw data proves that 911 was done by bigfoot, and Dinosaurs were just big chickens.

                      Well at least according to republican kooks

                    • I see, so you can’t distinguish between these pair of perfectly formed titties and man boobs.

                      You must be a homo.

                    • I see, so you can’t distinguish between these pair of perfectly formed titties and man boobs. You must be a homo.

                      OH NOES!!! Did an enlightened libtard really just commit an egregious act of homophobia and bigotry right here for all to see.

                    • Which one? There are more than a dozen of them now, each using different data sets and methodologies?

                      You did know that, didn’t you?

                    • El Nino warming is all part of the global climate. Did you happen to miss that little crack in your opinion?

                    • No El-Nino formed in 2014.

                      So we have a non-El-Nino year warmer than one of the strongest temporary El-Nino warming ever recorded – 1998.

                      It is good to see you admit that 1998 was an unusually warm year due to El-Nino, and by implication admit that it is therefore an invalid year to select for a starting period for a trend.

                    • Excuse me, but El Nino and El Nina are local phenomena, that are meaningless to global temperatures. Their changes are cancelled out by the rest of the world. Can you understand the concept of Global?

                    • Regional temperatures are averaged together to produce a global average.

                      Is it the concept of averaging that is confusing you or are you just confused by the numerical division part?

                      Please visit any local grade 5 classroom and have the children explain it too you.

                    • You need to say that out loud every morning when you are shaving.

                      It will change your ignorant life.