Thursday, December 3, 2020
Home Right Column 'Never before seen' spring snowfall in the Caribbean islands - & Colorado...

‘Never before seen’ spring snowfall in the Caribbean islands – & Colorado Ski Resort snowiest in 50 years – Snow chaos in Germany

-

Via: http://iceagenow.info/

‘Never before seen’ spring snowfall in the Caribbean islands (Update: This article from the Dominca News Online was an April Fool’s joke. See: UPDATE: It Did Not Snow in Guadeloupe)

PHOTO: ‘Residents film the falling flakes on Thursday’

#

315,000 Lose Power in Midwest, Northeast as Wind & Heavy Snow Hit

Eight inches of snow was recorded near Negaunee in northwestern Michigan, just over 7 inches fell in Wisconsin near Twin Lakes, and 5.5 inches of snow was seen in Minnesota near Leonidas Saturday as the storm swept through, according to The Weather Channel. Parts of Western Pennsylvania could see 8 to 10 inches.
#
Colorado Ski Resort sees second snowiest march on record – Snowiest in 50 years

Snow chaos in Germany on April Fools Day

1359 COMMENTS

      • Which scientists are lying?

        The Scientists at NASA?
        The Scientists at the NOAA?
        The Scientists at the MET who produce the Hadcrut temperature reconstruction?
        The Scientists at BEST who produce the BEST temperature reconstruction?
        The Scientists at JMO who produce the JMO temperature reconstruction?
        The Scientists who produce the UAH satellite temperature reconstruction?
        The Scientists who produce the RSS satellite temperature reconstruction?
        ….

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1996/plot/gistemp/from:1996/trend

                    • Mercury in glass thermometers certified by the National bureau of standards. Placed in louvered wooden white boxes over mowed grass on FAA airport property. They might have an accuracy of + or Minus .5 degree F, but over a long time period, that error, plus or minus, averages out.

                    • I asked you to provide the scientific method that you referred to, not the construction of the observation station.

                      Don’t you know the difference?

                      If you do, then why did you just jabber about something completely different.

                      Try again.

                    • “That is a scientific method.”. – UBStupid.

                      No it was a description of an observation station.

                      And he wasn’t passing it off as “a scientific method”, but as “the scientific method”.

                      Apparently you don’t know the difference.

                      Man you people are ignorant.

                    • Vend: LMFAO! You’ve missed your mark. Have you considered comedy writing as a vocation?
                      Think SNL would want you on their team!

                    • Tell me how you became such an asshole. Is it natural ability? Have you received some sort of formal training? Do you have a degree in Assholic Behavior? Are ya goin’ fer a Master’s?

                • Vendicar: When you have no facts to back up a position the fallback is to use insults. You’ve done a great job of smearing and avoiding the TRUTH.
                  And we all see it and your credibility drops to zero.

                    • VendicarDecarian0,
                      There is plenty of data.

                      I will give you one excellent example.

                      In Bridgehampton NY, a temp recording volunteer recently won an award for being the longest term single volunteer doing this. One 84 year old man, one record one location…. going back to the 1930’s. We have access to: his original hand-written records; the unadjusted electronic version of his records, and the “corrected” version used by everyone who builds temp records, including NASA, GIStemp, etc etc.

                      A good test case, correct?

                      In that period, he made two changes: once he shifted his time of observation (TOBS); once they switched him from a manual thermometer to an electronic version. Of course, both of these changes provide the potential for a discontinuity in his readings. However, the actual result was: no significant or noticeable change on those dates (we do know when these happened; they are in the record.)

                      However, there ARE discontinuities in his record, introduced by the automated adjustments made to account for presumed “errors” in the recordings of people like him… because of course the modelers know “better” what the impact ought to be of TOBS changes or thermometry changes. No matter that these adjustments have no relationship to ANYthing done by this volunteer or others. They just make these “tweaks.”

                      I’ve attached a graph of the adjustments. NOTE: this is not the temps he recorded. This is the *adjustments* made to the most careful, continuous temperature record made by a single individual in the United States in the last century.

                      Notice anything? The adjustments add up to almost 2 degrees F. Thus, for this — one of the very best stations available — ALL of the “warming” of the last 80+ years is due to adjustments, not to actual increases in temperature. And this is NOT an outlier case, other than in the quality of the data. These adjustments are being made everywhere.

                      Just one of many many examples of why perhaps you ought to reconsider your stance.

                    • “In Bridgehampton NY, a temp recording volunteer recently won an award for being the longest term single volunteer doing this.” – Mr Pete

                      That is a very nice story.

                      Pointless though. Completely pointless.

                    • And WHY is it pointless? WHY does it not matter that the processed data has been adjusted, for no good reason, to make the early part of the 20th century appear almost 2C cooler than it was?

                      If you can’t answer that for yourself, you have your head in the sand.

                    • Why is a single data point pointless in determining a global trend?

                      For he same reason that a single student height is meaningless in determining the average height of a student population.

                      If you don’t understand, have an 8 year old explain it to you.

            • well VD… show us your own personal temperature records… your list of support sources are all gov/ed establishment hacks…. all sniffing the butt of the gov for tax payer funding…. since all your sources are tax payer funded means your are a butt sniffer… Prove me wrong and post your zip code with at least 3 years of daily high and low temp…

              • “My own personal temperature records”

                My goodness.. What do you think that would tell you?

                Global temperature is an average from all around the globe, and don’t come from me personally.

                Are you on drugs?

                    • VD0, you are misinterpreting Dr Spencer’s data. Please read his website more carefully. Here’s a very informative page: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

                      Their best data today shows a trend of 0.114C/decade warming. Multiply that out and we see, for the last 36 years (1979 to today) an increase of… .41 C.

                      When you say “.93C warmer than it was in 1979” is a meaningless statement. WHEN in 1979? If we use the average anomaly for each year (AFAIK not yet available for 2015 but not much different from 2014), the answer is: 1979: -0.236; 2014: +0.151 for a net difference of 0.387C — again, much less than half of your figure.

                    • Spencers own plot, taken from his own website shows the gloal temperature anomaly starting at -0,18;’C and rising to 0.2.2.

                      Spencers latest data shows a starting point of -2’C and a stoping point at around 0.7’C, making the rise about 0.9’C

                      Don’t blame me if you can’t read a simple graph.

                    • You are taking individual outlier data points and acting as if they define the trend. They NEVER do. Sorry, VD, you don’t understand the math, the uncertainty, and most definitely not the science.

                      Don’t just read a few points on a graph. Read his discussion. Read the CONTENT of the graph you just posted: “0.4C Warming” in nice big type (over 36 years). THAT is the trend. 0.4C/36 years = .011 per year.

                      Please learn a little about the difference between individual data points and the trend, or the difference between individual data points and the whole data set.

                      Any one point is not all that interesting because:
                      a) Uncertainty. Each data point can be off by quite a lot
                      b) Variability. The very next data point could shift in the other direction by a LOT, showing the first point to be an outlier.

                      For example, let’s make it both as good and bad as possible on your first graph:
                      1998-2000, +0.8 to -0.2, -1.0 degree in 2 years. Neg 0.5 per year “trend”, 50C per century cooling. Oh Nooooo! We’re all gonna die!
                      1997-1998, -0.3 to +0.8, +1 degree in ONE year. 100C per century warming.

                      Or take the 13 month (red line) “data”… still not a valid method the way you are using it:
                      1993-1998, -0.3 to +0.5, 0.8 in 5 years: 0.16C/yr, 16C/century YIKES!
                      1998-2008, +0.5 to -0.1, -0.6 in 10 years: -.06/yr, 6C/century cooling.

                      Even the “long term trend” of 0.011C/year is just an estimate, with very large uncertainty.

                    • Liar.. Liar.. Pants on fire…

                      “You are taking individual outlier data points and acting as if they define the trend. They NEVER do” – MrPete

                      The graphic above is not produced by me but is from the UAH satellite record.

                      You know. The satellite record that you denialists have for years been claiming is the best record available.

                      Why all of a sudden are you claiming it’s constructed from outliers?

                    • My goodness you are ignorant of basic statistical analysis.

                      “For example, let’s make it both as good and bad as possible on your first graph:’ – MrPete

                      Connecting any two extremes in a data set means that you are ignoring all of the other data in the set, since you are only connecting two points.

                      The method used in the plot above uses all of the data and computes a line that has the minimum variance from the data.

                      You just failed grade 7 statistics.

                  • Reconstructing the global climate record is an effort by thousands of scientists from a wide range of fields.

                    No one person can spend the hundreds of human lifetimes needed to collect and analyze the data.

                    • VD, if you keep track of the temp at your zip code…. you have data to compare to what they are saying…. so far you have no data… you have no clue… the gov Lies if you haven’t figured that out by now …

        • Yes…

          You are correct, that is a very good list of liars!

          Scientist like Phil Jones who said he lost the data, Scientist like Michael Mann who Hide the decline using only proxy data when it suits his needs, and hiding the proxy data when it does not. NOAA went from over 6000 temperature stations to only about 1500 stations, a reduction of 75%. Since when is less data better? And of course nearly all of the higher latitude stations are gone! According to John Christy from NASA, the satellite data shows no warming for 19 years, and the upper atmosphere is where the Earth should heat up first if the CO2 models are correct, yet they don’t!

          Liberals are liberals first, science is secondary to their religion. Not to mention, climate scientist get money (grants) when the toe the line… There are no grants for scientist to determine that government intervention in NOT needed!

          • Liar Liar.. Pants on fire

            “Scientist like Phil Jones who said he lost the data” – Corchem

            Phil Jones never said that, and no data has been lost.

            Liar.. Liar.. Pants on fire

            “Scientist like Michael Mann who Hide the decline ” – Corchem

            Decline in what? Man was referring to a decline in the correlation between tree ring growth and temperatures – an effect known to be due to CO2 enhancing tree growth.

            “NOAA went from over 6000 temperature stations to only about 1500 stations” – Corchem

            So?

            1500 has high statistical significance and the stations are selected based on data quality. The ground based stations are designed for day to day weather observations not climate observation.

            The BEST climate reconstruction uses all of the stations available and produces a result that is essentially identical.

            And in fact when NOAA uses all of the stations the result shows a slightly warmer trend than the 1500 stations do. So by including all of them, your point is weakened.

            “And of course nearly all of the higher latitude stations are gone!” – Corchem

            The higher latitudes are warming the fastest. So you want more of the warmer stations included in the weighted average?

            Liar.. Liar.. Pants on fire.

            “According to John Christy from NASA, the satellite data shows no warming for 19 years” – Corchem

            John Christ’s data reconstruction is shown below.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

            Christy has recently altered his analysis model so that the temperature he reports is an average that is taken around an altitude of 6,000 meters, up from and colder than his previous model which averaged around 4,000 feet.

          • Liar.. Liar.. Pants on fire.

            “the upper atmosphere is where the Earth should heat up first if the CO2 models are correct, yet they don’t!” – Corchem

            The upper atmosphere is where the warming would occur most if it was being caused by the sun.

            The lower atmosphere heats first if it is due to CO2, because CO2 essentially reflects heat from the earth’s surface parly back to the earth’s surface.

            Are you scientifically illiterate as well as being mentally ill?

            • WHAT ALL AMERICANS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON’S ALLEGED SAP COMPROMISE–MAJ ED COET, USA (RET)

              [COURTESY: CAPT Les Horn, USN (Ret)]

              My name is Ed Coet. I am a retired US Army Intelligence Officer. In my last job in the army I was the Chief of the Human Intelligence Branch for the US European Command in Stuttgart, Germany. In that capacity I was also the Designated Program Manager for a Special Access Program (SAP) like the SAP that Hillary Clinton is alleged to have compromised in the most recent State Department Inspector General report to congress and which has been widely reported in the news. Here is what I personally know about SAP’s and what I can attest to in an unclassified forum:

              1. The names of each SAP are themselves classified Top Secret because the information within the SAP are far and above Top Secret.

              2. SAP’s are so sensitive that even people who have security clearances giving them access to Top Secret Sensitive Compartment Information (TS SCI), an enormously high security clearance level, cannot have accesses to a SAP’s unless they receive a special indoctrination into the SAP based on an operational “must know” that exceeds all other “need to know” standards.

              3. Being “read on” for a SAP is far more then acknowledging in writing that you have been briefed on the SAP. It is an in-depth “indoctrination” into the given SAP, and each SAP is itself compartmented separately from other SAPS. Having access to one SAP does not give you access to another SAP, and in fact rarely does. Only a tiny handful of people have knowledge of all SAP’s. SAP’s are the most stringently compartmented and protected information in the entire US government.

              4. Unlike Top Secret SCI which is maintained in highly secure Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilitates (SCIF’s) managed by specially trained Special Security Officers (SSO’s) at various levels of command, every single SAP is managed by an individually designated Program Manager for each individual SAP covering an entire theater of operations. In other words, SAP Program Managers are far fewer in number than there is SSO’s. SSO’s are not cleared to even know about SAP’s or to maintain information about them in their already enormously secure SCIF’s. How SAP’s are secured cannot be discussed because of the sensitive beyond Top Secret nature in which it is done.

              5. Unlike individuals with the highest Top Secret SCI access security clearances, who must undergo a special background information with periodic “bring-up” background investigation, those tiny few who have access to SAP’s must also endure periodic polygraph tests in addition to the most comprehensive of special background investigations. I used to have to schedule four-star generals and admirals to be polygraphed in order for them to maintain their access to my SAP. Many generals and admirals who obviously have the highest security clearances still did not rate being indoctrinated into my SAP. In fact, they didn’t even know the SAP existed.

              6. Compromise of a SAP is the single most dangerous security violation that can ever happen to the USA. Even the enormously damaging revelations of the Edward Snowden’s TOP Secret SCI security compromise does not reach the level of a SAP compromise.

              7. To put SAP information in to an unsecure sever like Hillary Clinton’s unsecure server is a class one felony that could, in some cases, result in life in prison. That is because such a compromise is so dangerous that it could and likely will result in the death of people protected by and within the scope of the SAP.

              As a former SAP Program Manager I believe it is inconceivable that if it is verified that Hillary Clinton’s server actually had SAP information on it that she could possibly escape indictment and criminal prosecution. As hard as it is to imagine, that would even be worse then electing to not prosecute a mass murdering serial killer because even they could not inflict as much damage on our country as the compromise of a SAP. Compromise of a SAP not only could — but without doubt would — cause serious damage to our national security.

              If it is true that Hillary Clinton had SAP information on her unsecure server, whether it was marked or not, you can be sure that the FBI will strongly recommend that charges be brought against Hillary Clinton and continue in an exhaustive investigation to trace back to every single person that had even the tiniest role in this unbelievable security compromise.

              If the Attorney General, through “prosecutorial discretion,” elected not to prosecute this crime, I believe congress would have no alternative but to impeach her, and the FBI would then have no choice but to conduct a criminal investigation of her for a deliberate cover up –- so grave is this security violation.

              If President Obama were to pardon Hillary Clinton for a compromise of this magnitude he would render himself in the historical record as an “enemy of the state,” and could himself face criminal prosecution –- so grave is such a security compromise. Nobody, not even the POTUS could gets away with something like this in our system of government. If anyone could escape persecution for compromising a SAP, we are deep trouble as a nation. No president who loves this country and is true to his oath would ever allow anyone, not even his or her closest and most loved relative, to get away with a SAP compromise. It is simply unimaginable that this could ever happen.

              If the ongoing investigation finds that Hillary Clinton compromised a SAP, then we all should know with certainty, regardless of political persuasion, that she is entirely unfit to hold public office of any kind let alone President of the USA — and ALL Americans should never tolerate it. Compromising a SAP is an absolute “disqualifier” for public office and access to our nations most sensitive information – period.

              ED COET

              Major, US Army (Retired)

            • When I said upper atmosphere I meant the troposphere rather than surface temperatures, thus NOAA’s ground data is a poor indicator… Temperature station on the ground is not a way to measure the energy trapped by CO2 in the troposphere….

              • Sorry, you are still wrong. The lower troposphere heats the most because it receives heat both from the sun and from the ground.

                Ground heat is ultimately solar in origin but the energy comes almost entirely from the full spectrum of sunlight, that has been converted to heat by absorption by the earth’s surface.

                • All heat is solar in origin, unless you consider geothermal which is negligible. According to John Christy the upper troposphere should warm before the ground. He is far from the only scientist who have indicated as such. I think you are not comprehending. This is not about actual temp, but rather changes in temp. Of-course the temperatures are warmest near the ground, everybody know as you climb in elevation, temps drop. This has to do with CHANGES in temperature. Higher levels of the troposphere should be increasing over time if the models are correct. They are not increasing to the extent expected, because the models are wrong.

                    • Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the system. The thermosphere is practically a vacuum. It hardly represents temperature in the capacity that we are discussing. Despite being over 2000 degrees, that temp would be harmless as only a few molecules would actually make contact with you at any instant. This is typical of your efforts. John Christy is only refuted by eviro-cons like you.

                      Carbon dioxide is the basis of the entire food chain on Earth. The dynamic equilibrium in which the biosphere scrubs and sequesters from the atmosphere bottoms out around 200 ppm. Anything below that, and life starts to wither and die, and the equilibrium shifts to an increase… Geologically and biologically speaking, the atmosphere is CO2 deficient, thank God we are increasing CO2 levels, fertilizing the planet, feeding the biosphere, greening the planet and making it healthier. Do you hate life? Why do you hate living organisms? Why do you hate the biosphere?

                    • Remember the population explosion alarmists? And now all the European politicians who took it seriously have to import millions of middle easterners to repopulate a graying and basically dying Europe. Some crap with global warming. In a few years they’re gonna try and figure out how to warm the planet.

                    • The world can sustain a population of around 800 million. Current population 7,000 million.

                      With a temperature increase of 6’C it is estimated that the maximum sustainable human population will be around 500,000 people.

                    • Well then, you should be all FOR global warming, shouldn’t you? Two birds with one stone, right?

                    • You apparently didn’t see a recent article about Americans being too fat and that the world may have too much food? Where did you get those patently absurd number from?

                    • Corchem – I was thinking the exact same thing – there’s no tangible energy at those altitudes, it’s low vacuum. 🙂
                      But you’re arguing against a religious zealot, he will not see reason. It’s puzzling why his kind refuses to “allow” debate. If VendicantMendicant were a uni prof, he’d have you escorted out, that’d be his knee-jerk reaction – a “bring some muscle” type.

                    • “have you escorted out” – ThomasTheTrain

                      Yup. There are no liars permitted in my classroom.

                    • Ha ha – immediately resorting to childish ad hominems – dead giveaway that you’re a liberal tool. All emotions and no brain.

                    • “Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the system.” – Corchem

                      Completely wrong. If you had taken grade 10 science you would have been introduced to thermodynamics and would know that temperature is defined in terms of the relative rates of change of energy and entropy.

                      “Despite being over 2000 degrees” – Corchem

                      Yup, The thermosphere is hot. Much hotter than the earth’s surface.

                      Your claim that the surface layer of the atmosphere is hotter than the rest of the atmosphere.

                      Your claim was false.

                    • Now I know you are a lying idiot. My statement was about the troposphere, and a general statement.

                      Entropy is a function of temperature, not the other way around. According to you something cannot be considered temperature unless change in energy is taking place. I have a degree in geology/chemistry and have been teaching chemistry for 23 years, you have shown at times some basic knowledge, but now you have gone off the deep end. You have indicated that less data is better and that temperature is the rate of change in energy. You said that Phil Jones did not lose the data, when he himself indicated that he no longer has the raw data…

                      You are simply a lost soul, and you mock and insult others, which indicative of what kind of human being you are… Why do you hate life?

                    • “Carbon dioxide is the basis of the entire food chain on Earth.” – Corchem

                      Your statement is pretty meaningless. Couldn’t you also say that water was the basis of the entire food chain? There is certainly more water in any living thing than CO2.

                      “Geologically and biologically speaking, the atmosphere is CO2 deficient”

                      There is no geologic need for CO2 to be at any level so it can not be said that CO2 is geologically deficient.

                      Rocks don’t care how much CO2 there is in the air.

                      Some plants use CO2 inefficiently and can use more CO2, Others are more efficient and don’t have much use for more of it in the air.

                      Most plants have already reached their capacity for absorbing CO2 because they lack other trace elements, and can not metabolize any more CO2.

                      Overall, we are at the end of the positive aspect of CO2 fertilization.

                    • Next question. Why is global warming bad? Has there been mass extinction events from a warmer planet or from a colder in planet? Will there be enough crops to support the human population if the earth warms or cools? The last ice age seemed to ripe out human civilization while the warm periods have shown great expansion in the human population. I just do not see a bad result from a warmer planet.

                  • “Higher levels of the troposphere should be increasing over time if the models are correct.” – Corchem

                    True.

                    “They are not increasing to the extent expected, because the models are wrong.” – Corchem

                    All models are wrong. So what?

                    There is no model that models the action of a spring exactly.

                    This doesn’t prevent springs from being used in machines all over the world with great success.

                    Basic science eludes you.

                    • Unfortunately the IPCC models based on guys like Jones and Mann are not just wrong, they are way off. There is uncertainty in everything. No measurement, is certain. But the climate models are not even close…

                    • Liar.. Liar… Pants on fire…

                      “Unfortunately the IPCC models based on guys like Jones and Mann are not just wrong, they are way off.” – Corchem

                      The following plot shows how well the AR5 models match observation.

                    • I have no idea who you are but am beyond delighted to read your intelligent and robust comments. Apparently there is reason to be hopeful still. Thank you.

                    • This is the satellite record that Denialists have been for years claiming was the best data we have.

                      Now that it contradicts with denilaist doctrine, suddenly it is being “adjusted” to prove the warmest’s point.

                      it would seem that your argument is not based on data but a personal preference on how nature must operate to please you.

                      Nature doesn’t respect your Conservative ideology.

                      Neither does any rational, thinking person.

            • “From the standpoint of an anthropological view, a religion is a collective set of beliefs. There is a leader (or leaders) who promote the beliefs among the followers. The followers make some kind of
              contribution, or change in their lifestyle based on their religious belief. The religious belief gives them a total view of the world in terms of how the world is structured: what’s right, what’s wrong, what’s good action, what’s bad action…”
              -Michael Crichton, “environmentalism as religion”

              Kudos on your contributions to what you believe in, Vendi. Keep the faith!

            • Pssst- all warming is caused by the sun. Talk about mentally ill! Water vapor accounts for 99% of the planets insulation and humans contribute less than 3% of the remaining 1% of greenhouse gases.

              • Fool,
                Look up the satellite temp data for the last 20 years.
                If you’re looking for fools, don’t stand there with your hands on your waist looking around for someone else.
                Just walk into the bathroom and look in the mirror.
                Fool.

                • Here is the satellite data. Looks like significant warming to me.

                  If it doesn’t look like warming to you then perhaps you need to get an 8 year old child to tell you how to read a graph.

                  • The problem is when scientists try to shut down other scientists who have problems with research they are peer reviewing then part of the process involved in the scientific method is being monkeyed with and it makes it impossible for us laymen to believe in the good faith of one set or other of scientists. This is made worse by the fact that Universities which do the research have begun to shut down opinions that are not politically correct; even scientific opinions can be political in implication. As a result people feel they are being manipulated; they are right. Therefore, throughout the western world we no longer trust our leaders and so-called elites, most of whom are trained in our Universities.
                    So showing us graphs to support your position doesn’t work; we no longer trust what is behind them.

                    • “We no longer trust” – hopalong_insanity

                      And that is why America is entering into a neo-dark era.

                      The world is laughing at you.

                    • And you have just shown another reason why intelligent people no longer believe those of you who associate themselves, mentally, with our corrupt elites. Instead of arguments showing why the data behind your graphs can trusted you have merely offered mockery and insults. You have not said a single word sympathically addressing my reasons for distrust. Do I misunderstand what is going on in the peer review process? Am I wrong about political correctness in Universities? Are people not being manipulated? All you have offered is insults. Until reasonable dialogue between scientists of differing views can be re-established western education and civilization will continue to sink into the abyss.

                    • Incidentally, I tend to agree that there has been some warming (but I doubt the extent) just by my personal experience and reading over the last 5 decades. But that is not what the argument is about; its really about the causes, if global warming really is occurring and is it natural or man-made? If its manmade that is an excuse for the elites to control the rest of us: for our own good of course!!!

                    • Paul Clark,
                      a British software developer. using sources from the usual suspects of globalist con-ology

                    • NASA, NOAA, UAH, MET, JMA, BEST, they are all essentially the same results using different methods and produced by different teams of scientists.

                      Here is a comparison between the various different temperature reconstructions.

                    • What a load of propaganda bs. all this supposed “evidence” in your graphs and charts was garbage in, garbage out, lie, lies, more lies. Supposed rising temps coming from thermometers placed on hot roof surfaces at airports, fake hockey stick tree ring data and on and on, run along propagandist,

                    • If you think that all of the worlds hundreds of thousands of scientists are ling to you, then you have a screw loose, and need to see a psychiatrist before you hurt yourself, or someone else.

                      You are a kook who needs to be medicated.

                    • LOL, says the obsessive lunatic who has spent the last five hours on a web com box forum debating himself. Manifesto much?

                    • The wood for trees site allows you to conveniently plot the latest data sets from various temperature reconstructions.

                      The site does a good job of keeping the data up to date.

                      I can point you to different sites that do the same thing if you like. Or point you to the individual science teams who produce the data.

                      All of the plots will use the same data.

                    • And yet it is corroborated by the satellite data.

                      You know the satellite data that denialists have been claiming is the best data we have.

                    • Update for the satellite record for March 2016.

                      Look at that spectacular spike in temperatures on the right.

                    • The kind of replies that you have recently been giving above is an improvement from giving insults, thank you. It makes me more inclined to accept that global warming may be occurring, I suspected it anyway. I am still very uncertain as to how much of it is manmade and how much natural. A small change in the sun can make more difference than all human history. Climate goes in natural cycles. After all Greenland a thousand years ago was populated by Vikings until it got too cold.

                    • What you need to do is use google scholar to find out how much of the ongoing warming is man made.

                      The scientific term for what you are looking for is “attribution”.

                      The IPCC however has done the work for you, and produced a synopsis report of the best science as it is known.

                      All the information you need can be found here.

                      Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis

                      https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html

                      My advice is to avoid Climate Depot. It’s purpose is to feed you false information.

                  • Awesome that you showed this chart, but let Climate-change deniers produce data that defends their position — not the other way around. It’s too easy to stuff donuts in their mouth, as they type “wrong” on their keyboard as armchair critics. Make them work for it.

                    • Scary scary cattle farts causing the global I’m mean climate I mean frost oh shoot hot buttered popcorn it’s tv time

                    • “What are we comparing to?”

                      You poor boy. You don’t know how to read a simple graph. You compare it to the scale on the left.

                      If you can’t figure it it, get an 8 year old to explain it to you.

                    • Ya, there are at least several dozen of them now. Each using different data and different methods done by different people.

                      You did know that, didn’t you?

                  • First paragraph.

                    “A group of scientists is offering a sobering forecast for the year 2020, the planets average temperature hitting a 10,000 year high, and the worlds oceans surging an average of 83 feet inland.” – 1988

                    1988-2020 = 32 years. Ocean rise = 3.3mm per years over 30 years = 99.0 mm.

                    Since the average coastal incline is 3 degrees this corresponds to a inland movement of the ocean by 6 feet.

                    However, by 2100 the inland surge will be 18 feet, and the total equilibrium expansion of the oeans will come in somewhere around 100 feet presuming no additional CO2 is added to the atmospher beyond a doubling.

                    As to global temperatures, they have already exceeded 10,000 years are are now warmer than at any time in the last 120,000 years.

          • they aren’t liars, they are just people who put their faith in computer models that had no basis and no confirmed proven algorithms. It is a lot like people believing on the medrx diagnosis as seen on the internet. Not liars, just not terribly brilliant.

                    • So you want to murder people to maintain your standard of living.

                      Thanks for the Republican perspective.

                      How long have you been an enemy of Christ?

                    • How long have you prayed at the Altar of Logical Fallacy?

                      (Send the RNC your address, they can start there)

                    • Do you know that the media and elected officials are lying about the threats from the middle east, immigrants and Islam? Go be a Christian, woman or gay in Saudi Arabia and see where your head hits the sand!.
                      Do you know that Standard and Poors, Moodys, Alan Greenspan, President Clinton, etc. all lied about the housing and mortgage market? Yes, President Clinton created the no income, no down payment mortgage!
                      Do you know that PhDs and MDs lied about the effects of blows to the head in football, concussion syndromes?
                      Yes, climate scientists are lying to make themselves relevant and make money. There may be some climate changes, but climate does change without the help of or cause of man. One volcanic eruption produces more dangerous CO2 gases than man can create in ten years. And, there are eruptions every year.
                      Go find your Democrat liar hole and park yourself in it.

                    • I would rather sell my cloak and buy a sword to defend my self. And then use the sword to murder people that would murder me. Is that what you mean by following Christ words?


                    • He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

                      The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

                      “That is enough,” he replied.

                      Christ says nothing about murdering people who would murder him.

                      Why do you feel a need to lie about what the Bible says?

                      You must be mentally ill.

                    • Numbers 35:21
                      Or if out of enmity one person hits another with their fist so that the other dies, that person is to be put to death; that person is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when they meet.
                      We can trade chapter and verse all day long, because that the beauty of the Bible.

                      I still choose to have my sword and use it and meet the murdering Muslim as the “Avenger of blood”, even if I have to do it by proxy! Now go play with your muslim friends!

                    • So you would not defend yourself or family if others threatened you with death? Christ never said you must submit to evil.

                    • If that is your motivation then you should be acting to limit global production of CO2, since mankind is heading for an extinction level event without such action.

                • Government grants are also the bedrock funding source for all universities in the “Land Grant” category. It has become the most efficient delivery of government propaganda in the history of the world.

              • Scream that your ‘study’ show a ‘trend’ in an environmental “issue” and apply for grant after grant after grant to ‘study’ it further… open a ‘non-profit’ and collect ‘donations’ to ‘raise awareness’… Live the good life without ever having to produce anything real!

              • Vindicar has yet to allow either logic or knowledge to pass into his mind. He always toes the liberal line and is completely closed to any other ideas. I only say this because… well, you know, arguing with fence posts and such.

                  • YES, YOU ARE THAT STUPID, VD. Sorry I asked.

                    You’re a full-fledged DUMBSMACK

                    You must’ve missed the memo about the ice sheets that covered most of North America and Europe until they began receding around 18,000 years ago.

                    Ah, those were the good old days. All those cave men driving their gas-guzzling SUVs just for the hell of it. Coal-fired electrical power plants, spewing toxic waste all over the hemisphere. It was a hoot.

                  • “The globe is now warmer than at any time in the last 120,000 years.”
                    Wow, your graph only goes back to 1995…
                    Give up you knuckle-dragger; this science stuff is more complicated than a few graphs..

                  • The data for the medieval warm period and the late Roman republic warm period both refute your statement that “the globe is now warmer than at any time in the last 120K years.” And there was a decided lack of petroleum industry, power plants, and internal combusion during those two events — at least I’ll go out on a limb to make that assertion! So there must be another factor other than human beings driving periodic cycles in earth’s history. Could it be “the sun?”

                    • No, TimG you are a conspiracy theorist, the sun couldn’t possibly affect the climate. You must be insane to think that!!!

                    • “the medieval warm period” – TimG

                      Was – as the following graph shows – a regional pipsqueak.

                      Just like you.

            • What do you call a group that lowers the tempatures in the database for the last 150 years?
              That when the Temperature does not increase as predicted, just ignore the convenient facts?
              That continue to present doomsday scenerios to get more funding?

              • Which scientists are lying?

                The Scientists at NASA?

                The Scientists at the NOAA?

                The Scientists at the MET who produce the Hadcrut temperature reconstruction?

                The Scientists at BEST who produce the BEST temperature reconstruction?

                The Scientists at JMO who produce the JMO temperature reconstruction?

                The Scientists who produce the UAH satellite temperature reconstruction?

                The Scientists who produce the RSS satellite temperature reconstruction?

                ….

            • When one is paid in money and prestige and security and success for coming to certain conclusions it’s fundamentally dishonest. Maybe they aren’t all malignant in their error, but the conclusions they draw are lies. For the very same reason that judges are forced to recuse themselves when they have a perusal interest in a case, these “scientists” have been profoundly influenced to false conclusions — and they know it. Those computer models and false assumptions lead only in one direction. If they were being honest but mistaken there would would be more randomness in their findings.

            • My guess is that you are correct, and I like to take it one step deeper.

              I have come in contact with many people who are very intelligent and well-educated, who just happened to be exposed to a “very worthy cause” during their formulative years. The “problem” sounds so urgent and the “solution” so evident, that these folks embrace the cause with their hearts instead of their minds. They are unable to see that the theories and studies being conducted to support them have not been run through the rigorous steps of any scientific method. By the time the truth comes their way, they are so firmly engaged in falsehoods that they are unable to wrap their heads around it.

              Of course, most of these people have little or no scientific training to help them find the truth. There are, however, many who are actually trained in the field of climate science who know the truth but also know, as has already been pointed out in these comments, that there are no funds available to prove their own theories false. These people are, in the true sense of the word, LIARS!

              • One I do know, having spent 40 years working in aerospace science with NASA is James Hansen, a global coolist till we investigated Venus. By then his division was running out of money and Apollo was winding down and he needed the budget. So he notice Venus was HOT and had a lot of clouds of CO2. Then and only then did he relate cloud cover to warming. His thesis was a gradual heating up that would only end at 800 degrees F surface temp as was Venus. He discounted the major reasons for Venus heat most notably the about 30 million miles close to the sun part, the year length and of course A Venus day is longer than a year making the planets atmospheric dynamic totally different than earths. And of course there is no moon and no tide to speak of because the same side of Venus almost always faces the sun. But the idiots out there bought his goofy ideas and they funded his organization. Since then it has been one manufactured crisis in the making if they are not funded even more. And of course many businesses have grown up around this philosophy each claiming to save the planet, reduce co2 and grow wheat on hard stone. So now we have whoring scientists competing for dollars. And all thanks to the defunding of the Space Program and the resulting NASA budget crunch (Most notably at Goddard Center) in the late 60’s – early 70’s. It may be hard to believe but the EPA and Global Warming were Nixon’s fault.

            • I’m sorry jabusse, but these liars are not innocents ‘who put their faith in models’. They built the models and they lied about the programming, and they lied–and continue to lie–about the new data plugged in. they are not dupes or to be excused. They are dangerous cohorts of a dangerous government trying to take away your way of life. Wake up!

              • OK so you think they are smart and lying for dollars and I think they are not very smart and lying for dollars. The real damaging ones are the believers who follow these folks. Lemming legislation.

            • It’s not a matter of faith. It’s a matter of intentionally-foul data manipulation and propaganda orchestration. Just like any computer program, a computer model can be made to indicate anything one desires.

              • I employed a number of them Archie. I know what they are doing. And I know nothing they do or say or find out will make one bit of difference in the future of our planet. They are trolling for dollars, nothing more.

          • Look, the “normal” climate for the globe IS sudden extreme changes.

            Sediment layers from fresh water lakes and the seven seas show
            sudden climate changes. There have been 20 sudden climate changes affecting the entire globe in the last 110,000 years.

            The industrial age and subsequent pollution is not a tipping
            point. Ice core samples prove this.

            The Earth’s climate fluctuations show rapid and extreme changes
            BEFORE any recorded human history and certainly predicates another rapid change regardless of any human fossil fuel burning footprint.

            • You’re right in general but you’re giving ground when you seem to acknowledge the accuracy of this phony chart. Don’t accept contrived mendacity. The actual mean temperature of the planet is not even knowable now, much less historically. It mainly involves estimates which are based on very flimsy information and skewed in the direction that the climate “scientists” require for them to continue to hold the public hostage and profit thereby. If the remedy for this fabricated affliction was lower taxes, no redistribution of wealth, less government control, less global governance, etc. you’d never hear it spoken of again. Don’t be duped by any of it.

              • Visit the arctic, greenland, etc – look at the coastal situation in the USA ..it is easy to argue but the truth is in the vision of reality- not your imagination. No one is asking you to sacrifice anything for “global warming” … drive your car – run your air conditioning … capitalism is solving the problem as we produce more oil in the short term and evolve to a less dependent society in the long term. Even Saudi Arabia is going solar ! If You like the old way move to Cuba where they have fuel efficient cars you would like to drive. Or better yet move to the Amazon and use charcoal to cook – that is real defiance of the “new world order” !

            • Liar… Liar… Pants on fire

              “Look, the “normal” climate for the globe IS sudden extreme changes.” – Thomas

              If that were true then mankind wouldn’t exist.

              What makes you lie like that? Are you mentally ill?

          • And yet, the real deniers would have us believe that 1700 station’s data should be more than enough information to settle the argument. Really? That means those 1700 stations supposedly accurately tell us what the average temperature they proclaim to speak for, cover 38,000 square miles each. Sure, why not?. I can drive 2.5 miles and see a temperature change of 2 – 3 degrees. but that should be of no concern to any of us. Experts have told us not to pay any attention to the man behind the curtain, so who are we to peek behind that curtain? Shame on anyone that would question these ‘brilliant’ men and women that tell us the truth and aren’t influenced by the trillions of dollars world governments pour into this ‘science’ for they certainly have no other interest than our welfare, because after all, ALL governments are altruistic, and only care about the welfare of their citizens. Laughably, liberals believe that and don’t vomit in their mouths when spouting these absurdities.

          • Just look at the collider, They spent what, 8 billion dollars to find some particle that in their minds would dis-prove God? In the end, all that work, all that hype, only proved that NO ONE at all could be alive. Where was all the coverage on that? This actually proves God’s existence and the folly of Man. Of course; not a word from either your Government or the press. Yeah, they never cared about the truth. How about the Big Bang theory; that was disproved the moment the Hubble was fixed. Did you even know that? Hubble shows galaxies forming all the time. With no Big Bang Theory, there is no radio carbon dating. Carbon dating assumes the Big Bang Theory.

            Did anyone reading this even know any of this stuff? If not, WHY NOT?

          • Excellent post. Add this is too. Temperature change alone is not a sufficient measure to fully assess whether the heat retention capacity of the atmosphere is increasing. The issue is one of heat, and temperature is somewhat of a proxy for heat.

            Is the amount of heat retained in the atmosphere increasing, less able to radiate to space at the same rate due to increasing levels of CO2. That is the issue.

            Yes, we would expect temperature on the whole to increase. But consider this. An equal unit temperature change in air that contains little water vapor represents less heat change than the same unit temperature change in moist, water vapor rich air, that represents much great change in heat.
            Put in other words it takes much more heat to effect a unit temperature change in moist air than it does similar temperature change in dry air.

            Arctic air is dry, contains little water vapor. Recent relative warmth in the arctic (relative so instead of averaging say -40F it is -35F, so everything is still frozen solid) is pointed to as evidence of AGW. But that change in average temps requires much less heat addition than were the moist tropical regions of Earth to cool, that represents a much greater heat loss.

            A one unit temp change in the arctic does not represent the same amount of heat budget as a one unit temp change in the tropics. But yet this is how the calculations are done, +2 F in some arctic station would added to say a -1F change in some tropical reporting station, and the result reported would be temps increased by +1F. This would not be correct. Much more heat was lost by the proxy measure of -1F in the tropics than heat gained by the +2F in the arctic.

            Couple this with the fact that the global models, their physics, demand the temperature increase take place in the tropics (where the air is moist) not in the arctic.

            There is more. In winters where arctic air is displaced off the pole and moves southward into latitudes where people live, these are the harsh winters that cause hardship and potentially prolonged winter seasons, shortened growing seasons. Yet when this happens the avg arctic temperature would necessarily be warmer than if it were bottled up in the arctic, unable to penetrated southward due to a prevailing weather pattern. Then in such case the arctic would be colder than normal.

            So a warmer than normal arctic could mean that winters are more extreme where people live. I could go on…there is much more…and little supports this global warming theory.

            If you have the time….go back 20 years and you can find any number of ridiculous doomsday predictions that have not verified…the threat always looms in the future, and when that date arrives and the threat did not materialize, no one is called to account for the failed prediction, memory loss, and new doomsday threats are created.

            • What you are talking about is heat capacity. Water has a very high heat capacity as a liquid, and half as large as vapor, but still large. You could not be more correct, moist air at 25 degrees has much more latent energy that the same amount of dry air at 25 degrees.

              Everything comes down to this, the “brilliant climatologist” made their predictions, and the real data over time as proven them wrong. End of story…

        • It depends on which of the Liars calls it man made or not. Man has caused a great of pollution. Man has not caused the earths climate to change. That is why the frauds have dropped the” man made” part of the fraud.

              • The evidence of warming comes from direct observation, both via surface thermometers, ocean thermometers, and satellite sounding sensors.

                The anthropogenic part comes via calculations that you don’t have the capacity to understand.

                So it is proven to those of use who have the capacity to understand science.

                But to the ignorant it can no more be proven than it can be proven to them that they (you) are ignorant.

                You are simply too ignorant to appreciate how ignorant you are.

                That is why the ignorant are incapable of producing science.

                • Science is not something one “produces”, but what one merely “observes”. If you are producing something, methinks it’s not science that you are keen on extruding out of your pie hole…

                  • Science is not observation, it is a process of making observation, producing a theory to encapsulate those observations, the observations are a result of that process.

                    You don’t know what the scientific method is.

                • “Dueling Datasets: Satellite Temperatures Reveal the ‘Global Warming Pause’ Lengthens to 18 years 2 months – (218 Months)”

                  Read more: http://testclimate.wpengine.com/2014/12/04/duelling-data-sets-satellite-temperatures-reveal-the-global-warming-pause-lengthens-to-18-years-2-months-218-months/#ixzz44oZkWyzG

                  This contradicts your propaganda.

                  Only one lying here is you. But that’s what happens when a religious zealot blindly follows a faith.

                  • Here is what the scientist who produces RSS says about his data set.

                    Measurement Errors:

                    As a data scientist, I am among the first to acknowledge that all climate

                    datasets likely contain some errors. However, I have a hard time believing

                    that both the satellite and the surface temperature datasets have errors large

                    enough to account for the model/observation differences. For example, the

                    global trend uncertainty (2-sigma) for the global TLT trend is around 0.03 K/

                    decade (Mears et al. 2011). Even if 0.03 K/decade were added to the best-

                    estimate trend value of 0.123 K/decade, it would still be at the extreme low

                    end of the model trends. A similar, but stronger case can be made using

                    surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than

                    satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the

                    various satellite datasets do!). So I don’t think the problem can be explained

                    fully by measurement errors.” – Carl Mears – RSS Systems

                    “Some of the interannual wiggles are bigger in RSS, and since 1998 or something

                    like that, we’re showing less [warming] than the surface datasets. I suspect

                    that’s at least partly due to a problem in our dataset, probably having to do

                    with the [time-of-day] correction. It could be an error in the surface datasets,

                    but the evidence suggests that they’re more reliable than the satellite

                    datasets,” – Carl Mears – RSS Systems

                    http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

                    “We’ve done numerous papers with Ben Santer from [Lawrence Livermore National

                    Laboratory], where he’s compared the patterns that we see to the patterns that

                    the climate models predict, and we’ve shown that without including greenhouse

                    gas changes in the climate models, you cannot get the amount of warming that we

                    see,” – Carl Mears – RSS Systems

                    http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

            • Clearly?
              Clearly Cook (and others) have conducted rigged surveys that amount to scientific malpractice. Cook says that 97% of climate scientists agree that most global warming is anthropogenic when only 0.3% of the abstracts made such a claim. Cook’s true motivation was revealed by his emails showing his “strategy” to publicize results that were not yet available.

              • “Clearly nothing you Liar and fraud.” – Rick Spoth

                I’m not sure what you are complaining about.

                Are you trying to say that Climate Depot is lying when they report snow in the Caribbean in spring, Or are you calling me a liar for indicating to you that that is what they have reported.

                You just seem to be angry that the world is not turning out how your Republican political ideology insists that it must.

                I don’t think that nature respects your political ideology.

                Neither does any honest, thinking person.

                The earth is now warmer than at any time in the last 120.000 years.

          • You sound like a kook.

            Do you have any evidence that NASA is lying, when it’s temperature reconstruction is corroborated by at least 6 other temperature reconstructions, two of which are made by satellites, and one of which is partly funded by the Conservative Koch brothers?

              • Warming of the Arctic has caused the naturally occurring waves in the jet stream to become much “taller”, and extend both to higher and lower latitudes.

                So what we see is greater variability on top of higher overall temperatures.

                This is also what the models predict, and it has been what Scientists have been telling you for decades.

                Where have you been hiding your brain?

            • Only person who looks like a kook here is you. Government funds “climate science” through government agencies which all tell us there is a problem with climate and the only solution to this problem is even more government.

              Lynch stated she wanted to go after “Big Oil” for a RICO claim however It’s obvious that when a government funds “science” which states there is a problem and the only solution is even more government it doesn’t take much of an IQ to note that is a classic textbook case for a RICO case against the government.

              Both NASA and NOAA have both been proven to artificially manipulate data to favor globull warming while completely ignoring decades of highly accurate satellite data which directly contradicts their manipulated data. If that isn’t enough real world empirical evidence such as antarctic ice sheets gaining record breaking mass, etc. which directly contradicts the globull warming alarmist propaganda is.

              Your globull warming religion is a failed ideology.

            • I wondered how long you’d go before pulling out the “Koch Brothers” bogyman. Liberal towing the liberal lies and trotting out the bogeyman du jour of the leftists, is all you are, naked now for us all to see as such. Go troll somewhere else…

              • The Koch brothers in part paid for the Berkeley Earth temperature reconstruction.

                That reconstruction confirmed the reconstructions by NASA, NOAA, JMA, and MET and the others.

                What are you objecting too? Facts?

        • Settle down there skippy. We have bigger things to worry about–like the BILLION muslims on this planet that want to cut your head off because you don’t convert to their religion.

          The earth has–and always will–go through periods of climate change, some of them extreme. The only true IMPACT humans have had on this planet amounts to three things: Oil spills, nuclear meltdowns and continually dumping garbage in the ocean. If we could eliminate those three things, we would be in a much, much better place.

        • You don’t need Scientists to confirm Climate Change. The Earth has experienced Climate Change since it was formed a few Billion years ago. Climate Change will continue for the foreseeable future. The lying is propagated by interested parties that Man is responsible so a transfer of wealth can begin from the developed nations to the the Third World Nations. Of course the UN and the Globalist Elites who control the MSM will take their cut using the “Carbon Credit Mechanism” that will have absolutely no impact on our Climate. Only the Rich will get Richer and Government Bureaucrats will get paid handsome salaries with generous Pensions while the middle Class and poor pay higher taxes and utility bills. .

        • I suspect every single entity you quote lives off govt money. Not a single employee of any of these entities would keep his job if he got the wrong answer.

          Reflect on that.

          Then, read the history of climate. Be sure to include paper books written before the scare became official dogma, like before 1965. Read about Greenland and the Viking colonization during the Medieval Warm Period (name has been changed to the Medieval Weather Anomaly) , for example, They either call Eric the Red a liar (It was never green) or they say it was a local weather event. They still can’t can’t their story consistent.

          It is all lies. There is no doubt about it. A question you should ask yourself: Are you a fool or a tool or both?

        • I vote for all of them that depend on the government for their paychecks and research grants. You can’t get a single dollar/Pound/Euro for any research that does not contain the words Global Warming/Climate Change in the title and twice in the first paragraph.

        • NASA claimed that 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded– 10 weeks later they admitted they lied. They tried to claim they had a 37% chance at the time to be right. but the November of 2014 broke over 14000 cold records in the lower 48. Then they refused to share the data used to make such a statement. Last i heard Congress was needing a court order to get it. After Science admitted the 3rd time they fugged data, after being caught. I kinda wondered how many times the never got caught. I tend to believe some of the most educated Climate Scientist on this planet . Some have a educational pedigree longer than your leg. They tour the lecture circuit, delivering climate Hoax speeches. Which is on youtube for anyone viewing.And their credentials is posted up front. That is if you have a open mind— and plenty of time to view page after page of ” Its a scam speech” All of them, have 2 things in common. 1- They are not on the Government payrolled. 2–and are hated by their peers that are.

          • Sorry, but you just don’t understand statistics.

            2014 was indeed the warmest year on record. But yes due to the statistical nature of the observations there is a change that it might not be.

            Both statements can be true at the same time.

            The first statement is true based on the mean.

            The second statement is true based on the standard deviation.

            If you had actually taken a class in elementary statistics you wouldn’t have just made yourself look like a fool.

            You would be humiliated if you actually had a clue.

            My goodness, you are ignorant.

            • You have me at a disadvantage— In that I can never call a man stupid, or a fool. Unless, I am standing within arms reach. I was taught that from a kid. As a X-coal miner, you warmist helped retire– I believe there is enough left of me, to teach you some manners, your parents failed at. If you want to hock up ??? Most of you keyboard commandos belittle other from a distance. You warmist would be funny, that is if your warped beliefs hadn’t cost so many jobs. Here is facts you cannot disprove, all this articles appeared on Yahoo news– or Drudge.

              1. scientist sail a ship to the ice cap to prove melting– after 4 attempts, by 3 different countries, they are freed from frozen ice.

              2.Polar bear hunting permits increase with numbers. Great snowy owls build nests further south, than ever seen before— both animals was projected to be gone by now.

              3. 2013 came and gone– Al Gore’s NY city still above water. Convenient Lie exposed

              4. NASA proclaims 2014 hottest year ever– 10 weeks later admit it is a lie.

              5. November 2014– Over 1400 cold records broken in the lower 48

              6. 2014-15, Great lakes froze over 2 years straight, first time ever— 2014 was the 3rd largest ever recorded

              7. 2015– 4th of July and snow piles of buffalo not melted

              8. 2011– warmist proclaim snow fall is a thing of the past— 2015, 90% of the annual snow fall records in the New England states are broken

              9. 2015–Yale University– postpones climate protests— do to horrible cold weather

              10. Warmist claim that Non-believers are uneducated, and fail to understand evidence. Both groups are given a simple climate test, to prove that point— Non-believers post higher test scores than believers

              11. after government funded science admits to fudging data 3 different times–. they still can’t believe Non-believers reject their proofs ??

              12. 2013– Obama orders all federal employees and funded agencies to stop using the term Global Warming— Failure to use Climate Change term, could trigger discipline

              13.2015 government funded science refuses to turn over data that leads to their conclusions. Congress seeks legal way to obtain it. ALL fact

              14. January 2016 –24 hour snow snow record is broken in DC and NY city.

        • Not John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel: he HAS the data from the 1930’s on and we are not even in a warming period. We go through several decades of warming then cooling regularly. In Georgia, we also go through wet and dry periods lasting about 15 years apiece. I’m old and have observed these things myself.

            • That particular graph only looks so good because it falls into the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy:
              a) Most of the graph is hindcasting. THAT part is rather easy (doesn’t take a supercomputer to create simple model matching the past 😉 )
              b) The AR4 “model average” baseline has been modified to make it look good. I kid you not.

              If you graph the FAR, SAR, TAR and AR4 future scenarios against the temperature data, baselined the way THEY baselined when the predictions were made (ie without allowing tweaking after the fact), you will find that:
              1) For surface temps, almost all of the models were too warm even at the 95 percentile level, let alone means;
              2) For lower troposphere, ALL of them were too warm.

              And the modelers are starting to admit this. They need new modules for their models to incorporate more of the negative feedback / buffering effects of earth’s actual climate system. They have no way to “cool” their models enough to match reality. Not a problem except it means they have a lot of work to do, and in the meantime their projections are off by quite a lot.

              Gotta go. G’night.

            • Nope, just someone who wised up to a-s-s clowns like you who think a children’s story (Chicken Little) is actually how the world works. So, Chicken Little (although the second word for you is actually a 4 letter word that starts with s and ends with t) the world has been warming since the end of the last ice age about 12000 years ago. Are you truly so stupid to think that mankind can actually impact the world so profoundly? Is so, you’re the clown and a doofus too boot. You win the booby prize of the day. Enjoy.

              Riddle me this Batman, if mankind was not industrialized 12000 years ago, how did the last ice age end and global warming begin?

        • The temperature data is “factored”. Raw data is not used. Depending how big the factoring is, you can show either global warming or cooling. If you show warming, you get big government grants. Show cooling, and get ridiculed and no grants.

          • Not sure what you mean by “factoring” but kooks often use their own words for things they don’t understand.

            Raw data of course is the basis of all measurement.

            But Raw data is seldom used as a final result.

            All data is calibrated.

            This is especially true of satellite data.

            • OK, so he got his vocabulary confused. I typically don’t. Look up above, I gave you the real analysis… showing that the temperature data is “adjusted” by USHCN etc.

              “Raw data is the basis of all measurement” — that’s actually incorrect but a side issue (in reality any measurement involves three entire dimensions of uncertainty, and the collected data is usually the BEST (least uncertain) of the three dimensions. But you can learn about that some other day. 🙂

              “All data is calibrated” — do you have any idea to WHAT it is calibrated? I suspect not. 😉 It’s not as nice and clean as you think. Not in this field of science.

              • “do you have any idea to WHAT it is calibrated?” – MrPete

                Your question is just gibberish.

                “”Raw data is the basis of all measurement” — that’s actually incorrect ” – MrPete

                Since any measurement produces raw data, your contradiction is simply childish.

                I don’t think there is anything else to your response that can be responded to.

                • If it is gibberish to you, that simply means you don’t know what you are talking about.

                  “Calibration” means to carefully match to some kind of standard. I was asking if you knew to what the satellite data is calibrated. There’s no such thing as calibrating to nothing… or to itself.

                  To claim the satellite data is “calibrated” is actually the gibberish. It has zero meaning except in the context of the standard to which it is calibrated.

                    • Oh, I’m not at all humiliated. I happen to know where this is going.

                      So, now that you’ve learned a little more about the calibration methods, and once you read more to recognize that what you just wrote is again meaningless (ensuring raw radiation counts are about right is the easy part as you’re about to see)… why don’t you find out just how accurate these calibrations are… even for INTER-satellite measures, not to mention ABSOLUTE or RELATIVE measures of real-world temp.
                      Here’s a link to the actual methods and results. I’ll make your job easy; this link is in the document you shared:
                      http://images.remss.com/papers/rsstech/2012_011012_Wentz_Version-7_SSMI_Calibration.pdf
                      Go visit the discussion of the graphs on page 37. Consider the fact that prior to the most recent new inter-satellite calibration methods, they recorded disagreements of 1-2C just between satellites. Now, very impressively, they have improved that by 10x to 0.1-0.2C. (Truly IS impressive work. I love what these guys do… which is why it is frustrating to see people like you misinterpret them so badly.)

                      And then, on top of uncertainty in the calibrated satellite values, we have uncertainty w/ respect to the real world data. And even bigger (visible in the graphs you shared) is uncertainty due to the way the climate itself works. Notice how the global temp varies both UP and DOWN by as much as 1C year to year, NOT due to seasons but due to longer term non-human factors? Our models don’t predict such things. And we don’t necessarily know what they are for years or decades or centuries.

                      That’s why it makes zero sense to compare the temp on the graph from two given years or even a short trend. Most climate scientists would say that any trend of less than about 20 years is useless for understanding climate. There are just too many unknown/undefined variables.

                    • Here is what the author of your own reference says about his own data.

                      Measurement Errors:

                      As a data scientist, I am among the first to acknowledge that all climate
                      datasets likely contain some errors. However, I have a hard time believing
                      that both the satellite and the surface temperature datasets have errors large
                      enough to account for the model/observation differences. For example, the
                      global trend uncertainty (2-sigma) for the global TLT trend is around 0.03 K/
                      decade (Mears et al. 2011). Even if 0.03 K/decade were added to the best-
                      estimate trend value of 0.123 K/decade, it would still be at the extreme low
                      end of the model trends. A similar, but stronger case can be made using
                      surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than
                      satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the
                      various satellite datasets do!). So I don’t think the problem can be explained
                      fully by measurement errors.” – Carl Mears – RSS Systems

                      “Some of the interannual wiggles are bigger in RSS, and since 1998 or something
                      like that, we’re showing less [warming] than the surface datasets. I suspect
                      that’s at least partly due to a problem in our dataset, probably having to do
                      with the [time-of-day] correction. It could be an error in the surface datasets,
                      but the evidence suggests that they’re more reliable than the satellite
                      datasets,” – Carl Mears – RSS Systems

                    • Here is what the author of your own reference says about Global Warming..

                      “We’ve done numerous papers with Ben Santer from [Lawrence Livermore National
                      Laboratory], where he’s compared the patterns that we see to the patterns that
                      the climate models predict, and we’ve shown that without including greenhouse
                      gas changes in the climate models, you cannot get the amount of warming that we
                      see,” – Carl Mears – RSS Systems

          • “The satellite data” – SoCalMike

            Here is the satellite record – UAH.

            Looks like a lot of warming has been going on….

            The current UAH satellite record shows global average temperatures 0.93’C above the 1979 average.

            Awww.. Poor you.

          • “Wall Street Journal”

            1. Wall Street Journal science
            2. Page Unavailable
            3. 99.5% of scientists know global warming is real and anthropogenic.
            You claim a survey that has a different question.
            4. Meteorologists Scientists.

            Here is a meteorologist.

          • And they are lying too. There are really very few honest scientist, the rest are just PAY PROSTITUTES that parrot and read the GOVERNMENT script in order to keep the TAX PAYERS money flowing to their banks accounts.

        • The ones on the government payroll. The ones who know they better toe the line or get kicked off the gravy train. Why are scientists on the government payroll any more credible than the other government entities that you shills dismiss?

        • All of them answer to the globalist elite who want to control the populace through their lies and taxes. Of course you’d expect the ultra rich elite to be able to get all these groups to take their side and spread the propaganda. Money talks, and the globalist elite have one hell of a lot of money and influence.

          I have certain rules I live by. My first rule: I don’t believe anything the government tells me.
          –George Carlin

        • That’s a nice partial list. All of them are lying. They’re paid to lie. You’re pitiful. Read the actual scientific facts, not phony political statements by a bunch of conspirators. Note the number of RECONSTRUCTION terms in your comment. You really should shut up. We’ve all heard more than enough of these lies.

        • C’mon, don’t you know by now that “man-made” global warming is a scam? Even the UN so much as admitted it’s a cash grab meant to redistribute the wealth to poorer countries. Just look at the countries still using coal – the US being one of them. If the globe were in such dire straits, we’d have to come up with something a lot more relevant and useful than carbon taxing prosperous countries!

        • Yup, just accept what you’re told by people that proclaim themselves to be smarter than you, have no irons in the fire (other than the trillions of dollars governments worldwide pour into their ‘research’, AKA salaries) and have nothing but your best interests in mind. If they were so damn right, why would they want so-called deniers arrested and jailed? Do you not understand the history lesson of Galileo being persecuted by the Church, because even though the ‘science was settle then’ that the Earth was the center of the universe, and everything revolved around the Earth, it turned out that he WAS right, unlike the mindless minions that went along with the 97% at that time? If you don’t have the intellectual capacity to recognize that so many issues in our past were settled because 97% of the experts said so, then were later proven wrong, I hold no positive hope for you. You should be at least ashamed of yourself for following without knowledge and more so, ashamed of commenting as though you were enlightened, when clearly you’re not. Please, enjoy your bliss.

        • Argue scientifically all you want, at the end of the day, the tell is in government, not science. Even if the science is truth, governments are long-nosed liars and hypocrites clearly demonstrating that they care for the environment in the same way they do economies. That is to say, no matter what they claim needs to be done, they will destroy it and feed themselves.

          You can’t explain away the uncommitted efforts of a global summit of impotent leaders who fail their own position and claims with ineffectual policies in respect to their claims about CC, i.e. they’re not even tackling the issue or showing seriousness at any significant level.

          You also wouldn’t be able to explain away the very real likelihood that Antarctica is being primed for multi-national penetration for her non-renewable resources (oil, coal, fish, etc.). That is to say, in the same century that the planet should have already passed multiple apocalyptic climate rubicons that haven’t taken place, the last, most preserved place on the planet could likely be the next California gold rush, raped of resources to feed an ever-expanding population and further develop, i.e. destroy the environment.

          If you want more people to actually take this grade-school science garbage seriously, show that liberal, environmentally-friendly governments are run by people with more intelligence, sense, and ethics than pathogens.

        • Professor David R. Legates, PHD
          Professor of geography and former director of the Center for climatic research at the University of Delaware former Delaware state climatologist coordinator of the Delaware geographic alliance and associate director of the Delaware space grant consortium author of peer reviewed papers published in the international Journal of climatology the bulletin of the American meteorological Society and other journals.

          Quote: “Recently my colleagues and I closely examined the ‘blade’ of Mann’s latest temperature reconstruction (Geophysical Research Letters, February 2004). According to the IPCC 2001 and many other published sources, the earth formed only .6°C (1°F) during the 20th century. However, that contrasts sharply with the most recent reconstruction by Mann and Jones which shows warming over the last century of .95°C (1.5°F), a temperature rise more than 50% larger than the IPCC claims. Mann’s warming estimate has grown substantially over the last couple of years apparently to accommodate his continuing claim that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the last two millennia, but we found that the blade of the hockey stick could not be reproduced using either the same techniques as Mann and Jones or other common statistical techniques. Since reproducibility is a hallmark of scientific inquiry and the blade does not represent the observed climate record, it is unreliable.

          A review of the data shows that these claims are untenable. Mann’s research is clearly the outlier. Consider that if 1) the amount of Uncertainty is doubled (an appropriate representation of the ‘sheath’), 2) appropriate 20th century increases in observed air temperature are applied (a correct representation of the ‘blade’), or 3) the period from A.D. 200 to 1900 correctly reproduces millennial scale variability (a reliable representation of the ‘shaft’), then one can have no confidence in the claim that the 1990s are the warmest decade of the last two millennia. The assertions of Mann and his colleagues and consequently the IPCC are open to question if even one component of their temperature reconstruction is in error, let alone all three!” end quote

        • I remember reading articles 7 or 8 years ago stating that children now alive would grow up with no experience of snow. They would never see it, feel it or walk in it. Were the “experts” wrong?!

        • And every single one of those institutions is receiving money for saying that.

          They have no more scientific credibility than doctors doing commercials for cigarettes in the 1950s. “My doctor recommends Chesterfields!”

          And it’s hilarious that you are so close minded that you post that in a story about an unusually cold and snowy winter. Who is lying? The snow or the people receiving those grant$?

        • the short answer–“Yes”.
          The facts are that this bunch of liars started with an assumed political position instead of an hypothesis, then; they created computer models which they programmed to crunch the self-selected data input into the desired political result.
          Viola! global warming (now global ‘climate change’ became real for Vendicar and other sheep and politicians. Beginning with the false hockey stick graph and continuing through today’s altered surface temperature readings (from the past record and the current observations)–actually falsifying/changing evidence to fit the narrative it’s getting warmer than in the past. Unfortunately, the scientific method of gathering facts to test an hypothesis to a verifiable conclusion which can be replicated or tested by another scientist did not happen in this case; instead, the political lie has gained a life of its own, supported by the likes of Vendicar and his blind ilk.

        • The “scientists” lying would be the ones who got caught cooking the books on historical global temperature records and had to admit to the world what they did to support their “global warming” agenda, which was never about weather to begin with.

          Only the sheep among us still believe the “global warming” myth, which in reality is the most massive international wealth redistribution scheme ever concocted by man.

        • Give it up. Your position on man-made ‘global warming’ has been proven false over and over and over. The holdouts are so compromised by their need for research dollars that their continued bleatings about an impending rise in ocean levels and global temperature increases have become laughable. I mean, your first big red flag should have been the classification of CO2 as a pollutant, lol.

          • “living on Government Grant money” – Fritz

            There are 250,000 medical scientists in the U.S. about the same number of physical scientists, and about 120,000 mathematicians.

            About 80,000 work in the private sector.

            8 percent of all scientists are Republicans.

            • These Climate change hacks are nothing but scientific frauds living on Government grant money. The data in their models are nothing more than attempts to increase their income using smoke and mirrors.

              • Poor Mentally Ill Fritz.

                Which scientists are lying?

                The Scientists at NASA?

                The Scientists at the NOAA?

                The Scientists at the MET who produce the Hadcrut temperature reconstruction?

                The Scientists at BEST who produce the BEST temperature reconstruction?

                The Scientists at JMO who produce the JMO temperature reconstruction?

                The Scientists who produce the UAH satellite temperature reconstruction?

                The Scientists who produce the RSS satellite temperature reconstruction?

                ….

                Here is the satellite record.

                Did you denialist loons spend years claiming that the satellite record showed no warming?

                Ahahahahahahah… Loooooons.

                • “There is no way that we can predict the weather six months ahead beyond giving the seasonal average” — Stephen Hawking
                  I’ll stick with Stephens assessment of your questionable data Mr Moonbeam. Unless you are foolish enough to question his intelligent.

                  • “There is no way that we can predict the weather six months ahead” – Fritz

                    Correct. That is why the models produce a statistical estimate of regional climates, not weather.

                    Poor Fritz. He still can’t figure out the difference between climate and weather.

                    • Hey Ding Dong boy, I’ll stick with the smart guys thinking regarding statistics. They dont seem to have a left-wing global warming agenda!

                      There are lies, damned lies and statistics. Mark Twain

                      Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable. Mark Twain

                      An unsophisticated forecaster uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – for support rather than for illumination. Andrew Lang

                      There are two kinds of statistics, the kind you look up and the kind you make up. Rex Stout

                      If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment. Ernest Rutherford

                    • Statistics is the grammar of science.

                      Karl Pearson

                      Statistical analysis in cases involving small numbers can be particularly helpful because on many occasions intuition can be highly misleading.

                      Sandy Zabell, Statistics, a Guide to the Unknown (third ed)

                      Statistics … is the most important science in the whole world, for upon it depends the practical application of every other (science) and of every art.

                      To understand God’s thoughts we must study statistics, for these are the measure of His purpose.

                      Florence Nightengale (1820-1910)

                    • “Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
                      Those who count the votes decide everything.” ; Joe Stalin

                      If you think about it, votes or very similar to climate data models and so called environmental scientists are like the vote counters. Building models to prove an agenda of the wackos that pays for their grants. If you were truly honest you would try to list the so called environmentalist wack-jobs that didn’t life off of our tax money. But see all you can do is try to officiate and camouflage your screw ball ideas, but then again that is what liberal ding dongs like you are good for in the end huh?

        • Not all of them – only the “climate scientists”. They clearly have a motive to lie do they not? Most would have no job anywhere if the truth was told that more CO2 and warmth are good for all life. There are no private sector jobs in climate science – their careers would END and they know that.

      • This global warming/change are nothing more than a bunch of CHARLATANS that to keep fooling the people are CONTAMINATING the atmosphere with CHEMTRAIL WHEATER CONTROL GEOENGINERING to increment the planet temp by the GREENHOUSE EFFECT, concentrating the normal global heat that normally dissipate into space, IN the PLANET ATMOSPHERE…Has you notice that we DO NOT HAVE BLUE SKY ANY MORE?, now it is WHITE, look up and you will see the CHEMTRAIL MILITARY AIRPLANES SPRAYING THE ATMOSPHERE.

        • Republicans have already made your country a third world hell hole.

          That has been their goal since Ronald Reagan was elected.

          And you were stupid enough to vote for them, weren’t you?

          Ahahahahahahaha…… Loser.

      • Which scientists are lying?

        The Scientists at NASA?

        The Scientists at the NOAA?

        The Scientists at the MET who produce the Hadcrut temperature reconstruction?

        The Scientists at BEST who produce the BEST temperature reconstruction?

        The Scientists at JMO who produce the JMO temperature reconstruction?

        The Scientists who produce the UAH satellite temperature reconstruction?

        The Scientists who produce the RSS satellite temperature reconstruction?

        ….

        • LOL. And I am so glad Rush took the Algore up on his ten year “we are going to burn up” global warming prediction as televised by CBS News and corroborated by Larry David and Larry’s then wife etal. As you probably know the Algore Doomsday Clock ran out in January.
          Global warming is not a climatological issue but rather a spiritual issue about man’s narcissism. Man is too puny a creature to even reach up and touch the thermostat. As you well know, the switch is only accessed by a very large hand reaching from above (not to mention the sun).
          For a really funny take on global warming’s foolishness YouTube “George Carlin Global Warming”. Warning :NSFW.

          • Al Gore and the Internet

            By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf

            Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.

            No one person or even small group of persons exclusively “invented” the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore’s contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

            Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: “During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” We don’t think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he “invented” the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore’s initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.

            As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.

            As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an “Interagency Network.” Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush’s administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This “Gore Act” supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.

            As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our nation’s schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.

            There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet’s rapid growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political support for its privatization and continued support for research in advanced networking technology. No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with the public at large.

            The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world.

              • Yup, it was. It was arpanet. Limited to military and university communication.

                Gore took the initiative to open that network to public access, and provide a means of commercializing it, thereby creating what is now known as the internet.

                You should heed the words of Vint Cerf in the above article.

                Vint Cerf

                Widely known as a “Father of the Internet,” Cerf is the co-designer of the TCP/IP protocols and the architecture of the Internet. In December 1997, President Bill Clinton presented the U.S. National Medal of Technology to Cerf and his colleague, Robert E. Kahn, for founding and developing the Internet. In 2004, Cerf was the recipient of the ACM Alan M. Turing award (sometimes called the “Nobel Prize of Computer Science”) and in 2005 he was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George Bush.

                – See more at: http://internethalloffame.org/inductees/vint-cerf#sthash.kqgZoRQ1.dpuf

              • One of the authors of the above article was Vint Cerf…

                Vint Cerf

                Widely known as a “Father of the Internet,” Cerf is the co-designer of the TCP/IP protocols and the architecture of the Internet. In December 1997, President Bill Clinton presented the U.S. National Medal of Technology to Cerf and his colleague, Robert E. Kahn, for founding and developing the Internet. In 2004, Cerf was the recipient of the ACM Alan M. Turing award (sometimes called the “Nobel Prize of Computer Science”) and in 2005 he was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George Bush.

                – Internet Hall of Fame.

                – See more at: http://internethalloffame.org/inductees/vint-cerf#sthash.kqgZoRQ1.dpuf

        • WHAT ALL AMERICANS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON’S ALLEGED SAP COMPROMISE–MAJ ED COET, USA (RET)

          [COURTESY: CAPT Les Horn, USN (Ret)]

          My name is Ed Coet. I am a retired US Army Intelligence Officer. In my last job in the army I was the Chief of the Human Intelligence Branch for the US European Command in Stuttgart, Germany. In that capacity I was also the Designated Program Manager for a Special Access Program (SAP) like the SAP that Hillary Clinton is alleged to have compromised in the most recent State Department Inspector General report to congress and which has been widely reported in the news. Here is what I personally know about SAP’s and what I can attest to in an unclassified forum:

          1. The names of each SAP are themselves classified Top Secret because the information within the SAP are far and above Top Secret.

          2. SAP’s are so sensitive that even people who have security clearances giving them access to Top Secret Sensitive Compartment Information (TS SCI), an enormously high security clearance level, cannot have accesses to a SAP’s unless they receive a special indoctrination into the SAP based on an operational “must know” that exceeds all other “need to know” standards.

          3. Being “read on” for a SAP is far more then acknowledging in writing that you have been briefed on the SAP. It is an in-depth “indoctrination” into the given SAP, and each SAP is itself compartmented separately from other SAPS. Having access to one SAP does not give you access to another SAP, and in fact rarely does. Only a tiny handful of people have knowledge of all SAP’s. SAP’s are the most stringently compartmented and protected information in the entire US government.

          4. Unlike Top Secret SCI which is maintained in highly secure Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilitates (SCIF’s) managed by specially trained Special Security Officers (SSO’s) at various levels of command, every single SAP is managed by an individually designated Program Manager for each individual SAP covering an entire theater of operations. In other words, SAP Program Managers are far fewer in number than there is SSO’s. SSO’s are not cleared to even know about SAP’s or to maintain information about them in their already enormously secure SCIF’s. How SAP’s are secured cannot be discussed because of the sensitive beyond Top Secret nature in which it is done.

          5. Unlike individuals with the highest Top Secret SCI access security clearances, who must undergo a special background information with periodic “bring-up” background investigation, those tiny few who have access to SAP’s must also endure periodic polygraph tests in addition to the most comprehensive of special background investigations. I used to have to schedule four-star generals and admirals to be polygraphed in order for them to maintain their access to my SAP. Many generals and admirals who obviously have the highest security clearances still did not rate being indoctrinated into my SAP. In fact, they didn’t even know the SAP existed.

          6. Compromise of a SAP is the single most dangerous security violation that can ever happen to the USA. Even the enormously damaging revelations of the Edward Snowden’s TOP Secret SCI security compromise does not reach the level of a SAP compromise.

          7. To put SAP information in to an unsecure sever like Hillary Clinton’s unsecure server is a class one felony that could, in some cases, result in life in prison. That is because such a compromise is so dangerous that it could and likely will result in the death of people protected by and within the scope of the SAP.

          As a former SAP Program Manager I believe it is inconceivable that if it is verified that Hillary Clinton’s server actually had SAP information on it that she could possibly escape indictment and criminal prosecution. As hard as it is to imagine, that would even be worse then electing to not prosecute a mass murdering serial killer because even they could not inflict as much damage on our country as the compromise of a SAP. Compromise of a SAP not only could — but without doubt would — cause serious damage to our national security.

          If it is true that Hillary Clinton had SAP information on her unsecure server, whether it was marked or not, you can be sure that the FBI will strongly recommend that charges be brought against Hillary Clinton and continue in an exhaustive investigation to trace back to every single person that had even the tiniest role in this unbelievable security compromise.

          If the Attorney General, through “prosecutorial discretion,” elected not to prosecute this crime, I believe congress would have no alternative but to impeach her, and the FBI would then have no choice but to conduct a criminal investigation of her for a deliberate cover up –- so grave is this security violation.

          If President Obama were to pardon Hillary Clinton for a compromise of this magnitude he would render himself in the historical record as an “enemy of the state,” and could himself face criminal prosecution –- so grave is such a security compromise. Nobody, not even the POTUS could gets away with something like this in our system of government. If anyone could escape persecution for compromising a SAP, we are deep trouble as a nation. No president who loves this country and is true to his oath would ever allow anyone, not even his or her closest and most loved relative, to get away with a SAP compromise. It is simply unimaginable that this could ever happen.

          If the ongoing investigation finds that Hillary Clinton compromised a SAP, then we all should know with certainty, regardless of political persuasion, that she is entirely unfit to hold public office of any kind let alone President of the USA — and ALL Americans should never tolerate it. Compromising a SAP is an absolute “disqualifier” for public office and access to our nations most sensitive information – period.

          ED COET

          Major, US Army (Retired)

    • Yeah, go to the Antarctic to cry over the melting ice and get iced in until help come to rescue you from the ice and then go to a tropical isle to warm up and get snowed on! Definitely global warming. Must be Bush’s fault. Let’s go send the climate deniers to jail—- Gore that is!!!

          • If your desire is to see the extinction of the human race – and most other life on this planet, then your comments are sound.

            Otherwise I will have to conclude that you are also mentally ill.

              • Extinction risk from climate change – Nature

                Climate change over the past ~30 years has produced numerous shifts in the distributions and abundances of species1, 2 and has been implicated in one species-level extinction3. Using projections of species’ distributions for future climate scenarios, we assess extinction risks for sample regions that cover some 20% of the Earth’s terrestrial surface. Exploring three approaches in which the estimated probability of extinction shows a power-law relationship with geographical range size, we predict, on the basis of mid-range climate-warming scenarios for 2050, that 15–37% of species in our sample of regions and taxa will be ‘committed to extinction’. When the average of the three methods and two dispersal scenarios is taken, minimal climate-warming scenarios produce lower projections of species committed to extinction (~18%) than mid-range (~24%) and maximum-change (~35%) scenarios. These estimates show the importance of rapid implementation of technologies to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and strategies for carbon sequestration.

                Chris D. Thomas1, Alison Cameron1, Rhys E. Green2, Michel Bakkenes3, Linda J. Beaumont4, Yvonne C. Collingham5, Barend F. N. Erasmus6, Marinez Ferreira de Siqueira7, Alan Grainger8, Lee Hannah9, Lesley Hughes4, Brian Huntley5, Albert S. van Jaarsveld10, Guy F. Midgley11, Lera Miles8,15, Miguel A. Ortega-Huerta12, A. Townsend Peterson13, Oliver L. Phillips8 & Stephen E. Williams14

                http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6970/full/nature02121.html

                • Yeah and we were supposed to be flooded by 2015. Your religion is showing. These guys cant even predict the weather tomorrow. What makes you think they can predict anything 30 years from now? LOL

                • Also let me point out that your source “Nature” is a well know biased organization, so all facts have to be taken with a grain of salt. Also it is owned by the Mamillan Publishing group who is well known as crorrupt and has been found so in a court of law.

        • And the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 diminishes considerably with greater concentrations. This means the more CO2 in the air the less of an impact the extra CO2 has as a greenhouse gas. This is not in dispute. It’s even in the IPCC reports. You globull warming freaks are always trying to swindle everyone into believing some bull**** about runaway globull warming effect but there is absolutely no evidence that has ever happened when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were more than 1200+ PPM in the past. There are no records of a warming climate causing mass extinctions in the past however there is ample evidence that global cooling (ice ages) has caused mass extinctions on a global scale.

          Life thrives in a warmer world. Just like it did when the temperate zone on earth was from pole to pole and there was a lush dense populated rain forest on antarctica 55 million years ago.

          Oh, by the way, we are still recovering from the little ice age which ended in the mid 1800s. It’s not unprecedented that the world is still warming from that event.

      • Actually, Al Gore took the initiative to create the internet. Without his effort you wouldn’t have a forum in which you could lie about him.

        Al Gore and the Internet

        By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf

        Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.

        No one person or even small group of persons exclusively “invented” the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore’s contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

        Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: “During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” We don’t think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he “invented” the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore’s initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.

        As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.

        As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an “Interagency Network.” Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush’s administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This “Gore Act” supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.

        As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our nation’s schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.

        There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet’s rapid growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political support for its privatization and continued support for research in advanced networking technology. No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with the public at large.

        The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world.