Facebook Twitter Youtube

Meteorologist: 2010s officially the snowiest decade in the east coast in the NOAA record – surpassing the 1960s

The monster blizzard of 2015 will be adding to what is already the snowiest decade on the East Coast.

“Assuming this storm gets ranked by NOAA as one of the high impact (population affected by snowstorm) snowstorms (likely since the November storm was), we will have had 14 major impact storms this decade (only half over) beating out the 10 in the 1960s and 2000s,” Joseph D’Aleo, CCM (Certified Consulting Meteorologist), told Climate Depot on Monday.

“Watch for widespread sub-zero cold next week if the European models are right (all the way to North Carolina and including DC area),” D’Aleo, the co-chief Meteorologist with Weatherbell Analytics, added.

Screen shot 2015-01-26 at 12.52.03 PM

The increase in snowfalls is counter to what the UN IPCC predicted. See: In 2001, the IPCC predicted milder winters and less snow. Experts are hoping no one remembers – UN IPCC 2001: ‘Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms’

In addition, The New York Times has featured scientists and climate activists claiming snow would decrease. See: Flashback 2014 New York Times: ‘The End of Snow?’

& NYT in 2000 quoted ‘Oppenheimer on the pathetic spectacle of the unused sled in his stairwell, symbol of a warming world:

Also in 2000, scientists in the UK boldly predicted the end of snow due to ‘global warming.’ See: Flashback 2000: ‘Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past’: According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become ‘a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.’ 

The blizzard bearing down on the U.S. this week is now being blamed on global warming. See: 2015 U.S. Blizzard blamed on ‘global warming’ – Warmist Bill McKibben: Blizzards are ‘Climate change at work’ – NY Gov.: ‘Part of the changing climate’

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano Responds: ‘Blizzard blamed on global warming?! Is there any weather event that is inconsistent with global warming? — This is now akin to the predictions of Nostradamus or the Mayan calendar. There is no way anyone can falsify the global warming theory now because any weather event that happens proves’ their case.’

Other media outlets are promoting the 2015 blizzard and climate change link as well. See: Washington Post’s Chris Mooney: Global warming could make blizzards worse: ‘Extreme snowfall may actually be enhanced by global warming. I know it sounds counterintuitive‘

Below is a round-up of scientists debunking the notion that blizzards are caused by man-made ‘global warming.’

2014: Scientists reject claims of record cold being caused by ‘global warming’ – Time Mag. blamed ‘polar vortex’ on ‘global cooling’ in 1974 – Special Report

2013: Climate Astrology: Blizzard blamed on global warming?! Is there any weather event that is inconsistent with global warming? — Climate Depot Round up – ‘No matter what the weather is like, it always turns out to be exactly the kind of weather we should expect if human activity were causing global temps to rise’

2013: Round Up: Meteorologists Slaps Down latest warmist claim of ‘Less snow = more blizzards’ — AP’s Seth Borenstein rebutted – Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue mocks: ‘Hint, if your theory or hypothesis involves contradictions, may be time to admit your original knowledge of subject was inadequate’

2013: Meteorologist Slaps Down latest warmist claim of ‘Less snow = more blizzards’ — ‘Whac-a-moling Seth Borenstein at AP over his erroneous extreme weather claims’ – By Dr. Richard Keen, Meteorologist Emeritus, University of Colorado, Boulder

Gore now claims ‘increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with… man-made global warming’

For more see: 2015 U.S. Blizzard blamed on ‘global warming’ – Warmist Bill McKibben: Blizzards are ‘Climate change at work’ 

#

Media retreats: AP issues ‘clarification’ on ‘hottest year story’: Now concedes claim ‘falls within a margin of error that lessens the certainty’

Update: ‘Conning the Public’: Scientists Accuse NASA/NOAA of ‘Misleading’, ‘Deception’ & ‘Lying’ About ‘Hottest Year’ Claim – Concede 2014 probably not ‘hottest year’

Scientists balk at ‘hottest year’ claims: Ignores Satellites showing 18 Year ‘Pause’ – ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’ – The ‘Pause’ continues

Watch: Morano on Fox on ‘Hottest Year’ Claims: ‘It’s statistical nonsense’ – ‘NASA’s Gavin Schmidt has egg all over his face with this’

Share:

Marc Morano

Marc Morano

793 Responses

    1. This is all due to global warming. Just ask the rabid carbon tax collectors. You can be assured you will be called a denier by one of their ‘knows better than you’ meteorologist weather experts.

  2. global warming campaign failed big time
    climate change is the new phrase that covers everything, it’s meant to replace global warming in the propaganda

              1. Sweetheart what tax?????? You need to stop watching fox news. You don’t know what you’re talking about. But thats what fox news does, confuse you “simpel-folk” Thank you.

                  1. Sweetheart the solar industry is kicking ass!!!!!!!! My director is now going to night school to advance his career in solar!!!!! I’m having so much fun teaching people how to become a capitalist by using solar. They love me, I teach them how to create trickle down economis and redistribute wealth into your own pocket. Did you invest in solar yet???????

                    2. Wait, whut? You mean you can’t produce electricity with solar panels if the sun’s on the other side of the planet? Hmmm…that begs the question – how do you produce electricity with wind power if there’s no wind?

                      Mind – BLOWN!

                    3. Dang, I hate so much when people make sense. Wow, so terrible. BTW, I have been in power for years – I understand a lot more than the average liberal does about voltage and frequency maintenance. Solar and wind present serious headaches for load dispatchers.

                    4. I used to be an underwriter for the power generation industry. I know how much wind turbines cost, and I know how often they break down. And I saw in very clear terms that you cannot recoup the cost of the machines in their lifetime at current market rates for electricity – which is exactly why the taxpayer has to subsidize “Green Energy” for anyone to actually break even. Profit? Fuggetaboutit.

                    5. The load swings of solar and wind have to be balanced by other sources of power, or someone gets cut off. Any heat driven plant, coal, gas, or nuclear, needs time to react. Nuclear, simply put, can’t do load swings – the extreme example of a result of nuclear load swinging is Chernobyl. But turbine driven plants, whether gas or steam or combined cycle can’t react instantly. Hydro is the “fill in”. We have very few rivers left to dam, so we are approaching a crisis, driven by complete ignorance of how things actually work.

                    6. “Nuclear, simply put, can’t do load swings”….breeder reactors sure as heck can, but not light water reactors

                    7. I doubt it, seriously. Experiments at Hanford would indicate problems with other than steady state operations. But my information is about 25 years old. Maybe things have changed.

                    8. There’s a little something called BATTERIES,which store the energy gained from daytime sun light by solar panels. Its not rocket science, really lol

                    9. Do you have any inkling of the scale of the batteries necessary to make a difference? You obviously have no grasp on reality. I have been in power since 1981. I do have an inkling. Your statement is totally ludicrous.

                    10. I HAVE solar panels on my roof, and of COURSE the sun isn’t shining 24/7. As a matter of fact, there is so much energy generated by them that I actually SELL power back to the local grid. My batteries can literally go days without a drop of sun they save so much energy

                    11. Sweetheart what do you think Solar Panels do at night?????? You “simpel-folk” are so cute. Thank you

                    12. Idiot, power is used at night, too. People heat or cool their houses at night. I won’t go so far as to explain why they might heat or cool, because you aren’t smart enough to understand the explanation, but power is consumed at night too. What is the source?

                    14. You have no inkling of scale, do you? I can’t start to explain the difference between a couple of KW at the household level during the day vs. 1200MW steady state power to the grid from a nuclear unit. You wouldn’t understand, and I won’t waste my time.

                    17. Perhaps they should try being a capitalist in solar with out Gov. subsidies, but then they would all be Broke. A waste of Tax dollars.

                    18. Sweetheart you can be a smart businessman and take advantage of the incentives and redistribute wealth into your own pocket, or you can give it to a corporation. The choice is yours. It’s sad you don’t understand the “free-market” and capitalism SORRY!!!!!! The koch brothers will be proud of you they love you “simpel-folk” thank you.

                    19. solar energy will never amount to more than what it is today. half-ass. its a noble idea but the technology has reached a permanent plateau in this field.

                    21. Sweetheart it’s sad you don’t understand Solar but that’s what the koch brothers want. “Simple-folk” who don’t understand science. I feel sorry for you, but I feel worse for your kids. SORRY!!!!!!

                2. That would be the taxes on my policy that go towards Obama care. That is why my policy went up 5% this year alone due to the “Obama care” taxes.

                3. You might want to check in with Jerry Brown – he’s the governor of California, by the way – who just added $.10 per gallon tax on gasoline this year, and he calls it a “global warming tax.” Quit listening to CNN, Salon, the New York Times, and the Huffington Post, all of which only promote “news” that harms the citizens of this country, while the rich get richer.

                  1. Cobra is a gruberite. Like obamacare, warmists rely on the stupidity of voters like cobra to pass legislation to fund their lifestyle. In the meantime he is using his phone or laptop which has its power derived from fossil fuels. It’s materials and batterys raped from the earth using giant fossil fuel excavation eqipment. It’s assembly by slave labor in China, sold at a big box retailer which doesn’t pay a living wage. Cobra is the worst of an hipocrite, despicable in fact.

      2. Re-brand it any way you like, but the law of diminishing returns is beginning to take hold. Climate-gate, IPCC defectors, and the last 15 or so years of pure experience are showing how “proven” and “settled” the theory of climate change really is.

        Climate change will be the “Eugenics” of the 21st century.

              1. Sweetheart I asked you to be specific and name your sources and what did you do????? Embarrass yourself!!!!!!! You “simpel-folk” just make up anything you want, don’t you????? So do you have evidence or not????????

                2. Terms such as ‘sweetheart’,’Simpel-folk’ ( your spelling not mine) multiple exclamation points, reveal a reflect directly the individual using them and they let everyone know that there is no need to read any further, saving time. Thanks.

              1. Trolls are stupid, mythical creatures. Don’t expect them to have much in the way of command of spelling…or math…let alone science for that matter.

              1. If you go back and check vacuousman’s posts, you’ll see he almost never provides any facts of his own, just constantly insists others provide proof.

                1. A typical liberal posting trick…they want you to do all the homework and research and if its contrary to their sick ideology…they apply their famous 3-D’s: Deny, Dismiss, Degrade! I usually tell them to pound sand! 😉

            1. Sweetheart Al GORE understands scienceand he explained it quite clearly. AL GORE said storms would be getting stronger and more frequent, and boy did he get it right!!!!!!! 6 of the biggest snowstorms have happened in this century!!!! Talk about being a physhic AL GORE is amazing isn’t he?????????

              1. You can’t honestly be this stupid. Methinks you are a troll put here to make the pro-AGW people look even stupider than we already know you to be. If so, mission accomplished!

                    1. Sweetheart the truth hurts doesn’t it???????? Did you watch my show yet??????? It’s called who’s telling the truth. I love BITCH-SLAPPING the “simpel-folk”, need some??????

          2. And I love making fun of you pure idiots who assume I’m not a scientist or that I don’t know what I’m talking about.

            Or you idiots who don’t understand that it is impossible to glean any relevant trend by looking at 0.001% of the MOST RECENT temperature data on a 4 billion year old earth. Go to any website that deals in probability/statistic studies and look up the terms “sample size” or “relevant distribution”… if you can comprehend the concepts, then come back and let’s debate.

            Or you idiots who think that AGW is “settled science” when the earth’s climate is influenced by thousands of independent variables, the vast majority of which haven’t even been discovered yet, and most of which have to do with that big yellow ball in the sky that’s 93 million miles away from any influence that Man can impart.

            By the way, if you’re going to attempt to mock me, you might want to learn how to spell the word “simple”.

            Still up for that debate? I’ve got all day, douche-puddle.

                1. Sweetheart, I deal with facts, figures, logic, and reason something you “simpel-folk” aren’t allowed to do. You can only repeat what fox news and Rush tells you. You LOSE !!!!! SORRY!!!!!!!!

            2. Your nasty rhetoric and ignorant approach to rational argument is A BIG TURN OFF. I can’t imagine an intelligent person writing something like you so I dismiss anything you might say as coming from an uneducated person.

                  1. WP’s Wonkblog – ah now there’s a credible source of info. But, let’s go with it…

                    Headline: “Dear snow-trolls: Winter weather does not refute global warming”

                    Counter-point: Perhaps, but what proves it? Nothing so far has done so successfully. Climate models have been blown up for the past 15+ years. Disappearing ice caps? Nope. Rising sea levels? Nope. Whole islands disappearing??? Still no.

                    Bottom line: You cannot draw any firm conclusions by looking at 400,000 years worth of very loosely inferred data, especially when there is so much non-correlation in the past few years that invalidates all predictions.

                    Please, learn to UNDERSTAND what you read, not just feel emotional about it because you see pictures of dying polar bears.

                    1. Interesting how you pander to the ignorant and attack people trying to just have an intelligent discussion. Clearly there is more evidence at this time to support global warming. You may want to argue the point which is fine, but why take such a low life ignorant approach in doing so? You must have issues with self worth or lack education. There is no reason to attack people on this issue.

              2. Make a rational argument, and I’ll respond with the same. Come at me calling me derisive names, and I’ll probably respond in kind as well.

                If you read the whole post, you’ll see it makes two very sound, rational arguments regarding climate change. One having to do with its flawed treatment of statistical data and the derived weakness in the follow-on correlations. The other having to do with the vast number of unknown factors that have already wrecked havoc with all the climate predictions for the past 20 or so years (basically the entire lifetime of the idea of Global Warming / Climate Change / Climate Disruption / -insert latest euphemism here-).

                I want you to understand that I DO think that the *Theory* of climate change is a reasonable one, but it is just that – a theory. It has not been proven by any reasonable standard of “proof”, and there’s just as much evidence to refute it as there is to support it.

                Now, if you’d like to refute any of MY arguments, please do so. You have my attention. Dazzle me.

        3. I thought abortion was the Eugenics of both the 20th and 21st centuries. Sanger hated minorities, and her product has been even more successful at murder than others of the race she hated. That’s pretty noteworthy.

      3. Last year, it was the “Polar Vortex!” This year, I expect we’ll hear something like the “Arctic Zephyr!” Or, maybe, the “Hudson Bay Humdinger!”

    2. This way no matter what happens, they can blame it on warming. What’s the excuses now, oceans sucking up the heat, volcanoes, el Nino?? It’s OK though their gig is up. Americans do not believe the hoax anymore.

        1. Sounds like a death match between climate change and Darwin. If those polar bears don’t quickly evolve into a non-farting variant, they are doomed! 🙂

      1. The dumb teathuglicans don’t realize that this isn’t snow. It’s volcanic ash from the burning Mother Earth (whose name is Gaia). The ash only feels cold because they are shallow heartless GOP stooges and also because the volcanic ash has blocked out the Sun like in the time of the dinosaurs. We’re burning alive, Al… We’re burning alive.

        1. So how come 60% of all-time record high temperatures by state all occurred before global warming alarm? And only one new all time record high temperature since the few set in the 1990s?

    6. What has failed? The policies, the fear mongering go on unabated. The UK is moving to end fracking based on non-factual bs. Our President, fully supported by basically every media outlet, is moving forward full speed with anti-energy idicy. We need to wake up and smell the coffee: The climate kooks are in charge and they are not going to quit just because they are wrong.

    7. Sweetheart you need to keep up. I’ts obvious you don’t understand science. The koch brothers will be proud of you. They love you “simpel-folk” Thanks

      1. Shouldn’t you be off interviewing an inanimate object? I’m 38% sure teddy bears you interview are smarter than you. Hey, Richard why the name change?

            1. Sweetheart so you realize 2014 was the hottest year on record?????? WTF????? You keep talking like that and the koch brothers are gonna kick you off their christmas card list.

            3. It may not be so on our East Coast, but that’s what 10,000 monitoring stations Earth wide are telling us. While US’s Northeast has had brutal winters lately, Northern Canada and the Arctic, which should be much colder, have instead, been much warmer. Go figure!

      1. Maybe that’s why many high altitude and high latitude areas – which, despite any warming (if there is any) are still too cold to have anything but snow – are receiving MORE snow, while their flanks, at a much lower altitude, are rapidly melting.

  5. The New York Times had an article in February, 2014 titled “The end of Snow.’ The article documented how snow soon was going to be a distant memory and our kids would never see it except in news reels. Doesn’t the Times ever get embarrassed about never being right about anything?

        1. A Mexican, Carlos Slim is now the majority owner and the family who used to own the N.Y. Slimes are wealthy, but NOT all THAT wealthy anymore. And Pinch Sulzberger ran the Slimes into the ground; losing money hand over fist by turning the Old Gray lady into a losing proposition with his idiocy.

          Do try to keep up, prior to posting !

        2. AL GORE AND ALL OF HIS CLIMATE CHANGE FRAUDSTERS SHOULD BE LOCKED UP IN PRISON RIGHT NEXT TO BERNIE MADOFF. THEY ARE FRAUDS, LIARS AND THIEVES AND EVEN WORSE-ARE VILE HYPOCRITES.

          1. your ignorance is your bliss, but the collective ignorance of people like you will eventually be our collective downfall.

            “skeptical” lemmings know where to find the herd — cliatedepot.

                    1. You don’t know, so you just make attacks. The “scientific models” predict much more warming than scientifically observed, but you refuse to question them.

                      I’m tired of politicians running around saying the sky is falling “if we don’t act now” about everything. And I’m tired of religious acolytes professing their faith because “science.”

                    2. Actually, I do know. I have done the research (many times over). I have seen the well-funded misinformation overcome lesser minded people like yourself, who are now so sure they are being duped. Do you have a clue about scientific confidence and how it’s calculated? The irony of course, is that you see scientists doing their job as proof that they are in it for the money. This same logic applies to most higher level professions, but how often do you hear your doctor’s diagnosis of _____ and say, huh, he must just be saying that because he’s paid to? not often? right. It’s amazing how deluded the denialists have become, but hey backed by enough $$$, anything will be bought by ignorant idiots.

                      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/opinion/sunday/playing-dumb-on-climate-change.html?_r=0

                      I have questioned all the evidence so many times i can’t count them anymore, and everytime the real scientists with credentials come out on top. When a sane person looks at the deluded pseudoscience claims, like the fraud that is the climategate emails (scientists exonerated repeatedly), and other obvious examples of lies and fallacies pushed by pseudo-scientist like those you find on cliamtedepot, WUWT, and others, it should quickly become clear how loose the deniers evidence is. not accurate, not peer reviewed, but yes paid-for by big oil in particular.

                      Your misplaced confidence is reassured by the conspiracy theorists, who have no credibility. Time to look again, brute.

                    3. I can tell by the way you write that you’re not a scientist, you’re not an engineer, and you’re probably not employed in a technical field, except maybe one involving computers.

                      You sound incredibly upset because I don’t believe 100% in a scientific theory who’s predictive models (or at least 98% of them) have been wrong for over 15 years. Likewise, that theory can’t explain why it’s not just the sun causing the arming, as it had been going through a rather warm period in the last half of the 1900s. Note that this would, of course explain the warming on Mars. Hell, even the guys pushing the theory admit there’s something wrong with the models. Yet you run around claiming we must do something and do something now, instead of waiting for the science to become more solid.

                      Which do you believe, scientific models, or scientific observations? When they disagree which do you, personally, believe?

                      I’ll stick with scientific observations any day of the week.

                    4. yet you ignore the observations you don’t like. the ocean has been warming dramatically — we know this, it’s OBSERVED.

                      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ocean+warming

                      I’m sure you’d get lost among the misinformation, so here’s one you can directly visit:

                      http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Warming-has-been-Greatly-Underestimated.html

                      why do you prefer to remain ignorant of the evidence? if you care enough to argue the point, why don’t you actually pay attention to the valid evidence?

                      Denial aint just a river in Egypt, SON!!

                    5. None of this addresses my points.
                      The models are wrong. They’re not a religion, they’re just models.

                    6. hmmm, you refuse to look at them… hmm, wonder why.

                      Here’s where you say, “I”m not a scientist” lol, what a foolish comment!!

                    7. So you’re admitting that the global warming models are/were wrong? And the new theory is the oceans are warming. Got it.

                    8. No, the oceans are not warming dramatically. You cannot find any observational evidence to prove they are. You are simply repeating bs that you have decided must be true. What I do find fascinating is that when an alarmist prediction, like increased hurricanes for instance, fails, the true belivers just go onto the next prediction, like polar bears in trouble or the end of Arctic sea ice by 2014 as if nothing happened.

                    9. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/a-fresh-look-at-the-watery-side-of-earths-climate-shows-unabated-planetary-warming/?_r=0

                      “This is not even close to a new finding”

                      there is measurably less ice, and thinner ice, though you can pretend that polar bears don’t use ice as part of their habitat.

                      you pick and choose words from a complex explanation and think you’ve disproven something — only that your approach to evidence and credibility is extremely juvenile. I hope they pay you well to maintain your ignorance.

                    10. Tapasap,
                      You are a sap that seems to self tap.
                      Picking and choosing, like splicing proxy records together to hide declines and using hogenization to cool the past. Or pretending that slr is diong anything different than it has done since the measured record has been kept. Or claiaming that every weather event is proof of a catastrophe. Nothing can be more entertaining than to watch a superstitious sap see the boogey man under every rock and behind every tree.
                      But a self-tapping sap can be wound up and depended on to be dependably stoopid.

                    11. HUNTERSON: “No, the oceans are not warming dramatically. You cannot find any observational evidence to prove they are. ”

                      Tapasap: “http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/a-fresh-look-at-the-watery-side-of-earths-climate-shows-unabated-planetary-warming/?_r=0 ‘This is not even close to a new finding'”

                      BUDDY, IT’S ALL RIGHT HERE FOR YOU. YOU ARE SIMPLY WRONG AND CAN’T EVEN PAY CLOSE ENOUGH ATTENTION TO SPELL CORRECTLY, LET ALONE COMPREHEND COMPLEX PROCESSES.

                      I PITY YOU AS YOU ARE EITHER NEVER EDUCATED, OR A PAID TROLL. NEITHER IS WORTH MY TIME.

                    12. tapsap,
                      I offer you quotes of the failed predictions and you come back with more alarmist hype.
                      Good luck. Keep chanting your mantra of faith. I will stick with the real world, where when predictions fail you toss out the theory. You stick with dogma.
                      Ciao,

                    13. Read up on arctic ice extent sometime.
                      Or are you just going to ignore the satellite observations?

                    14. one might consider supporting their words with, dunno, evidence?

                      feel free to show which flawed “observations” you’re clinging to in order to disprove the basic truths of today’s changing climate.

                      happy friday!

                    15. Geez, it’s a religion with you, isn’t it?
                      If you’re curious you can look this stuff up. Why would I care if you’re ignoring observations?

                      Your “side” is wrong. As time passes and more and wild predictions prove false and the actual warming is no longer considered a threat, your credibility will wane and the rest of humanity can move on.

                    16. from your response, i’ve learned:
                      1. you don’t the difference between faith and evidence-backed conclusions.
                      2. Me and my assertions are more credible than you are.

                      neither revelation is a surprise.

                    17. Time will tell, won’t it buddy?
                      Today the observations are disagreeing with the models. As that continues it will be harder and harder to justify such blind faith.

                    18. your hermetically sealed bubble is the only place where denial is the prevailing belief.

                      and yes, the bubble will pop, and future generations will blame you and yours.

                      sleep well, friend.

                    20. Check the official thermometers at the airports and see if some are in areas where they can be warmed by jet exhaust when the wind is “just-so.” (I’ll save you the trouble. The answer is “Yes.”)

                      Check the official thermometers atop municipal buildings and see if some are in areas where they can be warmed by air conditioner condensers when the wind is “just-so.” (I’ll save you the trouble. That answer is “Yes,” too.)

                      You claim to have checked and rechecked the data, but it the data is poo, don’t treat it as if it were pudding.

                  2. Are you basing this on the 100 years of climate data collected on Mars as it has been here on Earth that clearly shows a pattern of warming in the past 20 years, 13 of the hottest years in history coming in the last 15 years?

                    Oh wait, there isnt 100 years of Mars climate data to compare as there is here…

                    Does it hurt to be as ignorant as you clearly are or do you get used to being a dimwit over time?

          2. Every few months, when climate change deniers decide they’ve come up with an all-new reason to convince themselves that global warming is all a big hoax, we like to take a look at whatever the latest scam is that they are propagating, either because they are part of the effort to help out the fossil-fuel industry, or simply because they enjoy being their brainwashed and/or incurious little tools.

            Back in 2013 these stooges were promoting the phony notion that “Arctic ice has grown to a record level!” It hadn’t. After that debacle, they claimed UN scientists had found their predictions of warming were off by 50 percent or more. They weren’t. More recently, they were pushing the false claim that the globe has been cooling ever since 1998. It hasn’t been. And, of course, when all else failed, they could always fall back on their old standby: weaning ourselves from dangerous fossil fuels won’t make any difference anyway because China would never do the same. But, of course, China is now doing so at a rate that should embarrass these jackasses. But it won’t. Because they are never embarrassed about being wrong.

            So, with 2014 recently clocking in as the hottest year for the planet on record, according to every major world agency that measures such things, and with 13 of the hottest years on record all falling within the past 15 years, these clowns are getting pretty desperate for something — anything — to use to keep the denialist scam going on behalf of the most profitable industry in the history of civilization.

            The latest such scam, helpfully propagated on several Fox “News” shows last week, is that the so-called “scientists” have been caught red-handed in the act of “lying” about raw temperature data! That’s right! They have been manipulating the data to exaggerate the extent of global warming!

            Except, of course, they haven’t, and they aren’t…

      1. Being a hate America liberal proaganda business, being wrong is actually a plus for them. The left hates the truth and facts. It confuses them and that ,makes them mad.

        1. “The left hates the truth and facts.”….then why is it that conservatives can’t produce more than 2 peer-reviewed articles that support their claim about it being bogus out of more than 10,000 published in the last few years that support the notion its real and man-made?

          1. If you were honest, then you would acknowledge that there are thousands of scientists who do not agree with the IPCC idiots, who’s climate models have be consistently wrong. But stick with your lies, you wouldn’t want to have too dramatic a change in your life.

              1. If you are honest enough to investigate alternatives, then I recommend Dark Winter. Oh, if not, fine, you will only reinforce what I stated.
                The data have been abused by the Warmer community, for the most part to prove their case and get continued funding.
                None of the IPCC computer models has been right, NONE. They base their predictions on faulty and incorrect models, and you still support them? I hope that isn’t a real Cobra you are flying, you might be a few cards short of a full deck.

                  1. You mean like the fact all the following organizations disagree with you?

                    NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS):http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/g…

                    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/cl…

                    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):http://www.grida.no/climate/ip…

                    National Academy of Sciences (NAS):http://books.nap.edu/collectio…

                    State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) –http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/…

                    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):http://epa.gov/climatechange/i…

                    The Royal Society of the UK (RS) – http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page…

                    American Geophysical Union (AGU):http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/pol…

                    American Meteorological Society (AMS):http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/…

                    American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/gov/policy1…

                    National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR):http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1…

                    American Meteorological Society (AMS):http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/…

                    Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS):http://www.cmos.ca/climatechan…

                    Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)

                    Royal Society of Canada

                    Chinese Academy of Sciences

                    Academie des Sciences (France)

                    Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

                    Indian National Science Academy

                    Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)

                    Science Council of Japan

                    Russian Academy of Sciences

                    Royal Society (United Kingdom)

                    National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

                    Australian Academy of Sciences

                    Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

                    Caribbean Academy of Sciences

                    Indonesian Academy of Sciences

                    Royal Irish Academy

                    Academy of Sciences Malaysia

                    Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

                    Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

                    But if scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps you find the opinion of key industry representatives more convincing:

                    BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world, hasthis opinion:

                    There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.

                    Shell Oil (yes, as in oil, the fossil fuel) says:

                    Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.

                    Eighteen CEOs of Canada’s largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:

                    Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

                    Have the environazis seized the reigns of industrial power, in addition to infiltrating the U.N., the science academies of every developed nation, and the top research institutes of North America? That just doesn’t seem very likely.

                    1. Your BS would bear some weight if even one of those orgs didn’t PROFIT from their lies.

                    2. And, being smart, they will hop on the government run “alternative” bandwagon while continuing to hold and supply oil.

                      The Green Blob Unveiled, US Billionaires Purchased Policy: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/26/The-Green-Blob-Unveiled-How-UK-Energy-Policy-is-Bought-With-American-Billionaires-Cash

                      Clean Energy’s Dirty Secrets: http://www.nationalreview.com/energy-week/388619/clean-energys-dirty-secrets-rupert-darwall

                      “EPA administrator Gina McCarthy admitted it was not about pollution control. “It’s about investments in renewables and clean energy,” she told the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in July. “This is an investment strategy.”

                      Best Anti Fracking Study Money Can Buy or, Science for Sale: http://capitolcityproject.com/meet-group-quietly-propelling-anti-fracking-movement/

                      Howarth received $35,000 to conduct the study — which was fundedby the Park Foundation. Howarth himself said that the money did not change the way the study was performed, but also acknowledged he was approached by the Park Foundation and agreed to produce a study going against the notion that shale gas extraction was clean.

                      But of course, we should trust pathological liars and snake oil salesmen, they care deeply for us so we should just shut up and pay up.

                    3. your doctor profits from your sickness.

                      you can be sure (SURE!!) your doctor caused your sickness.

                      And your lawyer, definitely profiting from your legal issues. you were setup.

                      the world is out to get you, fool!!

                    4. The real problem is they don’t come to their conclusions by scientific methods. Part of science is repeatable results and these studies aren’t correct in their predictions so something is wrong with their computer models. Real scientist admit the error and goes back to change some factors to create a more accurate prediction. Too many groups go back and fudge data to try and make it fit. This debate causes climate warming groups to dig their heels ignoring the errors in prediction so we don’t get accurate information from them.

                  2. Some might, scales fall from everyone’s eyes sooner or later. Take the $50,000 per citizen price tag for Obamacare. Sure sounds like I’m not going to save any money on it! 🙁

                    1. I am being totally punished by that travesty! Triple deductibles, double rates. Lost my doctor…

                    5. My source is my healthcare policy with HealthPlus of Michigan and it was the best of the 4 I could choose from, sweety

                    7. “scales fall from everyone’s eyes sooner or later”

                      No, they don’t. Often, they turn into coins to keep the dead lids closed. We need to get there soon and if the warmies keep up the chicken little BS we should start frying them as treats for alligators in their own oil.

                    8. No, at some point, probably in the next 30 years when the temps haven’t changed significantly at all.

                    9. Such confident words from a uniquely clueless individual. Feel free to post from where you dredged your misinformation. It would be a pleasure to clean-up your drivel in the name of basic evidence and facts.

                    10. The facts you speak of speak for themselves. Where is all the warming?
                      Temperatures have been higher in the past, and for 18 years no warming! Oh, that is the fly in the ointment now isn’t it?
                      4 billion years of climate, and you and your idiot priest predict doom and gloom from a 20 year window. One of us is clueless, and not very thoughtful as well, but it isn’t me.

                    12. Quoting a site that is ignoring the evidence, which “realclimte” is doing, does not make you look bright.

                    14. I think you are highly resistant to evidence yo udon’t like. In the days when science worked one would have to offer evidence of the extraordinary claim that the earth is undergoig a climate crisis.
                      Now that religious kooks have hijacked science the only thing needed is the fervor of faith.

                    15. you realize how pathetic your reply is?

                      you can’t even present what you DO believe, only sure that 97+% of credible scientists are wrong. oooh, don’t like that #? then PROVE IT”S WRONG!!

                      science is not religion, and if you’re still stuck on that issue, you have a long way to go before you start to grasp climate models and the change we’re facing.

                      it’s complikated!!

                    16. Anyone who believes the 97% scam is already stuck on stupid.
                      Science is not relgion. And you are not a scientist.

                    19. man you reach deep into the bowels of the internet to find such garbage.

                      ah, look ma, a wordpress site with quotes! do they link anywhere, provide any context, or are they meaningful in anyway? NO? NO! unless you’re a climate change denier, in which case, you see gold in dem piles of mierda!!

                      that you link to that site is enough to tell me how credible you are.

                      but you’re paid/post, right? so go gettem $$$$$$!!!!

                    20. lol. You are no different in your defense than a bible thumper defending his rapture and “Left Behind” fantasy..
                      Thanks for playing.

                    23. tapasap,
                      You will simply continue to reject the evidence. I offer you quotes of failed predictions and you just dismiss them. I point out that storms, slr, pH, sea ice, polar bears are all doing fine. You reject that. I have no faith in this matter. I reject yours and it seems to drive you crazy. But it is apparently a short drive for you.

                    26. The falseness of the 97% claim was well established awhile back.
                      Your spittle flecked replies remind me of frustrated bible thumpers who dislike hearing about evolution.

                    27. I still have not been able to locate the study that provides the empirical evidence that global warming is caused by human beings via CO2. I have found a large amount of papers and opinions pieces that include computer model predictions that support the theory of man made warming. These peer reviewed papers have plenty of statistics in regard to temperature and what not, but where is the evidence of cause and effect?

                      I am hoping you can provide me with the information that I am seeking. Again, I am referring to empirical data or evidence that shows the direct link of the globe warming due to human beings via CO2.

                      My main issue with the globe warming due to human beings and CO2 is some simple logic.
                      1. There are more humans populating the planet at the present time then ever before. This means there are more humans exhaling CO2 into the atmosphere than ever before.
                      2. There are more industrial type machinery as well as things such as cars and planes than ever before. This also means there are more entities producing CO2 than ever before.
                      3. The number one consumer of CO2 are trees and plant life. Due to human consumption and deforestation there are less tree/plant life present on earth than at any other time in mans existence.

                      So we have the two largest contributors to CO2 production at peak levels and the largest consumer of CO2 at its lowest level. Why are we not seeing the temperature rise higher and higher in a accelerated manner? Instead papers are issued that lay claim to the warmest yr or warmest decade having just occurred, with the difference in temp from a previous high being a hundredth of a decimal point.

                    28. PROVE THE CO2 is from burning fossil fuels:
                      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

                      Why isn’t the [air] temperature exponentially increasing like the co2 concentrations:
                      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

                      are you able to comprehend the issues discussed at the links?

                      if not, do more research then come back and try again.

                    29. I asked for empirical evidence that shows human created CO2 is a direct cause of global temperature increase. Your first link was not needed since I i stated in my comment that CO2 comes from fossil fuels.

                      Now, if you take the second link to be empirical data that shows a direct casual relationship of human CO2 and temp increase then you may need more than a simple increase in your comprehension abilities. Do you have any idea of the size, variations, movements of currents, and the overall lack of knowledge man has of the oceans? Why weren’t these climate scholars alerting us to this phenomen during the rapid increase in temp in the late 20th century? Was the ocean on a absorption hiatus then? I seem to recall hockey sticks and other computer graphs predicting immenint doom that showed temperature increasing up up up. That turned out to be wrong. Wait, it wasn’t wrong, just listen to this ocean idea, ok? So to be clear, the warmers have moved on from sun spots, solar activity, strastpheric water vapor, pine aerosols, coincidence, pacific trade winds, etc and have definetly decided on the theory from the second link you posted?

                    30. ah, the fool who refuses to understand answers to his own foolish questions… has more questions!!

                      and is still a fool.

                      Since you can’t learn (and actively choose ignorance over long-proven ideas), there’s no point in trying to point you in the direction of reality.

                    31. That’s a good way to get around displaying empirical data to support your claim. Say you gave the evenidence and sling insults.

                      When using this response technique in the future I reccomend you rethink the “long proven” claim. It was only 40 or so years ago that we had a cover story in Time magazine where we were told to fear the impending doom global cooling was going to bring. The overwhelming majority of scientist surveyed back even said so. Hahaha

                    34. I still have not been able to locate the study that provides the empirical evidence that global warming is caused by human beings via CO2. I have found a large amount of papers and opinions pieces that include computer model predictions that support the theory of man made warming. These peer reviewed papers have plenty of statistics in regard to temperature and what not, but where is the evidence of cause and effect?

                      I am hoping you can provide me with the information that I am seeking. Again, I am referring to empirical data or evidence that shows the direct link of the globe warming due to human beings via CO2.

                      My main issue with the globe warming due to human beings and CO2 is some simple logic.
                      1. There are more humans populating the planet at the present time then ever before. This means there are more humans exhaling CO2 into the atmosphere than ever before.
                      2. There are more industrial type machinery as well as things such as cars and planes than ever before. This also means there are more entities producing CO2 than ever before.
                      3. The number one consumer of CO2 are trees and plant life. Due to human consumption and deforestation there are less tree/plant life present on earth than at any other time in mans existence.

                      So we have the two largest contributors to CO2 production at peak levels and the largest consumer of CO2 at its lowest level. Why are we not seeing the temperature rise higher and higher in a accelerated manner? Instead papers are issued that lay claim to the warmest yr or warmest decade having just occurred, with the difference in temp from a previous high being a hundredth of a decimal point.

                    35. Jerry, those papers are primarily from the IPCC. They are not Science, no matter how many peers reviewed them. The whole mess involves taking historical data, questionable at best, with newer ground stations taking temps. Some of the ground stations are in areas where their accuracy has been called. It is all smoke and mirrors, since we are talking less than 2 degrees at any rate. Don’t waste your time, it is the IPCC and Al Gore, and Government trying to get more money from you as a Carbon Tax. Liars, cheats, and thieves, that’s what we are dealing with.

                    36. That wasn’t meant for you, I apologize. It was meant for one of the commenters who are sure the human breathing cycle is heating the planet. My tone was an attempt at disarming them so they wouldn’t fly off the handle. It may have given us the opportunity to listen to them twist themselves into pretzels explaining how even without empirical data/evidence it’s still a fact . I am very well aware that the entire subject is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on man. There are zero studies with empirical data/evidence that show CO2 causes global warming nor are there papers with proof of a direct cause and effect relationship btw the human breathing cycle and global warming. Its nothing more than communists dyeing their red shirts green.

                    37. Obamacare program costs $50,000 in taxpayer money for every American who gets health insurance, says bombshell budget report
                      Stunning figure comes from Congressional Budget Office report that revised cost estimates for the next 10 years
                      Government will spend $1.993 TRILLION over a decade and take in $643 BILLION in new taxes, penalties and fees related to Obamacare
                      The $1.35 trillion net cost will result in ‘between 24 million and 27 million’ fewer Americans being uninsured – a $50,000 price tag per person at best
                      The law will still leave ‘between 29 million and 31 million’ nonelderly Americans without medical insurance
                      Numbers assume Obamacare insurance exchange enrollment will double between now and 2025

                  3. I see bigot, religious people are all nuts? and The book of trolls chapter 7 speaks about Global warming in depth, it comes between the book of Gore and the book of Ehrlich

                  1. It’s a book…. “Dark Winter”, by John L. Casey, NASA Scientist.
                    Read it if you are interested in both sides of the conversation. Available as an ebook on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc.
                    You might keep in mind that once Plate Tectonics was considered rubbish by greater than 90% of Geologists, and those who denied it were all wrong.

                    2. Keep in mind at one time Earth was the center of the Universe and “deniers” were persecuted.

                    3. I know my history, I gave an example from a period after the dark ages and Church strong arming science.

                    4. the earth was flat and we had a new ice age in the 70’s , and the population bomb of the 70′;s , and then of course Guam will tip over with too many in the military there. .

                    5. the evidence for plate tectonics was overwhelming, as is the evidence for anthropogenic climate change.

                      a refusal to address evidence is only proof that you’re pathological, it does nothing for scientific inquiry.

                    6. You don’t know much evidently, plate tectonics wasn’t readily accepted, taking years and years to be accepted as fact.
                      Then when it was accepted, they had irrefutable evidence to support their theory.
                      There is no evidence which hasn’t been massaged, or downright cherry picked in support of global warming. As a matter of fact, the whole global warming nonsense began from a Science Fiction Novels, plot!
                      Believe what you will, you will be surprised when cooling begins.

                    7. empty words from an empty head. you don’t have evidence on your side, yet the entire world has evidence showing you’re wrong.

                      And you rely on the likes of Monckton et al to support your side? your POV is an embarrassment because it’s not supported by anything other than angry superstition. You conflate your politics with science — a grave error that hopefully future generations will forgive.

                      I’m not so sure they will — in the age of information, you cling to misinformation to support your ignorance. Shameful.

                    8. Well, I am happy in my ignorance, but you might want to read the Skeptical Environmentalist, and Dark Winter. I get the biggest kick out of pathetic humans like you. Someone spoon fed you a lie, and you just have to believe it. How many secret emails have to be leaked by the GW community in order for you to smell a rat? How many times will you blindly allow the IPCC to guide your life when they have been wrong time and again? An old saying, totally appropriate to you and those like you is “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me”. Are you aware that the UN wants you to buy into their scam, so that they might tax you and take the money to other countries under the guise of humanitarian aid? Are you aware that they would love a world government that they control with our Constitution set by the wayside? Are you unaware that the main supporters in the political world are making a killing on fallacious Green energy projects? What does it take to wake you up, are you really this stupid?

                      The schooling you received has obviously done it’s job. You and those like you need a noble cause because you have shallow, petty little lives, and cannot abide not belonging to some larger group. No brains, no spine, and no ability to think and observe what is surrounding you on a daily basis. Pathetic really, I feel sorry that you and so many others are incapable of thinking independently. I feels sorry you are so easily led, I’ll bet you supported Obamacare too! Just as we get the government we deserve, we get it due to the likes of you and yours.

                    9. Yes, you are happy in your ignorance.

                      and you dwell in evidence-free conspiracy theories. I’ll pass on that approach, thanks.

                      I prefer to read all i can about the subject, with a skeptical eye. the most obviously wrong claims so far are from people like you, climategate emails, etc. anyone with a single good eye or half a good ear can discern who is full of BS.

                      you.

                    10. Conspiracy theories…there is nothing theoretical about either of the items id mentioned. Deluded is what you are.

            3. Sweetheart you claimed the models are wrong, didn’t you?????? Can you please show us the models you’re talking about???????? Remember be specific and name your sources. Thanks

              1. NASA 95% of models wrong: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-percent-of-global-warming-models-are-wrong/

                10/19/2013 Obama Admin. to Spend $18 Million on New Climate Models: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/feds-will-spend-18m-develop-reliable-climate-change-predictions

                Warming at 0 and German Climate Scientist Can’t Explain it. “Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations. – See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/global-warming-temperature-very-close-zero-over-15-years#sthash.KEdzpvZC.dpuf

              2. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/. Most people thought the earth was flat, that blacks were genetically inferior and 52% voted for Obama in this country, and in the 70’s we were in the beginning of the new ice age, None of that proves anything, http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html. It is not possible, nor worth anyones time to disprove someone’s feelings.

            4. Show me a model – any model for any complex phenomenon – that has ever been “right”. If you know what “wrong” is, then you’ll certainly be able to point out what’s “right”. I await your reply.

              1. There are many, but since you ask we have continuously made our Nuke weapons cleaner and more potent without increasing weight. Computer models did this…
                Every Space Shot has simulations done for many contingencies, they have been proven accurate.
                You should be able to find this information out yourself, but like so many, you are emotionally invested in “your” belief system. Belief systems need to be challenged, not just accepted as correct, that is the way a child acts.

                1. Yes, computer models have simulated nuclear explosions. And they have guided us to the moon. But they are not “right”, any more than weather models or climate models are “right”. You haven’t shown me a model that is “right”. No model is ever “right”. They only give approximations. What is “child”-ish is the notion that we can generate exactly correct outcomes with man-made computer models for complex phenomena (we probably will never be able to do that). The medication(s) that you take were formulated with the help of computer modeling. Those models are not “right”, but yet you take the med(s). Your doctor treats you based on protocols and procedures that are based largely on computer models, but yet you don’t eschew medical professionals. Your car engine’s design is based on complex computer models, yet those models can’t give you the “right” value for the performance of the engine in your car. As an engineer, I use models to predict the performance of certain motor components, such as bearings, yet I have never had one instance where the model I used ever gave the “right” value or actual outcome. So, do we disregard climate models because they haven’t been exactly “right”? Or do we act based on the best available modeling that science can produce thus far (as we do with all other models)?

                  1. Do you program computers for a living Tamra? Models are only as good as the ability of the programmer to get the variables right. If your modeling programs don’t measure up, then get a new program.
                    As with anything relating to computers GIGO!
                    Uh, yes when the models used predict temperature rises which none of us has seen for over 18 years, and when those same agencies pushing Climate Change are doing so to tax the Global Community, then you ought to ignore the models. Ockham’s Razor mean anything to you?
                    The Earth has been warmer many times, and much much cooler too. All without man’s presence. Do you know how much C02 was generated laying down the beds of coal we’ve used for hundreds of years? A great deal. Yet mile thick glaciers covered the northern latitudes, and they melted! Without man.
                    I suspect we will be able to model climate, once we truly understand it. Today we don’t, and taking hard earned wealth from Global Societies without proof is just plain theft.

                    1. I have written computer models. I don’t do it for a living. Now are you going to answer my questions (including my original question of how you would gauge if a computer model were “right”)? If not, I’ll suppose you just don’t really understand what computer modelling is about and what the expectations are from employing models.

                    2. You are silly beyond my ken. If the model doesn’t reflect the observations, not even close, the model is flawed. If the model is correct, it should properly predict in advance the observations taken at a later time, none do!

                    3. Obviously you don’t have the same understanding of models as I do. And you’re not going to answer my questions. Good day.

                    4. I’ve built computers from discrete ICs Tamra, hell, I’ve built half adders from vacuum tubes! I understand binary logic, and have programmed them using hard wired connections, instructions entered via switch bank, paper tape, magnetic tape, and disk drives. I do understand models, and know that if you don’t have all the variables, constants, or you make assumptions which are not valid, you will not get results which correlate to observations in real life.

                      You need to consider that the Sun is the variable with the greatest impact upon our climate. It has been so for billions of years. There lies the culprit, and it is now entering into a period of less activity.
                      You ask me questions, but can’t even answer simple ones designed to make you think.

                      Tamra, 10,000 years ago, there were glaciers 1 mile thick in Minnesota, Michigan, and other northern tier states. Man wasn’t industrial in the least, unless you want to count creating Clovis points for his weapons.
                      WHAT CAUSED 1 MILE THICK GLACIERS TO MELT?
                      Good day yourself.

                    5. I don’t think you’ve said anything relevant to the topic. But we really don’t have any common basis of understanding to make it worth continuing.
                      I’ll end my side of the conversation here.

                    6. Tell me what textbook related to Climatology or Atmospherics you’ve read that establishes theory based on “Ockham’s Razor”.

                    7. Like I said silly beyond my ken.
                      Tamra, if we haven’t observed any warming for 18+ years, then obviously CO2 isn’t forcing warming, especially since we’ve still been pumping out CO2.

                      The simpler explanation is often the correct explanation.
                      ie. The warming that the alarmists are concerned with fall within the variability of the normal distribution when looked at from the entire known data. 4 billion years of climate, some hotter, some warmer, some wetter, some drier. Tamra, what factor has the greatest impact on the Earths Climate? This isn’t a hard question. Ockham’s Razor will give you the answer.

          2. There are plenty of scientist who disagree with man-made global warming or even with the notion that the earth will continue to warm. Sadly a lot of careers rely on ‘global warming’ being real so the propaganda will continue in order to keep climatologist relevant.

            1. “There are plenty of scientist who disagree with man-made global warming”…..then why haven’t any more than TWO been able to publish peer-reviewed papers on the topic, out of more than 10,000 that have asserted its real and man-made?

              1. Your statistics are false. Here is a small fraction of the scientific field who publicly have disagreed with the notion of man made global warming. You don’t here of these people because they don’t promote the Liberal Media’s agenda.

                David Bellamy, botanist.
                Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
                Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society
                Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University
                Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
                Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.
                Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)
                Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University
                Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science
                Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
                Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
                Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
                Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
                Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry
                Zbigniew Jaworowski,

                1. And here is just a TINY slice of organizations who utterly disagree with those people….

                  NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS):http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

                  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

                  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

                  National Academy of Sciences (NAS):http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html

                  State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) –http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm

                  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html

                  The Royal Society of the UK (RS) – http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135

                  American Geophysical Union (AGU):http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

                  American Meteorological Society (AMS):http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html

                  American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html

                  National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR):http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html

                  American Meteorological Society (AMS):http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html

                  Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS):http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

                  Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)

                  Royal Society of Canada

                  Chinese Academy of Sciences

                  Academie des Sciences (France)

                  Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

                  Indian National Science Academy

                  Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)

                  Science Council of Japan

                  Russian Academy of Sciences

                  Royal Society (United Kingdom)

                  National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

                  Australian Academy of Sciences

                  Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

                  Caribbean Academy of Sciences

                  Indonesian Academy of Sciences

                  Royal Irish Academy

                  Academy of Sciences Malaysia

                  Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

                  Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

                  But if scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps you find the opinion of key industry representatives more convincing:

                  BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world, hasthis opinion:

                  There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.

                  Shell Oil (yes, as in oil, the fossil fuel) says:

                  Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.

                  Eighteen CEOs of Canada’s largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:

                  Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

                  Have the environazis seized the reigns of industrial power, in addition to infiltrating the U.N., the science academies of every developed nation, and the top research institutes of North America? That just doesn’t seem very likely.

                  1. Most of the organizations you named would lose relevance and funding without global warming. Many of the people I showed you work for the ‘science academies of every developed nation’ and the ‘top research institutes of North America’. 150 years of sporadic computer models is far too inconclusive for anyone to deem man made global warming as fact. It’s ludicrous.

                    2. BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world, hasthis opinion:

                      There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.

                      Shell Oil (yes, as in oil, the fossil fuel) says:

                      Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.

                    4. Why wouldn’t they drill when its their business and there’s still money to be made in it?

                    1. your a dummy the sun an core friction provide sll the heat for the globe hear look it up before you open your mouth an prove how studio ypou are

                3. Save your breath, Cobra is a cultist and will not abandon his beliefs under any circumstances. He could find himself living under a mile of ice and snow, burning coal to survive and he’d just hate himself for the carbon footprint he’s leaving!

                    1. Nope, I won’t waste a second of my life trying to prove or disprove anything for you! Have a nice day 🙂

                    2. http://townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/2008/05/31/environmentalists_pick_up_where_communists_left_off/page/full

                      Charles, like I am agnostic on Man made global warming, as we all should be, it is been a farce even though indeed a possibility. but warming , then cooling then climate change then warming again, is inane, , Charles here, he like myself also exhibits common sense, something that is void from radical environmentalists. These environmentalist radicals think we want dirty air, how much more proof do you need of their ignorance. We all want clean air, but we also want to get to work and feed our families. Rather than gazillion on this stuff,let these so called experts spend their time aqnd energy on cleaner, cheaper alternative , 99.9% of us will be happy to support that.

                  2. You are so right……I have read enough of his posts to realize that he is a zealot whose mind is made up and he is lacking the intellectual curiosity to evaluate an opposing view regardless of the facts presented. I remember the zealots being equally enthusiastic in their support for the coming ice age back in the 70’s.

                6. Most of the people on your list are not Climate Scientists and interestingly the average age of that mob is about 70 years old.

                  Why is it just crusty old academics that are denying human induced climate change?

              2. Ever hear of an echo chamber? Ever consider that these scientists don’t have a job if they aren’t funded?
                Follow the money, you ought to have learned that in 12th grade.

                    1. Hmmm what? 2 peer reviewed papers supporting your view versus over 10,000 supporting mine. Hmmmmmm

                    2. Said it earlier, bares repeating:
                      You don’t prove a theory by looking for examples that back it up, you look for a example that disproves it.
                      A “Black Swan Theory” if you will.

                    5. How many Nazi’s had peers, and same for those that thought blacks were inferior. Radicals have always had peers concur.

            2. that is an asinine comment. The $$$ supporting pseudoscience is real and growing. Anyone who will put their name on the lies coming from the deniers will be paid handsomely.

              ah, and travel the world speaking to the dwindling #’s of likeminded deniers. Monckton is a great example.

              Whatever happened to climategate? you check that out? uh huh.

          3. You’re asking why the conservatives can’t produce peer-reviewed articles that attempt to prove a negative (that AGW is not happening)?

            You can’t prove a negative. What we can do is find the faults in the “studies” that make a positive assertion, and that has been done in spades.

            Appeals to authority have no place in science. We’ve already seen concrete examples of guardians of the peer-review process protecting their pet theory against all comers, and we’ve seen “scientists” like Hansen massaging the data so that the past becomes cooler and the present becomes warmer. We’ve seen the climate-gate emails from East Anglia. We’ve seen as computer models fail to predict events as significant as 18 years of flat temperatures, and been amazed as the so-called scientists tell us to ignore the actual data, and instead believe the climate models.

            These climate models have never been validated– they’d have to
            successfully predict something for that to happen. They’ve never done
            that. They have continued to predict warming over the last 18 years, even as the temperatures have remained flat. The period of warming alarmism (that began when cooling alarmism of the 70s ended) has only been a hair longer than the period of flat temperatures.

            In science, if the data don’t fit the theory, you try a new theory (actually a hypothesis, but most people don’t really know the difference). In climate science, if the data don’t fit the theory, you change or ignore the data and double down on the pronouncements of the accuracy of your predictions.

            The warmists love to wrap themselves in the banner of science, but the cult of warmism is anything but.

          5. Are these the same ones that admit that global warming is also occurring on Mars, Venus, and several other sister planets? Damn, I didn’t realize the tailpipe on my SUV was that long.

          6. Hey pb, your ” facts” are bogus.and so is your common sense. No intelligent person is going to spend their time, energy and funds ” disproving someone else feelings! You can not be so naive, ( then guess you can) to think that 99% of the ” peer” article writers, did not begin with a conclusion first of ” global warming, err climate change, err ice age, err no ice age, err no snow, err too much snow, err lots of hurricanes, err no hurricanes? It is as comical as listening to Obama say something this week that he said the opposite last week. The sun will rise tomorrow, and set as that proves global warming, prove me wrong on that conclusion?

          8. You nailed it – peer reviewed – so when your ” peers ” review your science, they amazingly agree with it, because their agenda is the same. If you are invested in Natural Gas, you darn well want coal plants shuttered. and the beat goes on===

            1. what a simple-minded approach to a complex issue.

              go ahead and do some further research on climategate. Huh, i wonder why you choose to read ONLY THE EDITED emails, and not the actual emails that existed before HACKERS DOCTORED THEM.

              don’t look behind the curtain — you might see something you don’t understand!!

              1. Well, i didn’t think you’d read more than one fact. But here’s a second one. The UK Met office has released a report showing no warming for 16 years.
                http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261577/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming–deniers-now.html

                Now, why was this report quietly released? If they truly believed in GW why would this NOT be celebrated?

                Fact 3 (Goggle it yourself).
                Of the greenhouse gases water vapor has the biggest impact. Then natural sources of CO2. Removing all manmade sources of CO2 will not prevent GW according to the climate ‘scientists’ own models.

                So the truth is that people that promote GW are just like the snake oil salesmen from 100+ years ago. They use the trappings of science to scam the public.

                There are more facts, but i expect this is your limit at a time.

          11. Yeah right…….that’s the ticket….publish a lie and it becomes truth. What about the hoaxes where the books were “cooked” to promote a false narrative to promote global warming……
            We’ll just overlook that, right.

              1. There is plenty of documentation that debunks the whole global warming assertion. If you haven’t kept up I’m not going to spend any time researching for you. You might want to start with East Anglia.

                1. the headlines ring from the rafters, while the retractions slink by under the floorboards.

                  http://lmgtfy.com/?q=climategate+results

                  be brave enough to click on the link that ISN’T fox news for once. The rest of the world (including the US house) caught on that this was an email hack designed to fool simpletons like yourself. Good luck in a complicated world.

                  1. I suspect that you would believe the world is flat if the right person told you. In the mean time I would suggest that you calm down a little and quit calling people who disagree with you stupid. What is stupid is the global warmist alarmists declaring the debate over when there is credible evidence to support the other side of the issue. You are apparently one of the easily manipulated who have fallen into their trap. I have no further reason to communicate with you as I believe you to be too narrow minded to evaluate a subject objectively, preferring to accept and regurgitate the liberal narrative of the day. Good day.

          13. That’s right you should always believe the con man who is trying to take your money with some phony lie. You flat earthers and your consensus science. You were wrong when your consensus scientist told us that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth and you are wrong now with your man made global warming. Always remember we have seen the email where these so called scientist admitted they lied and hid the truth.

          14. In actual fact CobraPilot, there were only 64 peer reviewed papers (out of 11,500-odd) in Cooks study that stated that man (us) was >50% (category 1) responsible for AGW.

    5. I despise the NY Times ! I pray for their NY Queens building to get torn down and put something useful in it’s place ! They have insane people working for them !

    6. Do you ever get the feeling that someone up there (maybe Mother Nature) is showing the East Coast, especially the New York Area what they think of “Global Warming”?
      It just cracks me up. Blaseo, the Mayor, is running around crazy closing all the streets.
      I wonder what the next era will be called. Remember “Nuclear Winter?”

    7. For libs, global warming, err climate change is a religion. While the NYT’s and libs have no problem attacking faithful for superstitious like beliefs, the climate change wacksos who live in a fantasy land of unicorns and fairies.are beyond reproach.

    10. to them it just proves their point that the climate is changing. And look in a year man changed it so much that now it snows a lot. The left will never admit they have been taken for suckers by Gore and Co, because they have their own agenda.

    20. In our region, snow IS a distant memory. Growing up in upstate South Carolina, we had at least one good snow — 12 to 18 inches — a winter. The last one I remember was in 1987. Now we get an occasional dusting of 1/4 to 1 inch, which is typically gone by noon. I know folks in the Northeast would probably love that right now, but my children have never seen or experienced snow the way I remember it.

    22. Does ever Nabisco get embarrassed about their claims for Shredded Wheat? Do Cubs fans ever get embarrassed about their predictions for the next World Series?

      See, the thing is, propagandists don’t have to believe what they’re saying. Simply saying it seems to serve some strange but useful purpose for them. //big smile//

      1. Up until now I thought the warmists were true believers in the data and simulations; that they were just mediocre scientists that simply didn’t check their input or results sufficiently. Yes, in the sense of a Cubs fan wishing for a World Series, wishing very hard for the “necessary” government policies may not be immoral in their eyes. This fits other situations as well.

        1. I understand and we’re almost entirely on the same page.

          Immorality isn’t a necessary component of being factually wrong, although if somebody knows he’s wrong and promotes a viewpoint anyway, that’s immoral, I think.

  7. “Man Made” Climate Change / Global Warming is a *THEORY*

    So far, all the 20 year-old computer model projections and doomsday predictions have been wrong . . . so have the 10 year-old ones, and in this case – last year’s whine.

    Watch “Inconvenient Truth” again and compare AlGore’s predictions to reality – it is eye opening.

    Where I sit typing this in Ohio – was covered with glacial ice *7 times* in the last 700,000 years ~ where did that ice come from / and go if “warming” and “cooling” is not a natural cyclical phenomena?

      1. In order for “Gravity” to be *proven science* the way AGW is ~ Newton’s apple would have to fall BOTH down and up…

        Tell us all, Nicolas ~ when *any* result is used to *prove* a theory ~ how would we know if we solved the crisis of AGW?

        More snow / less snow ~ droughts / floods ~ cold / warm . . . “scientific models” have been flat out wrong about the predicted impact of AGW for almost 20 years. If your GPS had you going in the wrong direction repeatedly for that long, would you still be using it?

        Or would you still be unable to find your ass with both hands and a mirror?

    1. True.Fact.

      “Climate Change” is the multi-purpose crisis:

      – causes floods in the Phillipines
      – causes droughts in California
      – causes the cold Polar Vortex
      – causes the stifling summer heat
      – causes an increase in crime (you can Google it!)
      – causes an increase in rapes (Google that, too)

    2. When a summer day is hot – climate change is to be blamed.
      When a summer day is cold- climate change is to be blamed.

      When a winter day is cold – climate change is to be blamed.
      When a winter day is hot – climate change is to be blamed.

      If the weather is average – you can’t say anything because local weather is not climate, you dumb non-scientists.

      /sigh – any wonder why the alarmists are not believed any more?

      1. That question is irrelevant to the blizzard.

        The Left’s claim that global warming would end snow and melt the ice everywhere has been shown by science to be false. The Left then tried to switch to “climate change with violent weather”. But the hurricanes didn’t show up and the number of tornadoes was also down.

        We really do need some global warming. In the middle age warm up places like Finland had great wines and people lived longer than when it ended. Warmer weather will open up great crop land in northern Canada and Alaska and elsewhere. But, things like all the C02 man is pumping into the atmosphere only raises the level by 0.001%. Not enough to make a difference. And the Al Gore’s who want to tax and tax and tax for climate change admit that if they get all they want it will make do difference in the outcome. In the end, green is the new red.

  11. In the long run, the temperature tends to go up and down.
    The climate is warming except when it is cooling.
    -Dr. Shmoo, Phd, Gender Studies, and Ethnic Diversity.

  14. Elmer Gantry is laughing his arse off. When global warming catastrophe deadlines pass innocently, these shyster global warming preachers just set a new date, but only the stupidest believe them anymore. Remember when British school children weren’t supposed to ever have seen snow by now? UHHH, time so shift the date again to fool the rubes.

    1. If we had only approved the gazillions of dollars in spending that the Warmists wanted 15 or 20 years ago, they would now be claiming credit for the blizzards as a return to climate normalcy.

  15. The author/editor of the NYT article graduated with an MFA in fiction from The New School in 2004. it’s amazing people will believe the lefts rhetoric without real research. Blind faith in liberalism is the most frightening dogma, ever.

    1. The New School (formerly known as the New School for Social Research) started out as a socialist hippie commune in the 1970’s to suck down federal education grant dollars and convert them into weed and sex parties for the “faculty”.

  17. When will we ever learn? The Global Warming hoax is just another liberal taxation scheme. Just like the VAT in Europe, it’s supposed to be a tax on the producers so none of the rubes down the line know they are being taxed. It was a pretty elaborate scheme that used scientific grants to get the results they wanted. Too bad they got caught. /sarc

  18. I have an innovative idea.

    The alarmists claim global warming is “settled science”.

    In that case, we should de-fund it. If the science is settled, what’s the point of spending money on it anymore?

  19. Ya but the Libtards in the North East are not smart enough to put Two and Two Together…. I mean think about it… How many times was the World Trade Center Bombed? What Cities famous Marathon was bombed? and they think the biggest threat to the WORLD is a woman having to buy her own birth control and American Christians….

    1. HAHA. Their claim about 2014 being the hottest year on record was crap. Their “perceived temperature change” was 0.1 Degree. The standard margin of error was 0.3 degrees. Not statistically significant, which means 2014 wasn’t the warmest year on record.

    2. There were roughly 10,000 peer-reviewed papers on climate change published in the last 3 years. Out of those 10,000, only TWO supported the theory that climate change is not man-made

    1. 97% of climate scientists believe its man-made and out of 10,000 peer-reviewed papers on the topic, TWO (that’s approx .001%) assert man has nothing to do with it and YOU’RE the “sane” one? LOL get real

      2. Oh goodie. A Warmist has just shown up. I bet he is cold from all the snow, so he is here warming us up with all of his rhetoric. BTW, 97% study has been disproven time and again. Besides, consensus does not make GW real.

        1. You know what HASN’T been “disproven over and over again”? The fact that only TWO peer-reviewed studies out of more than TEN THOUSAND support your claim

      3. I’d be cranking out all kinds of dire climate warnings too if my next grant depended on it. Has NSF or the EPA ever award grant money to climate skeptics?

  29. Uh, care to comment, former vice president and (must . . . not . . . smirk) climate activist Al Gore? Doesn’t the pla-YANN-et have a fa-HEE-ver?

    Yes, I see, and no, you can’t f— me or the horse I rode in on. I don’t even own a horse.

    1. Maybe if there were more than only TWO peer-reviewed papers out of more than 10,000 that supported the notion that climate change is not man-made, then you’d have something.

              1. Have you proven anything to refute? All you’ve done is cite worthless opinions. You’re not worthy of anyone proving anything based on your liberal, unproven rhetoric. I’ve sat here and watched you try to bait people in so you can copy and paste your bullsheet. Get some irrefutable facts and then come back and make some demands fly boy (wanna-be).

    1. Sorry but this isn’t snow. It’s volcanic ash from the burning Mother Earth. It only feels cold because you’re a shallow heartless GOP stooge.

  34. What happened to that “hottest year on record” dribble that was floated last week? Oh yes, of course – the bite of the progressive wine takes a man’s soul into regions that he cannot easily escape without clinical intervention. Bunch of ignorant dullards that inhabit the grand echo chambers constructed by the unsavory oligarchs who would proclaim themselves your leaders and rule over your sorry souls!

  35. Dear Ali Goof Al Gore: I know that we’ve been paying you to cool us down from the awful warming. But, warm it up a little and give some money back to warm it up? Please, sweat hog Ali!!

  39. ITS JUST LIKE WHEN THE ROMANS CREATED THE MYTH THAT THIS MAN CAME AND YOU DONT HAVE TO NOT SIN ANYMORE AND GODS WORDS ARE MEANINGLESS ….. JUST MORE LIES CREATED BY POWERFUL PEOPLE TO FIND NEW REVENUE STREAMS

  40. It is increasingly clear, from the historical record, from geological studies, from corings on an off shore, and from recent observations, and new theories, that CO2 is NOT the cause of warming, and the warming that does exist is withing the normal range of variations for the planet when viewed over centuries, let alone the 10,000 years since the melting ice sheet cleared the midwest, or the eons of hot and cold periods science has detected.
    It is clear that CO2 significantly increases the growth rates of forests, food crops and everything green.
    It is also obvious that fracking and horizontal drilling can massively reduce the cost of energy in the world while minimizing the surface footprint dedicated to energy production.
    In most of the world, the mineral rights deep below ground belong to the nation, not to private land owners. Once CO2 is exonerated and recognized to be the natural fertilizer it is, National governments will adopt and advance modern hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) and horizontal drilling world wide, leading to an order of magnitude decrease in the cost of energy, and a doubling or tripling in the availability of food, world wide.

  41. WHAT DID OBAMA SAY AT THE STATE OF THE UNION ? ,
    14 OF THE 15 HOTTEST YEARS ON RECORD HAVE HAPPENED THIS CENTURY .
    WHY ISN’T THE SNOW LISTENING ?

    THE FIGURES HE USES TO HYPE THE TRIPE ARE FROM LAND BASED TEMPERATURE STATIONS .
    THEY ARE NOT CONSTANTLY DISTRIBUTED AND MANY ARE IMPROPERLY MAINTAINED .

    WE HAVE KNOWN FOR MORE THAN A DECADE THAT QUITE A FEW OF THEM ARE PLACED NEAR
    ASPHALT PARKING LOTS , ON ROOF TOPS NEAR AC EXHAUST AND EVEN AT AIRPORTS WHERE JET
    EXHAUST BLOWS ON THEM . GARBAGE IN – GARBAGE OUT .

    SATELLITE DATA AGREES WITH THE SNOW WHICH IS FOUND WORLDWIDE , NOT JUST IN THE USA .
    IT ALSO AGREES WITH THE RECORD ICE FORMATION AT BOTH POLES .

    SO WHY DOES OBAMA CHOOSE TO USE OUTDATED , KNOWN FLAWED DATA WHEN SPACE AGE ACCURACY IS AVAILABLE ?
    IT GIVES HIM THE NUMBERS THAT HE WANTS & THE TRUTH JUST ISN’T COOPERATING !

  45. When St. Peter meets me at the gate and asks, “Scooter, did you put your personal well being above that of all your fellow humans”. I will honestly be able to say, “no, I did not”. Maybe he’ll spare me.

  46. We thinking folks will just have to accept that for everyone with a mind, there are 2 without a mind.
    Thus we have cretins falling all over themselves hyping Global Warming, and its new name Climate Change.
    How simple you must be to accept the fact that the Climate has been warming, and cooling for billions of years, long before man came on the scene, and now blame man for normal climate variation, and not call CO2 a pollutant! Just more proof that over half of us are stupid, and willing to believe anything that and “Expert” tells them. What is an expert you ask?
    X = unknown quantity
    Spurt = a drip under pressure.
    An Expert is an unknown drip under pressure, particularly when it comes to Climate.

  48. I’m suppose to believe these truth challenged geniuses? They can’t even predict picnic weather and I’m supposed to believe their predictions years and years out? Right!

  50. I remember that column by that brain-dead Ski Magazine editor Porter Fox in the Times in Feb. It was as laughable then as now. NYT didn’t allow comments, probably because they knew he’d get justifiably eviscerated.

    Besides his knee jerk goose-stepping alarmism, what grated even more was his preening, narcissistic but ultimately phony Horatio Alger life story he weaved in.

  51. More snow = more cold

    FAIL!

    Snow is precipitation, a result of having warmer oceans. If land temps increase from an average of 24 degrees to 28 degrees, water still freezes.

    Just an FYI

    2. Right!
      Now explain for us how that relates to “lake effect” snow i n the same areas, when the Great Lakes have been far colder then “normal” for a couple of years now?

  54. Does anyone think the 1,700 private jets belonging to the wealthiest 1% of the 1% who were in Davos, Switzerland last week discussing the affects the unwashed masses have on global warming had an effect on Super mega snowstorm Juno?

  55. Time to bury as many Global Warming Freaks up their eyeballs in snow and ice forever drowning out their pathetic cries for MO money for the grossly inept and corrupt UN!

  56. Let’s see now………

    We have warmed up an average of a what, a degree and a half, (Globally speaking of course.), since the end of the Little Ice age at around 1850 or so. (And thank goodness for that!). Then we find out that the warming stopped or “paused” over 18 years ago, long before such was admitted to by the scientists we’re all told we should trust.
    In the midst of all this we are also now said to be having the snowiest decade of the last 50 years or so, since this winter makes at least the ninth consecutive one with record amounts of snow and cold.

    So basically we’re all supposed to believe it when we’re told that something which stopped………excuse me…..”paused”……is real, while something we see as ongoing doesn’t constitute a trend of a completely different sort?

    Sorry, I don’t think so.

    1. Except that you must stop looking at those temperatures that are not adjusted to fit the models. If you look at the adjusted temperatures then you can see that the warming has not stopped.

      At least that is what Al Gore told me to say…

  58. Make your mind up people you can’t have it both ways, first you say it’s the warmest year on record (BS) then in the same sentence you claim the snowiest. Environmental freaks must be rolling over in their planes that they pollute the air with heading to their yachts for a cruise to discuss climate change.. hypocrites they are.

    1. Last year was the warmest year on record for the Earth, this last decade has been the snowiest on East Coast. The two are not mutually exclusive. The East Coast is a subset of locations belonging to the Earth.

        1. You’re citing a report that says 1934 was the hottest year in the US not the entire earth. The US only constitutes 2% of the surface area of the entire planet. Nice try though.

  59. AL GORE was right!!!!!!!! 6 of the last 24 biggest snow storms happened in this century!!!!!!!!! More proof that Al GORE got it right!!!!!! Any questions???????

  60. George Orwell said that “in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Wow…..this is SO true!! None of us DARE question Climate Change, or we are the enemy. Good God!!

  61. This is all due to Global Warming ? How stupid have we become to let bastards like Al Gore get rich on such a big lie ! We really need to wake up ! We need a good and trained firing squad to fix the USA !

  62. The colder it gets the more they will blame Glo-Bull Warming lol.

    I’ll give em credit for being consistent – consistent liars.

    Up is down, right is left, blue is black – got it.

                    4. That was done many times in the original article. See above. I don’t believe that redundancy is necessary. The authors did their work.

                    5. LOL! If you had actually read the article you’d know that they were refuting the claims made above.

                    8. The one on Facebook about the dog that is about to be euthanized. How could you not know that?

                    9. The article I linked to from the Washington Post? The whole thing refutes your claims. You clearly haven’t read it.

                    11. Right, the guy that understands the research and statistics behind it is demented. Whatever you have to tell yourself so you can sleep at night…

            1. Perhaps if you had read it you would know that your so called debunking of the claim fails miserably.

              Are you like Sarah Palin? You read all the papers?

                    1. None of your posts prove anything except your unwillingness to present your evidence that 2014 was NOT the warmest year on record.

                    2. Poor lemming simpleton. Do your own homework. There are far more credible articles proving it was not the hottest year out there. Go look.

                    3. No, the scientific data is more credible than your simple nay saying. How about instead of name calling you actually look at the data?

  63. Europe has considered charging Climate Change deniers as criminals. This is how EVIL of a lie this is. This is the biggest hoax on the planet, and it is squelching so many peoples livelihoods and freedoms.

  64. The Luegenpresse will go along with global warming explanation. The Luegenpresse cannot afford to back down on their lies. As with BHO the Luegenpresse feel they are invincible.

            1. That is dating you. That is back when an education meant a whole lot more than today’s cookie cutter version of sit, spit and then vomit the right common core answer.

    1. Larger than the US, yes. But is it not odd, that the world looks to little old US whenever the big bad wolf comes knocking on their door, or for a hand out, or for assistance or for political backing? Hmmm?

      1. We are talking climate here, not political or war powers. People think that what appears to be cold weather in the US means the entire planet is cooling. It is a geography and not a political lesson.

  69. If the Warmists really want to contribute to the decline of CO2 in the atmosphere, they should kill themselves… Thereby eliminating all of that nasty CO2 they exhale day in and day out….The need to lead by example —

    1. We should take all the endangered fishes out of the sea and put them in giant aquariums to protect them. This is the dawning of the age of aquarium. The age of aquarium.

  71. In science isn’t one supposed to test theories or hypotheses? If what a “scientist” predicted would happen does NOT happen, doesn’t he and “the scientific community” revisit said theory? Answer: Not when it’s global warming science.

  72. No snow or rain, global warming. Too much rain and snow, global warming. Record cold, global warming, record heat, definitely global warming. No statistically measurable change in global temperatures for nearly 20 years, that’s global warming for sure! /sarc

    1. I think you totally nailed it, except that you missed the scientific explanation of why temperature measurements that are actually real, not tampered with, show clearly that global warming has gone deep into the dark depths of the oceans, and will rise up and strike, wreaking its vengeance on mankind like that Iron Man robot in the Black Sabbath song. Just you wait. Global warming is really, really sneaky.

      1. Earth’s climate has never been static and probably won’t be until we’re swallowed by the Sun in about 7 billion years. A static climate would be the scary scenario, not a changing one.

  73. OK I only have one question. Is this any more believable then the constant lie about Global warming, cooling or change, what ever those morons are calling it now. They have to keep changing it because every time they predict something it doesn’t happen. It is all lies, fake, fraudulent and made up to try and control people and steal more money from the American people.

    1. keep clinging ever tighter to the lies your shrinking bubble reasserts for you.

      every credible scientist in the world disagrees with your layperson opinion.

      seek experts, then seek help for your condition.

  74. The most disturbing thing about the hoax of Global Warming is that they want to charge you for their religious beliefs— No other religion decrees mandatory monetary gain except the religion of GW — There must be a lot of money to swindle with this scam .. Warmists need to study physics, chemistry, and mathematics — basically the hard sciences in order to deprogram themselves from the lies they have been taught….

  75. Climate change “experts” are folks trying desperately to keep the money gravy train going into their profession from government by sowing fear.

    1. Lol just because the average temperature has been proven to have been increasing, doesn’t mean it won’t snow any more. In fact, it may snow more in some places as a result

  78. If you are looking for news, ignore NY Times. If you want Left-wing propaganda, then buy the Times. there are lots of Low-information people who don’t know who they are. They will continue to listen to the junk because it fits into their pre-conceived notion. when things turn out differently, they never look back and wonder what went wrong. There people are not only low-information people, they are arrogant. Obama is a typical one in this group. He has an ideology, so any lie, any prediction that fits into that ideology strokes their ego. these are ignorant, arrogant ideologues. They are also idiots.

        1. Of course they’ve made a few blunders in their 150 years in the field, but all in all, I can’t think of a single institution of journalism with a better reputation for getting the facts right. And there are plenty of conservative writers there as well

              1. I suppose you think David Brooks, Ross Douthat, and William Safire, among others, are “untrustworthy”? They’re conservative writers for the NYTimes. Or is your prejudice only against non-conservative writers there?

                  2. Crap – that was debunked big time – 95% of only 30% actually submitted some worry about the climate and weather – and if you are so informed – explain the medieval warming Period? Can you? Was it Viking SUVS that warmed the Planet or was it Roman Coal Fired Power Plants?mAnd why 5000 years ago was it colder?

                    2. Not a chance — you work for it lemming, you look and research. If you need help, loo at the study where tree rings and their growth were directly tied to Sun activity.

                    3. So, you’re basically full of it. How very unsurprising that you can’t back up your nonsense with any facts. All too typical. Sigh

                    4. You are not supposed to mention that. It’s a secret. The climate can’t be warmer than the medieval warming period. Deny, deny, deny. Cover up, cover up, cover up.

                    5. Then you shouldn’t have any problems posting a link to all these “numerous peer-reviewed” papers you claim exists to support your theory. I’m waiting….

  80. Oh God, Its Globull Waring, Climate Chaos – the oceans are on fire, its the CO2, its the Methane, its those Viking SUV’s and Roman Coal Fired Power Plants, oh god I am so afraid.We must stop all CO2 production immediately and the Planet will cool – oh wait – Snow?

  81. Daaaaaaaaammmmmm******** you to he** global warming for heating the earth so much we’re swimming in snow and cold……we need to all pray for an ice age so we can have nice tropical weather.

  83. Snowiest decade on record. Hottest year on record. Coldest year on record. Worst draught followed by worst flash floods. The Arctic Ice cape melting … record ice thickness in Arctic. El Nino followed by La Nina. There definitely is never any good news when it comes to the weather except that at 8 Billion and growing the human race seems to be thriving.

  85. Maybe this is the coming Ice age my teachers told me about when I was a kid. It never came but then they switched to global warming so maybe they just got their timing waaaaayyyy off. It’s too bad, I would have preferred global warming to this new ice age.

    1. We were told by the “scientists” that human life would pretty much not exist by the year 2010, if we didn’t spew soot into the atmosphere at a tremendous rate, and spread coal ash on the poles.

      1. I was also taught by my teachers we had to achieve ZPG (Zero Population Growth) otherwise we would be living in a Soylent Green dystopian society. Teachers are freaking stoopid! LMAO! Hey Mrs. Sutter I never bought into your BS even as a kid you worthless indoctrinator.

  86. This is the first article I have seen where the lies of the progressives are actually listed so that you can link to them and see for yourself that as they say, EVERY weather event is due to Global Warming. Moreover, just go back to the 1960s and early 70s to see that they were predicting an ICE age by 2000. When that failed to happen they were saddened and switched to Global Warming, later–after Al Gore, and his orgasmic ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ (yes I know he had nothing to do with that film, but it gave him an orgasm to see NY flooded, I’ll bet)–it became Climate Change. That was really the surrender flag, saying ‘we don’t know enough, but we have to keep people afraid. Progressives and the entire Democrat Party survive on the fear they instill in the uneducated, or worse the ‘college-indoctrinated’ who think of themselves as the ‘highly educated’. Everything they do, is related to somehow ‘protecting others’. It is not enough for a Progressive/Democrat to wear seatbelts, or eat Vegan, or to not drink and drive, or what have you, no, they have to get laws passed or protest people who wear or sell fur coats, in order to rob them of their freedom. Climate change is no different. Fear tactics so that they can pass laws to reduce our driving, or flying in airliners (all the while Al Gore is taking his private jet from here to there).

  87. Anyone who has taken even an elementary science class knows that in the scientific method you must control all variables in and experiment before you can prove your hypothesis — How can you control variables such as solar activity ? The Warmists are plain ignorant… sad that they are so easily manipulated…

  89. Lies and more lies. Man is not responsible for climate change aka global warming. You have more scientists who deny it’s happening than those who claim it’s mans fault. That’s a fact. Getting sick of it. These winters are actually getting worse, hurricanes are down etc. The data is crap.

    1. “You have more scientists who deny it’s happening than those who claim it’s mans fault.”…now THAT is totally bogus. Try about 2 peer reviewed papers against it and 10,000+ supporting it…

      http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming

      http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/of-10885-peer-reviewed-articles-on-climate-change-in-2013-only-2-question-human-involvement-140403?news=852832

  91. Seems that all the cold temperatures and all that snow landing on the liberal east coast (with their huge array of “human caused global warming nut-cases) might well be seen as God laughing at them. We haven’t had any warming for the last 19 years now and these clowns are still pushing their nonsense.

        1. LOL….you mean the guy that gave us a 100% PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT health plan with no PUBLIC OPTION (the antithesis of Marxism/Communism), extended the Bush-era tax cuts for the ultra RICH, twice, and never bothered putting anyone from Wall Street in jail for 2008? If anything, he’s one of the most pro-corporate Presidents we’ve ever had. Perhaps you should actually learn the definition of Communism before you embarrass yourself any further…

          1. You have a very interesting take on the federal government takeover of the American health care system and history.
            .
            What would you call comrade osamaobama’s “redistribution of wealth” and “social justice?” These are cornerstones of communism.

  94. it’s interesting as i am sure during the ice age start the northern part of the land and the southern half also had decades like this at the start.. could we be seeing another ice age coming? it would take thousands of years for the massive glacier to form. so not only are we leaving are kids and future americans a much poorer life but a rather cold and deep snow to live through! but don’t tell that to obama and his kind they still think we are going to sweat allot in the heat! of course while they enjoy air conditioning!

  97. This has to be wrong. We are suffering under the weight of global warming. Al Gore won a Noble Prize for uncovering it and he wouldn’t lie. sarc/

  99. Question: If both increasing temperatures AND increasing snowfall prove the existence of global warming, how can anyone tell if any of the Left’s “solutions” are actually effective?

  101. Climate change is caused by the sum. Wait, it’s termites. No wait, cow methane. Nah, we can’t tax any of that. I know, lets say it’s human activities. Sounds great Al.

  105. Too little snow global warming, too little the same. too cold the same, too warm the same, hurricanes global warming no global warming, Gas p[rices low Obama good, Gas prices high Bush’s fault and on and on. Isn’t it great and so simple to be a liberal, especially in Govt and the media and Academia? they never ever have to think again.

  107. The earth is preparing for global warming by hurrying up and getting all the snowing over with. The earth is now quickly running out of snow. This may be the last snow we see, at least until Al Gore and Barack Obama can repair the climate.

  108. For all those who think that Global Warming has anything to
    do with this blizzard, or that this storm is unprecedented, pick up a history
    book. You will find that in March of 1888 most of the northeast was hit by a blizzard
    that dumped over 50 inches of snow, caused millions of dollars in damage, and
    caused over 200 deaths.

  109. Opinions and loyalties are bought with grants and cash. Hot summer global warming,cold winter global warming sure makes sense to me. Climate changes all the time and will in the future. WE had a ice age because the earth knew in advance global warming was coming. Whatever happened to the holes in the ozone must not be any money in that since I got my new refrigerator.

  110. GLOBAL WARMING SNOW

    Hot house cases like oxygen are causing all the snow storms. This is why Democrats have planes to cut the US population by 200 million.

  111. More proof that Al “Blood’n” Gore was right. The hotter it gets, the colder it gets. We just need to pay Al a billion dollars in carbon taxes and we’ll all be saved!

  112. No it’s actually not, but climate change scientists have to spread the word since they’ve already been paid. Apparently everyone forgot the 5-15 feet of snow around 2004 in about 20 states. It seems scientists have no concept of time. Why should I trust their BS climate change?

  115. Ozone Hole –>
    Global Warming –>
    Climate Change –>
    Climate Disruption –>
    Magnetic Pole Shift
    Climate scientists speculate that the resulting Magnetic Pole Shift will result in one of 3 scenarios:
    1) Global Extinction
    2) Massive meteor strikes
    3) A Godzilla-like creature will be awakened

  116. Smoke and mirrors. When I’m freezing my mind says…..global warming!! Well I’m freezing and that is the key. Even tho we see the weather. Lie, lie and heck lie some more…..more ice thicker ice. Worldwide huge increaes in short periods now occuring. Check ice core. Weather has cycled for centuries. But oh how they want to tax co2. Every exhale will cost you times the miles driven per year squared for suv

  117. While I wouldn’t want to see 3 feet of snow fall on anybody in a few days, and I don’t like shoveling snow, we could certainly use a little bit of that snow here in the Midwest, where it’s been really dry for the last month or so. We could use the moisture.

  120. The Word of God says satan comes to steal.kiII and destroy and so does his son the filthy gay muslim obama…

    BOOK OF DANIEL

    The King Who Exalts Himself

    36 “The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place. 37 He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all. 38 Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his ancestors he will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. 39 He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price.[d]

    40 “At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood. 41 He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand. 42 He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape. 43 He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Cushites[e] in submission. 44 But reports from the east and the north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many. 45 He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at[f] the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.

    2 Thessalonians 2:8

    And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.

  121. The real danger to America is not just a filthy gay muslim by the name of Obama alone, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a filthy sodomite like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of a gay Obama presidency than to restore the necessary,commonsense ,Godliness and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a creature for their president or any democrat.

    The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr.gay muslim Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the gay fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. “The Republic can survive a gay Obama, who is, after all, merely a gay fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made this gay muslim creature their President.

  124. Still trying to figure out why the Left thinks colder is better. Throughout history mankind has flourished during warm periods and suffered during cold, and yet the Left longs for snow pack.

    Weird.

  125. In January Al Gore says heavy snow is consistent with Global Warming, in August Al Gore says hot summers are consistent with Global Warming, Al Gore says temperate Springs and Autumns are consistent with Global Warming. While standing in the Mojave Desert Al Gore said hot deserts are consistent with Global Warming. While standing on a Glacier in Greenland Al Gore said Glaciers are consistent with Global Warming. Please pay the man as you leave the theater, and thank you for coming to the Al Gore everything is all about Global Warming Tour.

  126. New York gets three feet of snow and today in Minneapolis the ice rinks have melted, the roads are bare asphalt. I stopped at a small bar and grill in South Minneapolis today and next to my pickup the grass was bare of snow and I noted a bunch of green blades of grass pushing up. It was 45 degrees today. Next week though we could get 10 inches of snow and it could be 3 below. Climate change. It keeps on happening.

  128. Been thinking about it. All of you who dis global warming never provide hard facts as to why it does not exist. You merely point out anecdotal stories about local climate change. I find you to be non-thinking troglidate thuinkers who cannot provide one cogent study or finding to back up their thoughts. It makes me very concerned for mankind that people like you are even allowed to vote. Anyone have a good source in defense of the argument that there is not global warming??? Huh…do you? If so, please give it to me. If not , please quit with your ignorant remarks

        1. NASA is simply justifying their continued existence.

          The space program for which they were created is D E A D, dead and without their whining and sniveling about gloBULL warming or climate change hundreds of scientists would lose their cushy jobs where they pull down six figure salaries and they would — GASP — have to get jobs which pay far less than they are used to.

          They have been feeding off the TAXPAYERS since the 1960s. It is time to put an end to the gravy train once and for all.

  129. Aww great…. On one side of their fear mongering statements… Earth is about to catch fire… The polar Ice caps are disappearing…
    We must stop entropy with the abuse of energy…. On the other side is reality….We are still naive. Even with the best super computers and satellite data….. We are just unaware of all of the variables Earth is presently interacting with….

  131. cold When some numbskull talks about “peer-reviewed-journals” it pisses me off.
    The ivory-tower jerks that depend upon the government for their paychecks and tenure do not bite the hands that feed them.
    If the propaganda/party-line is that man-made global-warming is the culprit then these squinty-eyed bullshit artists agree and peer-review what the system wants them to peer-review and agree to.
    It is that simple.
    It’s a sled dog race – and only the lead dog gets a change of scenery.

    The models have long ago failed, and everyone who is not a part of the bullshit system has seen the evidence and knows it, and laughs when the fiction of “climate change” is once again touted so that the rich and powerful can line their pockets on the express and intentional suffering of others- here and around the world.

    But the squints, with their daft loyalty to those who control their paychecks and ease of work, will adhere to these idiotic models and sign off on whatever they are told to.
    Honesty is NOT a part of the program.
    There is an agenda that the banksters and the elites are anxious to preserve, and screw the truth if it gets in the way of it.

    There are plenty of articles that are not “peer-reviewed” that have put the laughable and wrong models to death, but the people in the ivory towers getting all the grant money get the press from the presstitutes, and these huge cold storms get described as if they were caused by soccer-mom SUVs and cow farts.

    Call hogwash on these squinty dolts is just the start.

    1. That was proven when the so called “scientist” at the University at East Anglia were cuaght fudging the climate data to show results i.e. global warming, that they were pushing.
      And the same has happen when these so called “scientist” were creating climate models to fit their global warming narrative. Not a peep from these nerds and the main stream media when these models failed.

    2. Probably one of the most ignorant comments of vacuity on this site despite the stiff competition to be the stupidest commentator. Nothing in this screed is from a person who is educated or literate in science rather the complete opposite.

      1. This one is a terminus of an alimentary canal, and a particularly foul one at that.
        Hence, here is an idiot that has a private comment file, usually the telltale condition of a troll with a paid agenda and all of the wit that can be expected of anyone with only half a story.
        You are funny because you are obviously ignorant of much of anything, except some limited skill at bull baiting.
        When a retard like you feigns intelligence, and suggests that their target is similarly inclined, it is pathetic and … well, laughable.
        Not a big broad laugh, the kind favored by the robust and the brave, but rather what reflects the sniveling weak stupidity of the cause of the laugh – something of a chuckle that is accompanied by a tilted and shaken head and followed by an exasperated sigh of boredom and pity.

        1. Need an extra tissue … you usually have boxes in SPED class why is yours out of stock? Thanks for confirming my comment. That was totally unnecessary as it is self-evident from your first (and subsequent) comment.

  133. Less snow – global warming.
    More snow – global warming.

    The insanity of the climate change fanatics marches on. Even when their own prediction models fail they march on.

  134. Why is this so hard to understand? Warmer oceans means more moisture in the air; moist air and winter temperatures is going to mean … snow. The warmer the oceans, the more snow in winter. Indeed, we will undoubtedly see even bigger snow events in the coming years … climate change predicts weather extremes. No great political conspiracy here, it is just science.

    1. And less sun flares equals cooler temperatures…. How hard is that to determine…. Surely you forgot about the fact we cannot predict Clouds or the Sun…. Condensation is rather common when humidity levels dictate…. To claim the heat is the reason neglects the fact many changes have occurred over the millenniums… Did you really think the Pyramids were built in the middle of a desert …

      Pragmatism is not always the answer to being incapable to predict the future… Things will change.. it is how we adapt that makes our race a good challenge….

    2. So warmer means more snow? And then colder means less snow.
      Tell us Mr. Wizard when were ocean temperatures along the eastern seaboard ever so cold it would NEVER snow?
      And warmer means more glaciers and cooler means fewer i.e receding glaciers.
      Well that makes sense to me!!

    1. I’m mildly surprised these nuts are still using the term “global warming”. I thought the new terms were “climate change” or “climate disruption”. Those terms would cover all bases for these extremist whackos.
      You can bet if there is an extended cooling trend the Al Gore types will blame humans for the cooling..

    2. Current US colder than normal temperatures are. I suppose you don’t get around to reading science as you’re not educated nor interested in any scientific field. Try reading Cold winter extremes in northern continents linked to Arctic sea ice loss Qiuhong Tang et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 014036 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014036

  138. From The Club of Rome:

    “In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite,
    we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water
    shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions
    these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by
    everyone together. But in designating
    these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned
    readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human
    intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and
    behaviour that they can be overcome. The
    real enemy then is humanity itself.” p.
    75

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/2297152/Alexander-King-Bertrand-Schneider-The-First-Global-Revolution-Club-of-Rome-1993-Edition

  140. The whole basis for this man-caused climate change garbage is CO2. CO2 is said to cause rising temperatures. CO2 does not drive temperature. Increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature. Ice core data show this definitively:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylor/indermuehle00grl.pdf
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5613/1728.abstract
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5849/435.abstract
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379100001670
    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/283/5408/1712.abstract
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/291/5501/112.abstract

    1. Not always. Assume you are correct that warming precedes CO₂ why do you stop there as it is very clear that it soon becomes the forcing and drives the warming higher. Southern hemisphere shows CO₂ rising first on may occasions due to warming oceans. The CO₂ atmospheric-temperature correlation is simple well-established physics nearly 200 years old that is not disputed by any current researchers. Do you have a DOI that states differently?

      1. Lefty ~ Riddle me this:

        How much are YOU willing to cripple economies, tax progress, and force legislation to reduce a 1°c *crisis* that amounts to 22% of 100ppm over 150 years?

        CO2 makes up 370ppm all greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. That is PARTS PER MILLION. That 370ppm represents an increase of 100ppm over the last 150+ years!

        (Think: what would a $100 difference mean to a millionaire over a 150 year span?)

        Over that time span, vague and inaccurate temp recordings put the planet about 1°c warmer.

        The leading cause (by far) of CO2 in the atmosphere is the oceans. Even the most rabid AGW scientist will put “man made” responsible for only 22% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

        Not to mention that CO2 is not even the most effective greenhouse gas in the atmosphere ~ it has a poor “blanket” effect, does not do a very good job of trapping solar heat.

        1. Puerile screed of vacuous emotive opinion. Here’s a very simple challenge … provide a DOI reference for your opinionated statements that corroborates them. Silence will mean that you’re just a vacuous denier not very smart at cut+paste. FYI: CO₂ ppmv surpassed 370 nearly 20 years ago and currently in the very low 400s… why are you so out of date? If that is your best knowledge I suggest you refrain on trying to comment about climate science as that and the content of your screed clearly show you’re neither a scientist nor scientifically literate.

          1. Oh, here I thought you were just a d!ck ~ now I realize that you are a dildo with a thesaurus . . . one that overuses the word “vacuous” – pathetic.

            And I noticed that you failed to answer my question – let me simplify it for you ~ “man-made” sources account for 22% of CO2 – on your BEST day, how much do you think we can reduce that without crippling progress?

            Especially since the *warming* factor of CO2 is still negligible compared to other greenhouse gasses ~ and the *warming* trend you Chicken Littles crow about has been *nonexistent* for the last 18+ years!

            1. I’m sorry you don’t have a grasp of English beyond grade 5 level despite it being your mother tongue. The reason why your questions weren’t answered is that they’re pure vacuity.You were asked to supply the science (DOI reference) … nothing! So if you don’t raise your questions based on science but stupidity to you seriously expect answers? You final sentence encapsulates your obnoxious ignorance … prove me wrong and publish the science articles (DOI references) where you source your crapola. As I wrote you clearly out of date and confused. Now I typed this extra slowly so that you maybe able to understand what you’re been told and not asked.

              1. Still no answers, true proof that you are just spouting your blind religious fervor for AGW.

                But we get to laugh and you (yet again) using “vacuity” . . . and “wow” you used your tired old “typed slowly” line again, too. Gee, Demwit ~ you do know folks can see all your other posts, right?

                And your last sentence “you maybe able to understand what you’re been told and not asked”

                *maybe* should be “may be”

                *what you’re been told” . . ?!

                And YOU say *my* English is 5th grade level?!

                BAHAHAHAHAHA! What a moron! You cannot form a cogent response to my questions, so you flail about blindly like a totally outclassed boxer. Sorry, the ref just stopped the bout ~ I win by TKO.

                1. DOI silence on your part is deafening. Why? Claiming some sort of victory but you’ve as yet not entered the ring. I’m not surprised you don’t know maybe is grammatically correct. So let me, as an ESL, help you out – it’s an adverb meaning possibly or perhaps.

                  1. There is a distinct difference between “maybe” and “may be” . . .

                    *you maybe able to* is NEVER acceptable English ~ think of the opposite . . . do you say:

                    *you not maybe able to*

                    Or

                    *you may not be able to*

                    School is out ~ you failed. Just like you failed to answer my questions YET AGAIN. Much like your AGW theory ~ a lot of words and hype ~ but zero substance, and no discernible proof.

                    1. Gross fail as usual … may not be able to – split infinitive! Secondly, your initial example fails as there is no opposite to maybe as you so state, that is grammatically incorrect.

                    2. Further proof that you are a mindless parrot . . . you cannot even fathom that you are wrong:

                      Maybe you will get it eventually…

                      But you may be too old to recognize it when you do finally get it…

                      YAWN ~ how sad and pathetic you are, unoriginal ~ slowly type vacuous DOI vacuity over and over again, you bore us all with your inability to answer my two direct questions. Until you do, you will be summarily ignored.

                      TKO – you are a mental flyweight competing against giants ~ easy to see why you were so soundly and thoroughly thrashed.

                    3. Lack of DOI shows you’re so far out of your depth and obnoxiously ignorant about science. After you finish your schoolyard pout … here’s a tissue and a suggestion. Hire an English and science tutor.

          2. Over 400ppm?! Says who?

            http://co2now.org/current-co2/co2-now/

            Genius – we can all see now that this entire post is riddled with your lies and exaggerations.

            Even this page – clearly “pro AGW” carefully words it as:

            “Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the chief greenhouse gas that results from human activities and causes global warming and climate change.”

            Not that CO2 is the chief cause of global warming – because it isn’t. For example, methane is 21 times better at trapping heat than CO2 – so you should shut your a$$ and your mouth.

              1. Okay – feel free to update my numbers:

                CO2 is now .0040% of the atmosphere
                Which is a .0013% increase in 150 years…
                Which is still way below 1ppm per year
                Human activity is still only on the hook for 22% of that

                Next whine?

                  1. YAWN –
                    Answer the questions, or shut up =

                    1) On your best Kyoto Treaty day, how much of that man-made 22% of the annual 1/10,000,000th of a CO2 increase in the atmosphere can you prevent?

                    2) How much will it impact the naturally occurring change in climate?

                    3) What benchmark, what scientific result we can calculate, will prove that it is working?

            2. Not to sure what you’re getting at but all northern hemisphere stations exceeded 400 ppmv last year with Barrow AK the highest at 405. Antarctica went through that barrier in 2012 I believe. It is not a straight line and your reference to Mauna Loa is now 399 and was 401 last year. So what’s your point other than your confirmation that your nonsense of 370 ppmv was hopelessly out of date?

              In grade school onwards you would have learned why CO₂ is the most important non-condensing GHG … it is miscible with long residency. Without it the Earth’s temperature would be around 255K (-18°C). What you state about methane is partly true but it has a very short residency and converts to CO₂+H₂O when it reacts with 2O₂. A little reading at the grade levels may set you straight.

              1. Water vapor is singularly, and overwhelmingly the most important GHG – nothing else comes close – period. Limiting it to “non-condensing” is like saying that the ‘spoon’ is the most important “non-pointy” utensil in your silverware drawer…

                Fact remains, CO2 increase is less than 1ppm per year over the last 150 years. Human activities account for 22% of the atmospheric CO2 . . .

                All you have to do, dummy – is answer these simple questions:

                1) How much of that 22% of 1ppm per year do you hope to reduce?

                2) How much do you believe that your answer to 1 will make a difference in the 1 degree Celsius temp increase over that same 150 years?

                3) What actual measurable scientific piece of information can we look for to prove your AGW fix is working?

                Cuz so far, Charlie-in-the-box, you keep popping up saying the same useless things over and over again (like your buddy Robert) but you cannot answer those questions. Some of us folks like to see ‘physical proof’ that there is a problem (and not some doctored numbers). As well as tangible proof of the efficacy of your solution…

                1. Thank goodness you STFU about amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere!

                  Sorry cupcake no CO₂ … no H₂O vapor … simple basic physics that I have explained ad nauseum to you which makes CO₂ the more important GHG. Maybe your Tea Party Manual of thermodynamics suggests otherwise but you’d be gullible to fall for that. I have also agreed that H₂O is the most important with respect to warming but, I repeat and will type slowly, without CO₂ there’s no water vapor. The former is a condensing gas and BTW you learned that in grade school and ran across it throughout your school career.

                  Answers to your questions seriatim:
                  1). false posit …. I’m not educating you anymore you need to do the science research and find the correct ration. Hint: isotopes of C.
                  2) did not answer as (1) is erroneous. But the simple answer is CO₂ at current atmospheric levels will add 1.88W/m² additional warming until levels drop.
                  3) like all science by observations, measurement and modelling.

  141. No matter what happens – More hurricanes, less hurricanes; Drought, Monstrous Rain storms; No snow, mountains of snow, we all must respect the new religion of the global wealth redistributionists that all this is caused by man. Therefore, the only way to get rid of climate change is to tax all energy sources and give the money to scientists who have no idea what to do to stop it.

  144. This is so stupid that people don’t realise as you have higher heat in areas that do not see that type of climate the air will hold more moisture. Then that air is moved to other areas that now have a lower shifted climate causing much higher snow fall.

    1. Which is the exact OPPOSITE of what is happening in California (droughts) and *that* is also called a result that PROVES the theory of AGW.

      AGW alarmists act as if every weather pattern is proof of longer term climate change. Tell us, Nicolas, if cooling and warming on a planetary scale is NOT normal ~ where did the 7 Ice Ages come from in the last 700,000 years ~ and where did they go?

      Did my V8 Jeep make the glaciers recede time and time again?

      1. The maximum extent of glaciation occured in North America 21,000 years ago. In the mean time horses in North Amerca became extinct as did camels, mamonths, saber tooth tigers, sloths etc. So whos to blame, humans? SUVs? Fossil fuel power plants? George Bush?

  145. And the pop-scientist (such as Michelle Thaller and Bill Nye the Science Guy and Neil DeGrasse Tyson) still claim that Manmade Global Warming is ON, but that the USA seems to be the only location that is experiencing diametrically-opposite conditions. Gotta love the hardcore indoctrination heroes, right?

    1. I suppose that you’re oblivious to the fact that not one current US (or any international) climate scientist who is researching and publishing disagrees with broad AGW theory. If they do they sure haven’t said so in peer-reviewed science publications where such matters will be found. So the folk you malign out of ignorance on your part are no different to folk you probably think say something differently because you’re silly and dumb and no know better.

      1. I suppose *you* are oblivious to the *consensus* of scientists in the mid-70s that were telling us in Science News, Time, Newsweek that “global cooling” was coming. Peer reviewed publications that led to opining that Canada and the Soviet Union would be uninhabitable, the famous magazine cover with a Manhattan-like skyline encroached upon by 40 story high glaciers.

        Some scientists were advocating that we ought to spread large amounts of carbon black (think: soot) over large areas of glaciers ~ as to increase the absorption of heat, and help reverse the cooling crisis!

        I suppose you are also unaware that in the 1940s, “global warming” was considered and bandied about in scientific circles?

        And how about 110 years or so ago, when the venerable New York Times was publishing stories warning of the growth of glaciers (complete with scientific explorers and their photographic *proof*) and that a new ice age was coming.

        1. oblivious to the *consensus* of scientists in the mid-70s

          Not true, pure vacuity. Obviously you’re not scientifically literate let alone experienced or knowledgeable. Your enduring popular myth suggesting that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by deniers who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of scientific literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests. Suggest you read DOI: 10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1.

          1. “Your enduring popular myth suggesting that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age”

            My “popular myth” on the cover of Science News (March 1 1975) . . . the “popular myth” headline:

            THE ICE AGE COMETH?

              1. Poor little guy, still clinging to the MYTH that we humans have some negligible effect on the climate of a planet that has endured 7 Ice Ages in the last 700,000 years – warming and cooling without the benefit of my V8 Jeep exhaust.

                I’ve already pointed this out to you elsewhere;

                CO2 = .0039% of atmosphere
                That is an increase of .0012% over 150 years
                Less than .1ppm per annum
                Humans responsible for 22%

                22% of 1/10,000,000th = ??

                Dispute my facts – point out my mistakes – all this fuss and taxing and alarmism over a single degree Celsius increase (based on sloppy data collection methods – and some flat out lies / changing data to fit the theory).

                A change in average temperature that ONLY has been viewed SINCE the end of the Little Ice Age. As I have stated, the planet has been colder, the planet has been warmer.

                Please, make us believe – because the facts and empirical data keep pointing to “poppycock” – and every year that AGW doomsday predictions do not come to pass (not only is there STILL a polar ice cap – it is getting bigger!) we doubt you even more.

                1. Thanks for the recitation of talking points.

                  BTW, we also note you are attempting to change topics without acknowledging the errors in your original claims.

                  1. What errors in my original claims? Do tell…

                    No “change in topic” – AGW is pure hogwash – and the numbers just do not add up…

                    CO2 = .0039% of atmosphere
                    That is an increase of .0012% over 150 years
                    Less than .1ppm per annum
                    Humans responsible for 22%

                    22% of 1/10,000,000th = ??

                    WHERE IS THE ERROR IN THESE FACTS?

            2. So you source your science from magazines and not the published literature … so what … that was/is self-evident from your many false statements? Here’s a challenge … do you know what the published articles at that time suggested? Hint: the majority were suggesting global warming due to GHGs (Google “Peterson 2008” Survey of Scientific Studies or DOI: 10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1).

        2. “*consensus* of scientists in the mid-70s that were telling us in Science News, Time, Newsweek that “global cooling” was coming..”

          That would have been a good time to include a list of the papers saying that.

          Of course , better late than never.

          1. As a percentage of ALL atmospheric gasses, CO2 makes up .0039% – of that – “human activities” contribute 22%…

            That .0039% was .0027% over 150 years ago (and has wildly fluctuated over thousands of years.

            All this AGW hysteria about a CO2 increase of LESS THAN “POINT ONE” PARTS PER MILLION ANNUALLY!

            1/10,000,000 x 22% = ??

            And CO2 is not even very good at trapping heat, Methane is 21 times better…

            And this is giving the planet a fever?
            And this is causing a new ice age to cometh?

            And you want us to believe that reducing that 22% will make a major difference in that “alarming” (and as yet not proven connected to CO2) increase of 1 degree Celsius over 150+ years?

            A temperature increase only measured “since” the end of the time period known as the Little Ice Age?

                1. You’ve been claiming a ‘consensus’ on 70s global cooling. Based on a magazine cover.

                  Data shows you are wrong. Data cited with cites.
                  Then you changed topics.

                  But that’s OK, I wasn’t really expecting a mea culpa or even more attempts at doubling down.

                  1. Oh, now I see your inane point – you are fixated on the citation of the word *consensus* – and completely ignoring all the facts I presented … I am sorry that you have to grasp at straws to avoid the real issue – that your AGW religion is a fraud.

                    Including the historical record that scientists have been arguing cooling, warming, cooling, warming for decades . . . I guess, when you only have two choices – there has to be a shift in theories to keep the grant money coming.

                    Funny thing now, AGW is *proven* whether is gets colder or warmer, whether we get floods or droughts, whether there are more storms or fewer storms…

                    Heck, I will Google it for you – AGW even has been predicted to cause more rapes…

                    http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/climate-change-murder-rape

                    1. “citation of the word ”

                      That’s the quoting part.

                      Cite is where the quote came from.

                      Your kids or grand kids could double check that with one of their teachers….

                    2. Dumba$$ – typical troll – when losing on facts, try to argue childishly…

                      CITE is predominantly* a VERB
                      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cite

                      CITATION is the noun

                      I found one web definition reference (out of many) that had a secondary definition *well below* the primary verb definition – what did it say?

                      CITE (n) – a citation

                      I hope you are right about AGW – and that you, your children, and their children compose some of the 180,000 people that Mother Jones reports (see link above) will be “impacted” by AGW.

        3. “But was there ever a consensus over global cooling in the 1970s?
          A few climate scientists have now scanned through the research literature of the time. For 1965 to 1979, they found seven articles that predicted cooling, 44 that predicted warming and 20 that were neutral. The results are being published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.”

          http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/global-cooling-was-a-myth.html

          The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

          by Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck

          http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1“

          1. Dimwit ~ face facts ~ the scientific community has changed their “collective / consensus / whatever group-think term you want to use” mind on whether we have been cooling or warming many times in the last 150 years.

            The current group is no different, just the front of today’s parade.

            Funny to me is how we now call the crisis “Climate Change” based on a slight temperature change *caused* by a minuscule delta in a barely effective greenhouse gas.

            Today’s parade trumpets “man made” causes (side note, some scientists in the 1940s blamed warming on the atomic bombs). But man only contributes 22% of that harmful CO2.

            Meanwhile the planet rolls on, 150 years being a mere blip in comparison to the age of Earth. Climate change happens naturally, Greenland used to be green farm country ~ and the continental USA used to have glaciers…

            1. Sorry, but no.

              If, you could have quoted and cited an actual source saying there was a cooling consensus….

              But you can’t. You are just repeating ‘anything but my tailpipe’ talking points .

              And you didn’t bother checking.

              And that is being gullible.

              But not being skeptical.

              1. I am not a “skeptic” – I am flat out saying that AGW / Global Warming / man-made Climate Change is a *HOAX*

                You can deflect and whine about “consensus” and “dimwit” all you wants – but the FACTS are on my side.

                Nothing you have shown contradicts my facts at all…

                Cite THAT!

                  1. Funny, I did not realize Chicken Littles like you keep your head buried so far up your . . . in the sand.

                    I have provided percentages and numbers that are accurate – you have done nothing but run tangential BS about *cite* and *consensus* and *dimwit* (which, if the shoe fits).

                    I do hope you live long enough to look back and realize how much time and effort was *wasted* on this hoax . . . or at least long enough for the scientific consensus prediction: “Man Made Climate Change will cause more rapes” comes to pass. May be the only way you ever get some…

                    I am done schooling you, SCHOOL IS OUT – you fail.

                    1. “Funny, I did not realize Chicken Littles like you keep your head buried so far up your . . . in the sand.”

                      Thanks for showing us the paucity of the skeptical position.

                      And for attempting to change topic.

                      And for the inability to support your cooling consensus claim.

                    2. Gee, you are starting to sound like that monotonous redundant repetitive blowhard Leftwithrightbrain – he likes to repeat “vacuous / vacuity / puerile screed” in loads and loads of his posts across multiple topics . . .

                      And now you, a quick check shows that you’ve used “paucity of the skeptical position” (or some version using *paucity* – numerous times. Kind of your “go-to” smart-sounding put down…

                      And yet, not once – much like Leftwithrightbrain – did you actually address the facts I presented, nor dispute the numbers I showed you – and certainly failed REPEATEDLY to answer my questions.

                      You two deserve one another, I will leave you two to your clanging in the desert…

                    3. Your facts have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Maybe you can press your twaddle in a thread on the topic.

                      Thanks for the personal attacks, namecalling, and attempted segues; they show the paucity of facts supporting your claims.

                    4. More “paucity” – I cannot even make this sh!t up – God you are an ignorant blowhard…

                      ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OR SHUT UP!

                    6. “God you are an ignorant blowhard”

                      Tell us, with quotes and cites, about this 70s global cooling consensus you crowed about.

  146. The changing narrative about what ‘global warming’ will bring is why so many of us don’t believe what is being pushed by the progressives. They think we can’t look up info from a decade ago about global warming bringing the end of snow while today saying the snowstorms are a sign of global warming. There is no clear consensus of predictions of what global warming causes therefore any ‘consensus of scientist’ about global warming is bogus. Science is being corrupted and that is the bigger concern to me; progressives using it to push their agenda of larger gov’t with greater control over its citizens is by far a greater danger to our liberty.

  148. What a surprise, an article about snow in Winter brings out all the right wing retards to start crowing, “Al Gore Al Gore”, you are all so precious.

    1. What a surprise ~ a Demwit Left Wing Nut that still uses “retards” as a put down. Nothing like a third grade schoolyard mentality to drive home your point there, fel121.

      We can’t blame you though ~ after all, third grade WAS the four longest years of your life…

  150. this article is full of sh&t.I remember in the 70s getting more snow then that.I guess the writer is young or thinks that we cannot remember the 60s &70s.

  151. Last week 1700 Private Jets landed in Switzerland for a “Global Warming” conference . One of which was Al Gore’s, demonstrating the massive amount of money behind the Global Warming Con-Game.

  152. “snowiest decade”

    Yes that makes sense, since as the world is warming the moisture content of the atmosphere is increasing causing more extreme precipitation events.

    Also since the atmosphere can carry more moisture now, it is better at sucking that moisture out of the ground making droughts more extreme also.

    We need to do something about man made global warming asap.

  153. As a child I remember weeks of snow days and really deep snow at that. The sledding was great and the shoveling was hard but the point is it happened before and it will happen again and its all because the Earth is cyclical. The weather people blow things out of proportion constantly that makes people think the world will end-its snow people been around longer than we have get over it and enjoy it.

  154. Lies, lies, and damned lies! Global warming is a hoax and true scientists have known this for decades. So why Is Barack ” you can keep your insurance” Obama going to make this one of his agendas? He will lie about anything and the MSM (a branch of the Obama administration) will back him up. 2016 can’t come soon enough.

  155. Oh no! A Man-made Climate Change Monster Snow Storm about to devour the entire northeast ~ everybody duck and cover Godzilla Juno is about to strike!

    Oh no! Man-made Climate Change caused Winter Storm Juno to be far less severe than computer models predicted. This will lead to Man-Made Climate Change drought in the Spring.

  156. So it’s snowing in the north eastern USA in winter! The trouble is, in other places where it is supposed to be cold, really cold, the weather is warmer than usual.

    I am referring specifically to the Arctic where the sea ice melt last summer and previous summers suggests strongly that we will son have an Arctic that is ice-free, at least in the summer. This leads onto the destabilising and melting Greenland ice sheet which, because it is on land, has the potential to cause a significant rise in sea levels.

    And worst of all, methane (CH4) is now being released in large quantities from the Arctic permafrost. Methane is 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and its release on a large scale could well prove to be a tipping point.

    1. At the same time Antarctic sea ice is INCREASING and according to data it is NOT because temperatures are cooling. So as a scientist please tell us why this is happening?

      1. Yes, the colder the air the less water it can hold, so that it if it is too cold (well below zero) the air cannot hold any water vapour and therefore cannot drop any water vapour as rain or snow. When that air warms up it can hold water vapour and therefore you get snow.

  158. I have no problem with more snow is the result of global warming because there is more moisture in the atmosphere. And that is consistent with what I read 10 years ago about global warming. I’m still on the fence.

  159. Well, this comment isn’t scientific which will be it’s undoing with some here however, it seems to me that the global climate is cyclical and over time you have periods of cool (cold), normal, warm (hot) and back again just as it has always been. In those normal cycles you have extremes of cold or warm while other times it pretty flat or normal and I see no difference now. It would appear, overall, that the trend is back towards cool/cold rather than warm/hot. There’s been no significant rise in the global temperature in almost 20 years now. The cycles tend to run through every 20-30 years or so – sometimes longer, sometimes shorter. The earth doesn’t need our help running its climate – it’s more than able to take care of itself despite us and it will continue that way. Besides, the climate change issue is more of a political thing than it is anything scientific – just something else to separate folks from their money……..think carbon taxes and similar political scams to get (steal?) money from people.

  161. There is no global warming. The planets in our solar system are warming up and we haven’t even driven on mars yet 😉 This proves beyond a shadow of doubt global warming controversy is a farce for control. Feel free to look it up yourself

    2. planets in our solar system are warming up

      That is not true, there is zero published science drawing that conclusion (show me with verifiable DOI). We don’t even have sufficient records or observations to make a statement like that yet you discard global warming which has many lines of evidence and many orders of magnitude more data. For example, for Pluto there are exactly two records 14 years apart and its existence has only been known for about a third of it’s 248 year orbit.

  162. The Alarmists are counting on the impact of random accusations and catastrophe models. Part of this strategy falls easily into place by the media supporting them by splashing all these big stories of fear and chaos approaching. But the media is far less able to find the strength or honesty to print the retractions or the truth that any of them were wrong. The Times is in the lead by splashing the doom on the front page but the followup and unsexy truth about their failed predictions never gets printed or gets buried deeply in the unread pages. This is another political and media cooperative effort to change and control the people.

  163. I’m going to guess that this new record will be held up as “proof” that we (ie: The United States) are not doing (ie: donating) enough for the Global-Climate-Change-Warming cause.

    1. Weather neither confirms nor denies change: it exists regardless of consensus. The scientific process Alan – familiarize yourself with it – is the process by which a theory may either be proven or disproved. You are on the wrong side of science. False hockey stick models, falsely submitted data and preconceived solutions (answers) justified as accurate through pressured polling is not a working model substantiated by incontrovertible hard facts.

      1. a theory may either be proven or disproved

        as you are obviously neither a scientist nor scientifically literate I don’t think you should be telling Alan what you’re clueless about. There is no proof in science that is for alcohol, math, and courts of law. In science, theories are never hunches or guesses but exist due to consensus within the scientific community. A theory is an explanation and often remains to be tested and modified for decades or centuries. The validity of a theory rests upon its ability to explain phenomena. Theories may be supported, rejected, or modified, based on new evidence. Gravitational theory, for example, attempts to explain the nature of gravity. Cell theory explains the workings of cells. Evolutionary theory explains the history of life on Earth. AGW theory explains the recent and current unprecedented global warming (energy increase).As you got science theory wrong I’m not surprised that you write vacuity about Mann et al whose work is fully accepted and replicated and it is not a model but a well-established hypothesis that withstands testing using the same and/or different data and methodology. If you have some published science that says otherwise I’d be keen to consult your citations … no links to the denier echo-chamber blogosphere please … just DOI references.

        1. Wow…a self-admission of ignorance. The scientific method is simply that: a proven process of testing in which a theorem is ether proved or disproved on a consistent basis by anyone, anywhere and at anytime regardless. Consensus has absolutely nothing to do with a theorems validity. Support for theories may be buttressed by independent testing reaching identical results from which the same findings are noted. As for the hockey stick as being crapola….that is something you can bank on.

          1. Sorry cupcake their are no “theorem”s in science … that is math. Please don’t compound your obnoxious ignorance with additional and reinforcing vacuity. Obviously you’re not a scientist or scientifically literate or you’d know that scientists gather evidence to support or falsify hypotheses. Hypotheses and theories may be well supported by evidence, but never proven. Your words are cheap and devoid of any citations with respect to Mann which again shows your obnoxious ignorance.

            1. Gee, LeftyWingNut even repeats the phrase “obnoxious ignorance” over and over again – and hey look! – yet another “vacuity” sighting! . . . he is a one trick pony, unoriginal, and a parrot for the cause – nothing to read here.

              Hey genius, of all the gasses that “Human Activities” release into the atmosphere

              CO2 = 58% of the total
              Methane = 30% of the total

              Since, Methane traps heat 21 times *better* than CO2 – why aren’t we concentrating on the foulness that comes out of your alimentary canal? Because Demwits and Liberals cannot tax it – that is the ONLY reason…

              1. So, you are trying to blame a massive 1 degree Celsius temp increase over 150 years on the delta of atmospheric CO2 going from .0027% to .0039%

                Considering that “Man-Made” causes are only responsible for 22% of that .0012% increase – the effect your WAR ON CARBON FOOTPRINTS is going to have is barely perceptible.

                All this hyperbole over .000264%

                Please, explain to us all – great and wise one – how you expect us to fall for such tripe?

                1. I don’t think you should write about math or science as you struggle to repeat what you read e.g. .0039 should be .039 and are befuddled by simple math. I know you think that that is insignificant but it is one order of magnitude error. This may be a surprise but a change from

                  .0027% to .0039%

                  or .027 to .039 is a change of 45%.Great table and it clearly explains and reinforces why CO₂ is the most important GHG under current conditions; I’ve explained why that is to you many times, so I’ll only add the increased radiative forcings and let’s see if you can figure out the science:

                  CO₂ increased radiative forcing since 1750 … 1.88 W/m²
                  CH₄ …………………………………………………………0.49
                  N₂O …………………………………………………………0.17
                  O₃ ……………………………………………………………0.4

                  As to the rest of your screed i’ll ignore it for the emotive vacuity it contains.

                1. Even if you could post a link that worked (so much like Robert the Lesser) – 21 x 9% = 189 methane effect on GHG is still higher than 82% CO2.

                  Answer the questions or shut your obnoxious noxious pie hole – you are blasting more than your fair share of methane – we are going to tax your emissions.

            2. Webster’s and others beg to differ. Semantics. The use of the word is not exclusive to mathematics but also synonymous with other fields as well: medical, culture and science all utilize the word “theorems.” You can BS pretty good and all you want: but to someone else who will swallow the snake oil your selling. Cupcake? I do believe you have seen Star Trek too many times.

              A non-biased source of reference.
              http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theorems

              1. You probably don’t have the smarts to realise that you have just confirmed my original assessment that you’re neither a scientist nor scientifically literate. Believe what you want cupcake but science doesn’t have theorems … if it did, you’d espouse them. You had to look up why you were being accused of vacuity and I bet you were most surprised to learn that you were so ill informed and educated as to the meaning of science theory. I laid it all out neatly for you yet it still sure took you a long time to try and find some nebulous support for your original silliness and dumbness. Well at least you learned something. Listen to your educated peers you may learn even more.

            3. http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/38973/difference-between-theorem-and-theory

              A theory is a set of ideas used to explain why something is true, or a set of rules on which a subject is based on. share|improve this answeredited Apr 25 ’14 at 13:49

              A theorem is not limited to mathematics –

              Theory – Verifiable Explanation.
              Theorem – Demonstrable Explanation.

              and explained:

              Verifiable will mean that you can show that there is evidence for it. Demonstrable means that you can do it again to show people the evidence, and that they can do it too.

              Wikipedia puts forth further differences:

              The concept of a theorem is therefore fundamentally deductive, in contrast to the notion of a scientific theory, which is empirical

              “Empirical” means, “The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation or experiments”, whereas “deductively” means more of drawing from logic and reason, not facts.share|improve this answeredited Aug 23 ’11 at 9:43

                1. My my my, you really are a pathetic piece of work and by the looks of it not too swift on keeping a conversation civil: not many friends in your life I take it. But with such a sparkling personality it is no wonder that Ένας αποκρουστικός μισάνθρωπος is better summed as a description of your less than engaging personality.

    2. Problem Alan is that we’ve had extreme weather for as long as I can remember in my short 51 years on this planet. Winter of ’69-’70, tornado outbreak ’74, winter of ’76-’77 and ’77-’78, presidents day winter storm ’79, Christmas cold outbreak ’83, winter ’84-’85 (major cold/snow with sub 0 down to Tennessee), March ’93 super storm, winter of ’95-’96, winter of 2000-2001, winter of 2010-2011, severe tornado outbreak spring 2011, winter of 2013-2014. There are others and most of these are cold season events and spring events but the extremes are by no means a recent development. Going back a little further before my time – winter of ’59-’60 here in eastern Tennessee featured 60 inches of snow for the winter season which is unheard of given our long term seasonal snowfall of about 12 inches each winter season which means snow was constantly on the ground most of the winter season of ’59-’60. You can research back further to see just how much the extremes existed and they happened without any thought or mention of global warming. All this is just part of the normal climate cycle and it will continue that way.

  165. One only has to look at the performance of the weather models such as the US GFS versus the EURO models to see that the GFS, more often than not, misses things badly however, on occasion it can get it right and current example is the northeast blizzard – GFS model had it nailed on NYC having much less snow that the local WSFO had forecast and the EURO model missed badly on NYC. Further north from Boston to Portland to Augusta all the models had them nailed on the blizzard which seems to be verifying well in those areas. Winter isn’t over yet and there is more cold and snow to come in the first part of February it appears at the moment.

  166. Yes, it is the snowiest in a decade. The snow jobs began with numerous flurries with the democrats promising something for nothing every time the climate suited their needs. Then came the biggest snow job in history: Barrack Hussein Obama. People, well, to be precise, stupid people, were gladly to be taken for the ride of their life, singing O’ Come all ye faithful in a one horse open sleigh but as per norm, the sleigh was upsot not too long after it left the barn. So here we sit, roasting our EBT cards.

  167. But NOAA anounced last week – in support of Global Warming – that last year was the hottest year ever recorded?!

    Either the snow is lying or a Federal bureaucracy is lying.

    1. NOAA is lying and they know it. They long ago became the pawns of the government and the global warming folks. Most of their info is based on very short term averages (30 years chunks) rather than taking the entire weather record into consideration. Very easy to say warming exists when you only look at 30 years at a time. What happens when the 30 year averages show a decidedly cool or cold trend?…….go back to looking at the entire record which shows the cycles of cool, normal, warm, normal, cool as it should be? Easy to be blind when you only look at certain parts of the record rather than the entire record.

      1. Nothing in your puerile screed is true. Prove me wrong and show your science …citations with DOIs and no links to the denier echo-chamber blogosphere.

          1. KGJMSr – pay him/her no attention – I long ago learned to ignore folks like that as they thrive on the attempt to make something of themselves at the expense of the common folk. To be sure, I’m not a writer nor a scientist – my views/thoughts are just from day to day, week to week, month to month observations over the years and an interest in things weather related. So again, pay no attention to LwRB – hasn’t much of a life. Just read his other responses – they’re all the same regardless of who the response is directed at.

            1. Thanx Knox – agreed. Some people toss out big words, and put down others – in the futile attempt to make themselves look bigger. Lwrb’s repetition was his “tell” – now I join you and others in just laughing at him…

              1. At least you’re two peas in the same pod … clueless and ignorant in science and can find solace in each other’s lack of education and ignorance … how sweet! I like the use of “big words” … it pigeon holes your heft perfectly. As to ignore … here I am on a denier site getting more up votes than you … even deniers must find your science vacuity wanting!

          2. So as an ESL I’ve schooled you in your native tongue. Sadly, you somehow how think writing on a blog should not be repetitive. Let me help you out, yet once again. If the comment is puerile, vacuous, pernicious, etc. I don’t have to have a lexicon of additional words to describe the crapola than those I already use succinctly. You’re still trying to figure out the difference between mabe and may be.

            1. You wrote:

              “Now I typed this extra slowly so that you maybe able to understand what you’ve been told and not asked.”

              You were 100% wrong in the usage of “maybe” – you wanted “may be able to”

              http://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/maybe_may_be.htm

              I should not criticize you though, ESL as a Dajit Hijras is quite an accomplishment for you . . . shame that your parents disavowed and disowned you, that English thing might have made them proud of you. It does explain why you are so angry on the internet – when you are done you menial tasks for today, you may want to see some therapy…

              1. As to parents, I am assuming yours are every bit as stupid, ignorant, superstitious and uneducated as you are and, therefore, are proud of their little bundle of retard. Please don’t pass your stupidity on to your spawn.

                1. And golly, you try so hard troll ~ hard for me to be offended by someone who thinks it is acceptable to use “retard” pejoratively … maybe someday, when you grow up – you may be more mature than you are exhibiting here…

            2. I also noticed, via the original email sent to me, the number of spelling corrections you had to make – including “mabe” and you butchered “vacuity”. . .

              I also noticed that you made all of your posts “private” so the rest of us can no longer laugh at how often you use the exact same put-down (think: “type slowly”) – how often you repeat the same words, etc.

              You can think what you will of me, but we all see how “UNORIGINAL” you are – and that, my dear boy – is really sad and pathetic. You are just another pitiful little TROLL on the internet – nothing new here…

                1. “retard” earlier, and now making fun of Special Ed kids . . . gosh, does your mommy know you are on the internet? Grow up, son ~ be an angry nasty sarcastic troll all you want ~ but picking on people born with developmental disabilities?! Unacceptable and shows the kind of person you are…

                  1. You are a very special kind of retard …. not asking just telling from our casual observations how you blurt out junk science and nit-pick over purposefully designed English for your level.

  171. Soooooo, we’re supposed to believe the eggheads know all and see all about the climate of the Earth and they can’t even get a snow storm right that’s in their face??

  172. In the sixties we were all going to starve to death because of the burgeoning population. It was called the Population Bomb. The hoax was designed to promote abortion on demand, the use of contraceptives, and to encourage more sex outside of marriage. It worked. Abortion became legal, contraceptives and rubbers are now even passed out in public schools, and you no longer hear about the danger of starving to death. The millennium came and went, and food is more prevalent than ever before. The Population Bomb worked so well that Madison Avenue types teamed up with those who fund scientists, and began the global warming hoax to increase taxes, and shift the wealth away from oil producers to greens who formerly could not make any money selling their products. Nobody will ever go broke overestimating the chicanery of politically minded people.

  173. Oh bullcr*p. Anyone who was around in the 70’s recalls how brutal those NE and midwest Winters were. In fact it helped drive an exodus from the so called “rust belt” towards the south. It was even often nicknamed a little ice age. But since real journalism is ~ dead lately (on purpose), the global warming agenda can spout whatever lies they choose to manipulate the young/LOFO’s.

  174. The climate change charlatans are propagandists determined to lie, deceive and cheat until they succeed in achieving a global climate treaty. They have shown again and again that they do not care about the science and the climate data… when it proves them wrong, they just move the goal posts by fabricating more lies and deceit. They believe their Holy Grail awaits them in Paris this coming December!

  175. More snow comes from more moisture. More moisture comes from warmer oceans. How is the ocean getting warmer? Republicans think evaporation and the rain/snow cycle are “wild liberal theories”.

    1. More moisture is causing the droughts in California? Cali is really really close to the ocean – so that has to be why there is more, I mean less moisture there.

      What common sense folks object to is the “concept” that *EVERYTHING* can be tied back to “Man-made Climate Change” – even results that are polar opposites.

      Maybe California’s drought is because “MMCC” is causing temps to rise . . . but the data shows that most of the country is actually going through a cooling period.

      And all this because of CO2 emissions. Some numbers for you, as a percentage of *all* gasses emitted due to “human activity” CO2 is about 58% and Methane at 30%. Problem is, Methane is 21 times more efficient at trapping heat in the atmosphere.

      And, at even their highest estimates, as a percentage of all CO2 released into the atmosphere – “Man-Made” CO2 only accounts for 22% of that… (those pesky oceans lead the league)

      And, as a percentage of ALL greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere – CO2 is only a fraction of a percent (.0039%) – with water vapor being far and away the highest. Damn those pesky wetlands, and rainforest…

      So, you want to tax the heck out of “Carbon Footprints” to somehow reduce some amount of the 22% man-made fraction of .0039% of a gas that isn’t really very good at being a greenhouse gas?

      1. Another screed of science vacuity. Blatant nonsense:

        CO₂ is about 58% and Methane at 30%

        false as this dufus knows squat about residency and reactivity despite being corrected numerous time it still regurgitates nonsense. Correct quantities for 2012 were CO₂ 82%, CH₄ 9%, N₂O 6% and F gases 3%

        CO₂ is only a fraction of a percent (.0039%)

        false it’s 0.04% and the premier non-condensing GHG due to miscibility and residency. It’s clueless and doesn’t understand the water vapor temperature correlation and why the Earth would be at -18° C without CO₂ forcing.

    2. KGJMSr below is a typical misguided know-nothing who fits your description of buffoons. I corrected it’s science comment of fantasy and vacuity.

      1. “I corrected it’s science comment”

        Poor little trying-so-hard troll, maybe if you knew “it’s” means *it is* and NOT possession . . . then your comments may be more intelligent sounding.

        1. This was a test for my students to see if you’d address your science faux paux or our purposeful grammatical errors … as a denier buffoon you passed our test with flying colors.

  176. The IPCC said in 2001 that global warming would lead to warmer temps and much less snow. Not that the evidence does not fit their models, they are changing everything around. Nothing but Communist propaganda to remove money from you collective wallets.

    1. IPCC said in 2001 that global warming would lead to warmer temps and much less snow

      citation? Why are you ignoring their currant publications?

      2. The increase in snowfalls is counter to what the UN IPCC predicted. See: In 2001, the IPCC predicted milder winters and less snow. Experts are hoping no one remembers – UN IPCC 2001: ‘Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms’ Google it.

      3. Really? The IPCC is publishing about fruit (currant) . . ?

        Maybe someone needs an ESL tutor refund, or it may be that they are just a childish little brat troll…

        1. What? Seriously you must be the dumbest retard among deniers. Can’t even get your BS in the right orders of magnitude … now you fail at reading and comprehension … not surprised at your vacuity.

          1. Obviously, either this is a complete joke to you ~ or you are completely delusional. Either way, you are a waste of time . . . me, I think you are simply an unoriginal troll. Unimaginative, boring and redundant ~ now you are relegated to being a gong clanging in the wilderness.

            1. Judging from the tenor of your conversation, you look pretty much of an unoriginal troll yourself, replete with ad hominem attacks rather than any actual intelligent discourse.

              1. so says the “internet guru” who comments *18 days later*

                makes ZERO mention of the topic

                adds ZERO intelligent discourse

                ~ rather, only makes “ad nauseam” attacks – simply regurgitating what I said about lwrb

                Guessing that you are just a shill for loonwithrightbrain (if not him with another one of his pathetic online personas – always voting himself up)

  179. Every few months, when climate change deniers decide they’ve come up with an all-new reason to convince themselves that global warming is all a big hoax, we like to take a look at whatever the latest scam is that they are propagating, either because they are part of the effort to help out the fossil-fuel industry, or simply because they enjoy being their brainwashed and/or incurious little tools.

    Back in 2013 these stooges were promoting the phony notion that “Arctic ice has grown to a record level!” It hadn’t. After that debacle, they claimed UN scientists had found their predictions of warming were off by 50 percent or more. They weren’t. More recently, they were pushing the false claim that the globe has been cooling ever since 1998. It hasn’t been. And, of course, when all else failed, they could always fall back on their old standby: weaning ourselves from dangerous fossil fuels won’t make any difference anyway because China would never do the same. But, of course, China is now doing so at a rate that should embarrass these jackasses. But it won’t. Because they are never embarrassed about being wrong.

    So, with 2014 recently clocking in as the hottest year for the planet on record, according to every major world agency that measures such things, and with 13 of the hottest years on record all falling within the past 15 years, these clowns are getting pretty desperate for something — anything — to use to keep the denialist scam going on behalf of the most profitable industry in the history of civilization.

    The latest such scam, helpfully propagated on several Fox “News” shows last week, is that the so-called “scientists” have been caught red-handed in the act of “lying” about raw temperature data! That’s right! They have been manipulating the data to exaggerate the extent of global warming!

    Except, of course, they haven’t, and they aren’t…

Leave a Reply

Support Climate Depot

Social Media

Facebook-f Youtube Twitter Instagram

Most Popular

Stay in the Know

Sign up to get updates.

Facebook Twitter Google-plus Pinterest

Copyright 2024 © All rights Reserved.