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

Global warming activists in academia and the media are now seeking to link record-breaking cold to man-made “global warming.” The problem is, the science is failing to support their claims.

Time Magazine was one of the first media outlets out of the gate with an article by senior writer Bryan Walsh blaming the “historic cold snap” on “climate change” and warning readers that global warming will bring more record cold! “This week’s events show that climate change is almost certainly screwing with weather patterns ways that go beyond mere increases in temperature—meaning that you’d be smart to hold onto those winter coats for a while longer,” Walsh wrote. See: Polar Vortex: Climate Change Could Be the Cause of Record Cold Weather |

Walsh went on to refer to the ubiquitous phrase “polar vortex” to attempt to explain how carbon dioxide emissions have essentially made the polar vortex “wobble like a drunk on his 4th martini.”

Time: Polar vortex is ‘wobbling like a drunk on his 4th martini.’

The only problem for Time Magazine is the publication is on record in 1974 blaming the same phenomenon on – global cooling! See: Time Magazine Goes Both Ways On The Polar Vortex: ‘In 1974, Time Mag blamed the cold polar vortex on global cooling’ — In 2014: ‘Time Magazine blames the cold polar vortex on global warming’ (via Real Science)

Other warmists have joined in blaming record cold on “global warming.” Meteorologist Eric Holthaus, who announced in 2013 that he was going to have a vasectomy to help save the planet, boldly proclaimed on Twitter “Yes, you can thank global warming for this taste of the ‘polar vortex’.”

The Weather Channel weighed in with this article: “Though it seems counterintuitive – global warming bringing about extreme cold – the answer may be yes, according to scientists like Weather Underground’s Dr. Jeff Masters and Dr. Jennifer Francis.” And the UK Guardian writes: “Deep freeze gripping America may be tied to shrinking Arctic sea ice caused by manmade climate change, reports Climate Central.”

But scientists were quick to reject any link of record cold to man-made global warming. See:

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer refutes claims that global warming is causing record cold: ‘Polar vortices have been around forever. They have almost nothing to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere’

Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue rejects claim that global warming is causing record cold: ‘This polar vortex episode is the global warming media’s most recent ‘Snapchat’ message: after a few seconds, explanation just dissolves’

Wash Post Throws Cold Water on Idea that Global Warming Is Causing Record Cold: ‘It’s still heavily debated…Elizabeth Barnes of Colorado State disputed the link’ – WaPo: ‘For now, the consensus view still holds that global warming will bring fewer cold snaps to places like the U.S., not more. The IPCC in 2007 predicted that there was ‘likely to be a decline in the frequency of cold air outbreaks… in [northern hemisphere] winter in most areas.’

U.S. News: ‘Is Climate Change Causing the ‘Polar Vortex’? Article rebuts: Claim ‘appears unsupported by the observations’

Warmists Claim: ‘Global warming is probably contributing to the record cold’ – ‘Global warming can make cold snaps even worse’

Real Science rebuttal: Experts : Cold Used To Be Caused By Cold, But Is Now Caused By Heat – ‘How can anyone claim that a rapidly warming Arctic would produce record cold air? How can -65F Arctic air be melting ice? The assertions are ludicrous beyond comprehension. Arctic ice extent is normal. Northern Hemisphere snow has been near record highs.’ 

Time Magazine Goes Both Ways On The Polar Vortex: ‘In 1974, Time Mag blamed the cold polar vortex on global cooling’ — In 2014: ‘Time Magazine blames the cold polar vortex on global warming’


Via Real Science:

In 1974, Time Magazine blamed the cold polar vortex on global cooling. ‘Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world.’

Another Ice Age? – TIME

Forty years later, in 2014, Time Magazine blames the cold polar vortex on global warming: ‘But not only does the cold spell not disprove climate change, it may well be that global warming could be making the occasional bout of extreme cold weather in the U.S. even more likely. Right now much of the U.S. is in the grip of a polar vortex, which is pretty much what it sounds like: a whirlwind of extremely cold, extremely dense air that forms near the poles.’ — Polar Vortex: Climate Change Could Be the Cause of Record Cold Weather | 

Record cold from global warming causing ‘polar vortex’ debunked – ‘Paper confirms there is no evidence that climate change has slowed the jet stream or increased frequency of jet stream blocking’

‘Another paper finds no evidence of any unusual or unprecedented changes in the latitude or speed of the North Atlantic jet stream over the past 142 years since 1871’

Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: ‘Does Global Warming Theory Predict Record Cold?’ Answer: ‘NO.’

Wash Post Throws Cold Water on Idea that Global Warming Is Causing Record Cold: ‘It’s still heavily debated…Elizabeth Barnes of Colorado State disputed the link’ – WaPo: ‘For now, the consensus view still holds that global warming will bring fewer cold snaps to places like the U.S., not more. The IPCC in 2007 predicted that there was ‘likely to be a decline in the frequency of cold air outbreaks… in [northern hemisphere] winter in most areas.’

‘There is a theory for how global warming could cause severe cold in the U.S. — but it’s still heavily debated. Right now, the Arctic region is warming rapidly. And a few scientists think this could cause the jet stream to slow down and weaken and meander all over the place more often. This is a relatively new idea, and there’s still a whole lot of debate over the link between Arctic warming and extreme weather. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers sketched out the theory here. In August, Elizabeth Barnes of Colorado State disputed the link (and Francis responded here).

UpdateClimatologist Cliff Harris: ‘The claims that greenhouse warming causes more cold waves like we have seen this week really seems to be without any basis in observational evidence or in theory. The media needs to stop pushing this unsupported argument’ — Harris: ‘All this bogus reporting has done substantial damage, with many American’s believing that global warming is already causing our winter weather to become more extreme, while the observational evidence suggests no such thing.  One day some sociologists will study this situation and the psychological elements that drove it.’

Update: Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry, Chair of School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology: ‘Is global warming causing the polar vortex? In a word, no.’

More Links: 

Embedded image permalink

From get vasectomy to save planet guy – Warmist Eric Holthaus: ‘Yes, you can thank global warming for this taste of the ‘polar vortex’ — Flashback: A weatherman breaks down in tears and considers having a vasectomy, vows NEVER to fly again due to grim UN climate report: Eric Holthaus tweeted ‘no children, happy to go extinct’

TIME Mag blames global warming for frigid temps across US. CO2 made polar vortex ‘wobble like a drunk on 4th martini’

Time Magazine Senior Writer Bryan Walsh: ‘Climate Change Might Just Be Driving the Historic Cold Snap’ — ‘Climate Change Might Just Be Driving the Historic Cold Snap: Global warming is sometimes thought of more as “global weirding,” with all manner of complex disruptions occurring over time. This week’s events show that climate change is almost certainly screwing with weather patterns ways that go beyond mere increases in temperature—meaning that you’d be smart to hold onto those winter coats for a while longer.’

Related Links:

‘It’s too darn cold’: Even polar bears and penguins moved indoors

NYC breaks 118-year-low

Flashback 2010: NYT’s Climate Astrology: ‘Bundle Up, It’s Global Warming’ — ‘Overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes’

Flashback 2010: Watch Now! Climate Depot’s Morano in MSNBC TV Debate — Morano: ‘Now [the warmists] are trying to say global warming causes blizzards, that’s the level of climate astrology — it’s like a daily horoscope — nothing that happens falsifies the [warming] theory’ — ‘He (Weiss) need’s Tarot cards, that is what he needs, he is peddling astrology’

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’

NOAA’s 2010 Report Rebukes Gore’s (& Other Warmists’) Snowstorm Claims! NOAA Finds ‘Record-setting snowstorms were the result of natural causes’ — not man-made global warming!

2009: Climate Fear Promoters Try to Spin Record Cold and Snow: ‘Global warming made it less cool’ – Switch from warning of ‘climate crisis’ to ‘global warming made it less cool’

Gore’s Back: ‘We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change’ — Claims global warming ‘causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow’ (Why didn’t Gore warn of blizzards in his film?)

‘Planet Earth currently has the most sea ice ever measured this time of year’

Forget global warming!? Earth undergoing global COOLING since 2002! Climate Scientist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002’ – Growing number of scientists are predicting global cooling


539 Responses



                1. I see, you are migrating away from the ‘furious’ contention, you are not really furious, are you? You are actually quite cheerful even though you have some concerns

                  So why lie? Why make up a story about how upset you are? What do you think that will accomplish? Are you trying to fool people, or maybe, are you trying to make other people get upset so that you can get some affirmation for your delusion? Is that how it works for you?

                  1. SADISM ? LIAR ?



                    IN FACT , IT HELPS YOU SEE IT MORE CLEARLY .

                    Most folks are about as happy as they make up their minds to be.-ABRAHAM LINCOLN –

                    BUT DON’T EXPECT ME TO FOLLOW YOU .


                    1. you are the one that claimed to be furious. i made no accusation

                      BTW, your caps lock is stuck on stupid

                    2. SO ?
                      IS BEING FURIOUS THE SAME THING AS A LIE ?
                      HOW ABOUT SADISM ?

                      DO YOU EVEN OWN A DICTIONARY ?
                      YOU CAN LOOK THIS STUFF UP ON LINE .
                      WITH OR WITH OUT CAPS . WORKS FOR EVERYONE .

                      OUT SOME OF THAT PENT UP INTOLERANCE .

                    3. SO ?
                      so you already knew it was stuck on stupid but you continue it as it is? OK, to each his own. One can assume by this that you are probably beyond embarrassment

                      IS BEING FURIOUS THE SAME THING AS A LIE ?
                      Only if you claim to be furious when you are not furious

                      HOW ABOUT SADISM ?
                      How about it?. Sadism is enjoying the suffering of others. If you claim to enjoy it when others suffer, you are practicing sadism.

                      DO YOU OWN A DICTIONARY ?

                      YOU CAN LOOK THIS STUFF UP ON LINE .
                      That is how I got this smart

                      WITH OR WITH OUT CAPS . WORKS FOR EVERYONE .
                      Fine, continue to display your intelligence this way.

                      OUT SOME OF THAT PENT UP INTOLERANCE .
                      Your expertise on ‘mellow’ seems debatable.

                      AND ABOVE ALL CHEER UP , IT’s GOOD FOR YOU .

                      I am not the one claiming to need it.

  1. Climate Change is NORMAL!!!! It has been occurring for over 4 BILLION years via solar activity, volcanism and oceanic currents.. The biggest joke is that liberals think that they can stop it…LOL!!!!

      1. How can anti industrial society collectivist liberal elites make money when nothing is produced? Answer: tax schemes vice and fear. A society turned in on itself in economic and social cannibalism. Now you know what the modern world is actually about and how these idiots run what’s left of western society….They need to be purged.

          1. It’s OK for them. Once they have it all (or close enough to all), a little will be enough to go a long way for a long time.
            As pointed out a comment or two below, the goal appears to be a new feudalism.
            We’ve already made great progress in creating a permanent underclass that votes for the party that insists that they stay “downtrodden” by “racism”, as well as a rapidly expanding government of two indistinguishably corrupt parties and national policies that seemed designed to Balkanize the public and eliminating the “middle class” (I hate that Marxist term but it is now the common language).
            In short, we are making war on the American dream of upward mobility and it is working. We have finally taken the edge off the rising standard of living, and where we have failed we have convinced people that “poverty” is having only one car and three TVs and an iPhone. Look at the new charges of income inequality; it’s the newest front designed to prevent success.

          1. what is a climatologist? i don’t know, but since the advent of the global warming scam, i bet that there’s a lot more of them. they know that the money keeps coming to them as long as the planet is being ‘destroyed by man’.

            1. …and the money is coming from the Government, so they have justification for making stifling policies and legislation at the behest of the global warming and green energy lobbiests….LOTS of $ to be made by politicians this way. What is going to be funny is watching all of these elite liberal celebrities who bought into the whole notion have to come back and admit they were bamboozled too!

              1. I’m keen to hear how you can describe the almost yearly breaking of record temperatures in australia.
                you might not have heard that such an increase is exactly consistent with the fundamental descriptions of global warming..
                or are you confused about the sudden decrease in temperatures in the usa? Yes, you probably are – but then again, you probably missed highschool level physics, math, basics in reasoning, intellectual honesty and plain ol’ classes in ‘finding out stuff for yourself irrespective of FOX news standard bogma.’

                Learn first, rant later, okay hun?

                1. Since I am from Australia, I’ll explain it to you…Australian Summers have always been hot.

                  By the way the so-called “record breaking temperatures” is 0.17 degC greater than the last “record breaking temperature”. And if you look at the details of Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, you’ll see that they have a disclaimer in the fine-print saying they are subject to mistakes and inaccuracies in their measurements.

                  Here in Sydney…
                  48 hours ago => Very hot.
                  24 hours ago => Dropped down to mid 20s degC
                  Now => Cold. Feels like Autumn instead of Summer.
                  Friday’s forecast? => Same as today.
                  Saturday’s forecast? => Warming back up again.

                  Do you care to explain why its cold and windy today in Sydney?

                  1. Since you’ve obviously not been in australia long, let me give you additional information.

                    Summers in australia have NEVER been this hot.
                    and summers in australia have NEVER been repeatedly this hot..breaking records year after year.

                    Since you’re clearly unaware, repeated, statistically significant outlying data on a temporal scale, are suggestive of an emerging temporal trend.

                    I’m curious. which of those don’t you understand? are the words too big?

                    1. Bonzono – you’d do well to be less condescending in your opinion. Now for the facts:

                      1) The BOM collects surface temperature data from a limited number of locations. It can’t accurately average true surface temperature warming meaning error and variability could be significant, by the BOM’s own admission (see their temp set data disclaimer). Australia is a huge landmass and the vast majority of it is desolate. However removing all of that and accepting 2013 saw a very hot year comparatively, surface temp data just tells us how hot it is, not why it’s hot.

                      2) Current climate models use a few things to determine why it’s hot and without going into all of them there are a few key observations that suggest Australia’s recent observed record surface temperatures aren’t caused by AGW: i) night temperature values aren’t increasing in line with expectations of AGW increases (there’s a greater variance b/w night and day temps than AGW models predict) and ii) UAH satellite data measuring lower troposphere temps don’t peg 2013 as the hottest year since 1979 (when sat data started being collected) which should be the case if warming is man made (LT temps should increase with surface temps under AGW)

                      There’s a whole bunch of other stuff in this but I must retire for the evening. Climate science is fascinating and wonderful but we’ve only just opened the first page of the first chapter of the climate science book as can be seen by the fact that whenever a climate event occurs that wasn’t expected (polar vortex deviation) we try and retrofit an AGW explanation when really we just don’t understand. If the science was settled, these “anomolies” would be predictable and pre-conditions known.

                      As true scientists we need to continue to observe and deduce rather than jumping to premature conclusions and hype around surface temps doesn’t help, nor is it scientific.

                    2. Thanks for your facts jimmy, though I have to admit.. I really didn’t see any.

                      Your first point is that measurements around australia are spatially disparate, error prone and really just give the effect, not the cause.
                      Agreed, and this is why we use something called statistics – statistics help us understand and quantify emerging trends, not only in australia, but globally.
                      I’m fully aware all scientific measurements have an inherent error – the point made was that as the statistical ensemble becomes more populated, the error necessarily decreases. That’s not my claim, that’s basic math.

                      The fact that you didn’t bother to address is one borne out of the ensemble, not simply the measurements from last year – again, you failed to consider that the high temperatures last year are statistically discrepant relative to something like more than 100 years of data – that in itself is not VERY outstanding.. but what IS outstanding is that the record is being broken regularly – every summer, in some way.

                      Basic statistics will tell you that at some point, a population of apparently discrepant data points becomes statistically non-representitive at some population size. Basic statistics will also tell us that an ongoing, periodic discrepant measurement becomes increasingly suggestive of a temporal relationship – i.e. a trend.

                      That temperatures are rising is irrefutable. Clearly you would not be foolish enough to contest that.
                      The ‘WHY’ is important – as you say in your first point, the measurement is the effect, not the cause.

                      A true scientist constructs an hypothesis that fits the data, and attempts to validate or nullify it. At present, there is insufficient data and insufficient knowledge of the system to do either with great confidence. HOWEVER, the predicted observed effects of AGW is, in general, entirely consistent with the data. In general. That is – greenhouse gas increases, so does temp.

                      So – what do we , as nonscientists, do about it? we can consult an actuary. What will happen in the case each of the hypothetical scenarios are correct? What is the cost?

                      Good question – what is the cost of even the most mild of predictions by AGW?
                      What is the long-term benefit by implementing the changes necessary to avoid the hypothetical scenarios, even if they are wrong?

                      1. the cost is potentially astronomical.
                      2. the benefit of throwing off our dependence on a finite resource is also, potentially astronomical.

                      I fail to see how we can loose by addressing the science.

                    3. bonzono, your use of very big words doesn’t impress me. But perhaps most frustratingly you accused me of presenting no facts when I clearly presented two pieces of evidence (widening discrepancy between night and day temps and LT temps) which refute AGW that you’ve conveniently ignored.

                      Allow me to add a third: observed surface temperatures of all planets in the solar system are increasing. That sun is a pretty powerful entity!

                      As to your suggestion we implement changes based on hypothetical scenarios: Hypothetically, angry aliens might attack us soon. The costs to humanity of not preparing for this attack is potentially astronomical. We should divert all our production capacity to preparing for this attack immediately. See how crazy this is?

                      I know your type. This is a religion for you, not a science. You know just enough to be dangerous, but not a lot. You’re impossible to reason with and reduce the conversation to ad hominem attacks. That makes you an entirely unpleasant person just FYI. But do enjoy your trolling.

                    4. Jimmy,

                      No, you said things, you did not produce evidence. Evidence is a measurement, not saying things. I will produce evidence for you, that you SHOULD have read, below. If you’re not bamboozled by all them nasty big words before then.

                      Without addressing your claimed Day/Night disparity right away, let me skip to your other – that about the planets warming up… and I notice you didn’t reference THAT claim either. But responded to a similar, silly claim below, you can read it if you want, but I’ll summarise again for you:

                      Firstly, your claim is a lie perpetuated by the moronic buffoons who don’t bother to find out – the reality is that only no planets

                      one planets exhibit warming out of 8 – and the situation is WORSE if you want to consider the moons of said planets, which number in the 100’s in total. Neptune. Pluto also shows evidence of warming, so lets pretend this is a planet for now, to make your demolition more complete.

                      Weeaalll, the problem here is that these two planets are hard to understand anyhow, they have the longest orbital periods in the solar system, they are the furthest from the sun (which is in an all-time low in terms of it’s irradiance), they have the most elliptical orbits – pluto’s plane of orbit is very inclined relative to the mean for the other planets (which is part of the reason it’s not considered a planet)

                      Since you’re a fan of validation, and since I like a very complete destruction of on-line redneckery, here they are. Feel free to contact nasa to tell them how wrong they are, based on your measurements of mars weather with your ‘bones’

                      not-AGW-warming of mars – caused by albedo changes:


                      warming of pluto – confusing, since it’s nearer to aphelion than perihelion:

                      warming of neptune:
                      Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth’s temperature
                      warming of triton (moon of neptune):

                      data on planetary orbits (in case you don’t believe me their orbits are elliptical and plutos’ is inclined):

                      Back to your LW problem – citation needed – oh, and I really do insist it’s a peer-reviewed journal. ta.

                    5. Only your first link actually goes to what appears to be a peer reviewed paper (conveniently behind a paywall). Of the last three two are news articles and one is Wikipedia (a well know bastion of anonymous review rather than peer review). I would request that you also stick to citing from peer reviewed papers/journals to support your points or refute others just to be consistent with both sides of the discussion.

                  2. oh, and I might add something, since you seem to be implying that 0.17 degrees in one year (or at best, three) is small.

                    it’s not. Any first year physics student can compute exactly how much energy that requires, and it’s more energy your husband expends in his 2 minute dash to glory, as exciting as that might be for you.

                    You might also attempt to claim that the observed, verified temporal increase in temperatures is also subject to error – yes, it is. but the errors are NOW so small, the increase is irrefutable. You might know that if you bothered to take a math class, rather than nightly scrapbooking workshops at the trailer park.

                    And as for error prone? do you know what THE errors are? Do you know what the term ‘errors’ actually means?, how they are computed, propagated, and why? Do you know what such a disclaimer actuality means, and the ramifications?

                    you might have learned this if you bothered to tune in at school – or perhaps you just flaked out on those classes for the aforementioned 2 minute dash.

                    Suffice to say, broadcasting your demonstrable lack of understanding in the science you haven’t bothered to read, nor attempt to understand, is not conducive to a well rounded and factually supported argument – which is why yours is not.

                    So – well done, you’ve perpetuated yet another nonsense claim by the mentally and educationally inadequate cerebral ruminants of the australian special school elite. elite, that is, in the wrong direction.

                    learn first, rant later. please.

                    1. More ad hominem diatribes which is always the last bastion of the intellectually fatigued. Well done. Your PC Masters taught you well!

                    2. Thanks for contributing nothing at all of any substance what soever.

                      however, you did demonstrate your poor grasp of the use of an ancient and dead language.

                      An ad hominem is an argument mounted based on a personal comment.
                      An insult is not.

                      Please tell me you have sufficient education to distinguish between an insult and an ad hominem argument.

                    3. You really are a dingus, therefore what you have to say is irrelevant = ad hominem, which is a grouping of fallacies that attack the person in order to refute their argument. This is pretty much your only tool on this message board (something about scrapbooking in trailer parks and poor sexual performance was your assertion for one poster?). It would be an insult only if you didn’t link it back to the fact that the insult is the reason you’re dismissing someone’s argument, which you do.

                    4. actually the syllogism goes like this (and pay attention please):

                      what you’ve said is irrelevant and unsubstantiated, and bereft of fact,
                      therefore, you are a dingus.

                      You might have noticed that the post of mine where you made your ad hom claim followed exactly this process.

                      insult, not ad hom, but thanks for playing, your persistence is…. well, almost endearing, if slightly nauseating.

                    5. bonzono – firm believer in “they who speak last are always right” despite dribbling absolute pseudo intellectual nonsense, making tenuous links and unfounded assumptions about science whilst ignoring inconvenient facts that don’t support the AGW hypothesis, and attacking people personally, without knowing them at all (whilst being confused about ad hominem fallacies) all while shrouded by the anonomity of the Internet.

                      All the makings of a dissaffected teenager with a chip on their shoulder.

                      Make up with your parents. It’s worth it.

                    6. Bonzono, I love the rants that pseudointellectuals, such as yourself, go on to try to defend the arguments and predictions of Global Warming Alarmists that are constantly not coming true. But liberals, such as yourself will never admit when they have been hornswaggled. You still continue to swallow the “religion” of global warming hook, line and sinker!

                    7. “go on to try to defend the arguments and predictions of Global Warming Alarmists that are constantly not coming true”

                      by ‘not coming true’, are you referring to data you haven’t bothered to look at, or are you referring to your sublime ignorance of the matter?

                      Calling me a pseudo intellectual isn’t going to save you from the fact that, actually, yes, the data does show warming.

                      Your persistent reluctance to examine the data and engage your brain also does not mean you’ve escaped a religion, it means you’re wilfully ignorant.

                      Religions require an absence of data. That is what ‘faith’ is.
                      That you think there is an absence of data, when there is an abundance that shows the effect is in process simply demonstrates, again, you are not informed, you are indeed, just completely wilfully ignorant – like any theist.

                      Science requires both data and logical thought, and rational speculation. On that count, you have already made your three strikes. Burying your head in a bucket of sand and pretending the data does not exist, does not mean the data does not exist – it means you’re wilfully ignorant of it.

                      My question to you: why are you not reading the scientific peer reviewed literature before you bother to pretend to have a valid point to make about it?

                    8. “Religion requires an absence of data. That’s what ‘faith’ is.”

                      Later on…

                      “You are not informed, you are indeed, just completely willfully ignorant – like any theist.”

                      The first line demonstrates some seriously misguided generalization on your part. It is not desirable when, attempting to advance your opinion, you speak so idiotically and incorrectly about the majority of people you are attempting to “insult”. My religion – the Catholic religion, which is 1.2 billion people (that’s a lot of “completely willfully ignorant” people on their part, certainly more than smart, reasonable, rational atheists) has no opposition to science at all; in fact, science enhances it. For example, take the logical, scientific fact that life does not arise from dead matter. When coming up with an explanation for life’s origin in the universe, atheism seems to propose that life magically appeared out of nowhere without the help of an intelligent designer. That’s not logic or science.

                      Anyway, that’s besides the point. The point is that most protestants would agree that religion is not based on “absence of data” or that science is any way conflicting with religion. What you’ve done, like many people of your demographic, is taken a small group of fundamentalist protestants and used them as the example for all religious people. If you’re going to try to throw a very large group of people under the bus, you’d better speak on their behalf correctly if you want to provide a reasonable example for your beliefs.

                    9. “learn first, rant later. please.” Wow, why don’t you take a dose of your own medicine. I saw not one refutation of anything aussieguy64 said in your response. All I saw was the typical Progressive Alinskyite tactic of freezing your opponent…iow, denigrating everything he said without actually offering any proof to back up your claims he’s a sex-obsessed ignoramus. Why don’t you actually offer up some valid, verifiable “science”? You DO know the AGW priests cherry pick their temperature data, don’t you? Here…here’s some proof… learn first, rant later. please.

                    10. That’s fine no1, you can complain I didn’t add anything factual to refute the claims made by aussieguy.

                      Of course, you’ll carefully skirt the fact that aussieguy himself showed no factual claims either – of course you wouldn’t, that would be hypocritical of you.

                      And of course you won’t bother to actually investigate on your own – denial is all about being ignorant of the data, and refusing to look for it.

                      I am amused, however, that you link me to a blog to show me your.. uh.. ‘fact’. Hun, I prefer scientists and peer reviewed literature, blogs don’t help. Really.

                      So, here you are kid:

                      Which part of the discussion under ‘Hot summer? Yes: the hottest’ is confusing you?

                      See that cute little data plot there? That’s data over 100 years.
                      Since you might not know what all those confusing lines and colours mean, let me explain it to you: the horizontal line is the average over the period in the plot. the blue means ‘lower than the average’ the red means ‘higher than the average’ – now, here is where you have to engage your brain, see how there is more red on the right? that means temperatures are tending towards higher than average.

                      The claim being made to aussieguy is that temperatures in australia are increasing, and rapidly. The data PROVE that to be the case.
                      Any more questions? Any more brainfarts?

                    11. Australia has 16 weather stations with official temperature measurements going back 100. Years. My home town has an unofficial highest maximum of 50.7 C measured in a Stevenson Screen in 1906. Its official highest is 46.9 C about 30 years ago. Australia’s unofficial highest temperature is 53.1 C in 1889 while the official highest is 50.7 in 1969. Can everyone, except Bonbozo, see how misleading it is to claim a record breaking temperature in Australia is a sign of global warming?

                      Add to that satellite data showed last summer to be average but the adjusted land measurements showed it was the hottest summer that we ever had.

                    12. thanks vic.
                      And kudos for being up front with your lousy ability to understand data and statistics.

                      I’ll just clarify, what I said was we are experiencing a series of record breaking temperatures – year after year, that was not the case in 1906.

                      Now – is this really very hard for you to understand? The MEAN temperature is shifting.
                      Are you going to refute that point? please do so, and when you’ve wiped your mouth, you can actually look at the REAL data, over 100 years, collated from those weather stations. Since research is clearly beyond your capacity, I’ve done it for you. here it is.

                      See that cute lil line, crawling inexorably upward?

                      Do you know what it means when you have an ongoing, consistent change in the mean value of a data ensemble? Demonstrably your years of free education didn’t imbue you with much in the way of high school level statistics, but it means there is a shift in the systematic nature of the ensemble. Put in kiddy language: That we are experiencing record-breaking temperatures year after year, is meaningful in a temporal sense. That we had the occasional record breaking temperature, with no systematic temporal trend, is not.

                      Basic statistics are actually quite useful, if you’re not dazzled by all them big numbers. Read about statistics before you comment again please. it’s tedious.

                    13. Holy smokes you are an annoying person! Do you really expect that anyone is going to take you seriously with that huge chip on your shoulder… I don’t…

                2. OK Bonzono…Please explain that while we were having a period of global warming that you alarmists were so keen on pointing out, that temperatures measured on the other planets by NASA also increased? There is only 1 common factor at play….the SUN! You point out Australia (actually cherry pick). I am a professional geologist that studies the effects of climate on our planet’s geologic history. I guarantee you that I am much more versed on the topic than you ever will be.

                  1. I have to admit, I’ve never heard this absurd nonsense before, so I had to check it out.

                    As you probably don’t know, last year was a solar maximum.. as you also probably don’t know, it’s the weakest solar maximum since the mandau minimum about 100 years ago, roughly corresponding with another mini-iceage. As you also don’t know, the sun has super cycles where it’s irradiance varies cyclicly, and presently, we are also at a minimum in that cycle.
                    Attempting to correlate an increase in temperature with a DECREASE in irradience by the sun, is laughable.

                    So, what about the planets heating as you claim?
                    In fact, that claim is made only for two other planets – you probably don’t know there are 8 planets in our solar system.
                    As you also probably don’t know, these planets orbit the sun in roughly elliptical orbits – you probably don’t know that an elliptical orbit means the planet experiences seasons. You are probably therefore completely unequipped to understand that at any given time, some planets will be experiencing relative heating and some will be relatively cooling.

                    The claim you just made is not based on data that has a temporal baseline any longer than the actual orbital period of these planets – since the orbital period is DIRECTLY correlated with the seasons, you really have nothing there other than what is MOST likely an observation of seasonal heating.

                    Thanks for playing, next time, do your homework.

                3. one country–there is 186 or there abouts–you want too nit pick 1 country–its the only way you people can try too justify ya bullshit science

            2. What is a climateologist, he’s says..
              I don’t know, he says…

              but whatever it is, though I have no idea, what a climateologist says, is wrong… he says..


              if you don’t know what it is, how on earth can you claim it to be wrong?

            1. While what you said is obviously untrue, it might not be in the longer term:

              Solar scientist: definition: one who receives payment for declaring the sun is hot.
              Solar scientists tell us the sun is hot, because it is.

              Of course, not all climate scientists say the same thing – which is actually the point of the article you’re commenting on – but it is a (small) minority.

              so, your joke is this:
              climatologists declare human activities are the primary cause of global warming..
              well – if it were, then that would make perfect sense. That most of them do declare this is simply because, like the solar scientists declaring the sun is hot – that is what the data show.

              The true genius in redneckery is stating something that is, actually the case, while being utterly unaware of their complete stupidity, you, my inadequate pal, are a mental giant amongst the redneck clans.

        1. If the climate ever stopped changing, the same crowd would be trying to stir up a crisis of ‘Climate Stagnation’ – and demanding more power and money to deal with the ‘crisis.’ HL Mencken said it well more than half a century ago:

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

          1. Oh yeah?! Well read this quote! “The business of the journalist is to DESTROY THE TRUTH … We are the tools and vassals of RICH MEN BEHIND THE SCENES! We are the jumping jacks, THEY pull the strings and WE dance! Our talents, our possibilities and OUR LIVES are ALL the property of other men! We are intellectual prostitutes.” –John Swinton, speech given while working for the New York Sun, 1880.

            My gawd man… don’t you ever look around at what’s happening to our planet?!
            “Facts don’t cease to exist just because they are ignored.” – Huxley, Aldous.


      2. This is it in a nutshell. The “Green Movement” is nothing more than a get rich quick scheme and like most of them they would be utterly illegal if the government wasn’t so invested in it. The “science” being climate change is twisted to form the desired conclusion time-in and time-out again. It all depends where you stand on the political spectrum and when sciences’ own data (like a decade or more of temperature data) just don’t suit that conclusion they just ignore it.

        1. Not only get rich, but get power, and make sure to have control so no one else can get rich. Good old fashioned “Manor Lords and Serfs” society, with guess who setting themselves up as the Lords. (It is worth remembering that financial and cultural reforms in the Renaissance and the rise of modern trade and capitalism helped end that kind of society in the west.)

          1. It’s interesting you say that – not because you’re right (and you are) – but because I’ve always equated Lord Hizzoner (Mayor Bloomberg) and his rule over New York City as that same analogy. New York City was his feudal kingdom and us citizens his lowly serfs. Spot on sir.

        2. I’m confused.

          What does measured increasing temperature have to do with your political slant?

          Can it really be simply that you don’t like what the data is showing, so you’re desperately clutching at straws, and without having the actual slightest clue what it is you’re actually talking about, you decree it to be wrong?

          ‘when sciences’ own data (like a decade or more of temperature data) just don’t suit that conclusion they just ignore it’

          Well, hun, data from the last hundred years or so show increasing global temperature. That’s the fact. Irrespective of your colour: green, red, pink or white.
          As you say, since that doesn’t agree with your conclusion, you’re just ignoring it.

          I’m confused, you appear to be decrying people for doing EXACTLY what you are doing.

        3. green movement is a quick rich scheme..

          of course it is, see how rich all those liberal progressives are – especially all them tree-huggin’ hippies and good-fer-nothink university students? and see how poor all those impoverished conservatives, CEOs and petroleum lobbyists are?

          oh wait… 😀

      3. Climate scientists have been ginning up the data in favor of their agenda to continue to keep getting government grants. That’s how the morons got stuck in Antarctica last week. Through federal grant money, they all went to see how bad the polar ice cap is melting and they, plus numerous rescue boats get stuck in 15 feet of ice. And incidentally, for whatever its worth, its considered summer in Antarctica now.

        1. Interesting isn’t it, that the governments you talk about are actually more strongly perturbed by the fossil fuel lobby – that would mean that the researchers are not funded on the grounds they produce data that proves climate change, but that they simply produce science – which is, as it turns out, the job of a scientist.

          As for going there to show it’s melting.. heh. no.

          They went there to try to understand why the ice is increasing, while the ocean temperatures are ALSO increasing – two observed, but apparently counterintuitive phenomena.

          What I find amusing is your weak attempt to disparage researchers with a quip that says volumes about your mental ineptitude and laziness.

          fact 1. the antarctic ocean AND air temperatures are apparently increasing: (See Zhang 2007, and Boning et al, 2008,

          fact 2. the antarctic ice cover is also increasing (you can read about it, and obtain peer-review here:

          IF you are a skeptic like me, and not simply a denialist – who simply rejects any and all data that contradicts their ignorant dogma, you can read all about this exact question at


          1. . All we really need to know is that in 2010 the University of East Anglia’s climate research, the worlds foremost climate research university, was debunked through emails made public proving scientists were ginning up their data to show what they wanted the public to see. Science is not consensus, it is a theory or hypothesis that is tested over a period of time to come to a scientific conclusion. See Richard Lindzen from MIT, one of the worlds respected climate scientists who doesn’t subscribe to the alarmists religion. Read and enlighten yourself and stop drinking the kool aid.

            1. Firstly, no, the research was not debunked at all.

              secondly ‘ginning up’ i have to admit I am new to this term. Is it prevalent in your trailer park?

              “See Richard Lindzen from MIT, one of the worlds respected climate scientists…”

              and see the hundreds of worlds respected climate scientists who do.

              And in fact, Lindzen DOES acknowledge that the reports conclusively show the planet is heating – what he does question, rightly so, is the veracity of the AGW claim.

              Are you deliberately semiliterate-ly cherry picking? or is that, again, something you were taught in your trailerpark?

              1. I’m not cherry picking anything. Why the anger? I thought progressives were tolerant people. You’re denying East Anglia’s scientists were caught changing the data. Really? Did you hear that on MSNBC? It’s you that aren’t interested in the truth. I said read Lindzen because he wasn’t an alarmist as you appear to be.I never said he didn’t believe in climate change, just not man made climate change. As for living in a trailer park, I’ll have you know sir that I removed the wheels months ago.

                1. Selecting but one of the hundreds and holding it as your example, then ignoring the others that contradict your sample, is indeed the very definition of cherry picking.

                  And yes, I am denying they were caught changing the data – you refer of course, to the popularised ‘climate gate’ stupidity, that was later checked by a very wide range of external reviewers, and found to be a whole lot of denialist wishful thinking.

                  The findings of east anglia are found to be perfectly cogent, and consistent with a consensus.


                  Read, enjoy, and please, join the current decade – it’s now 2014

                  Oh, and hun? don’t bother to accuse me of not knowing the facts when you’re dredging up ancient rubbish, long shown to be nothing more the desperate and sterile residual foam accumulating on the party-room floor of the climate denialist orgy.

                  who me? angry ? I’m having a great time giggling at you rednecks!

                  1. Sometimes the one is correct and the “consensus” is wrong. See Alfred Wegener and continental drift.
                    Since you talk about facts and peer review often in your posts do you know if the data used to determine these record temperatures is raw temperature data or adjusted data? If it is adjusted are the raw data available and/or the methodolgy of the adjustments reviewable? It seems that most of the time the temperature data from NASA has been adusted prior to release without the adjustments made clear.
                    One of the bothersome findings from the Climategate emails, FOIA requests and other correspondence is that much of the raw temperature data used in the models somehow disappeared. From a scientific standpoint that is sloppy and begs the question of what else have they been sloppy with, or worse that they intentionally disposed of the data to keep others from reviewing it. That was a question not really explored by the “investigations” that cleared any wrongdoing.

                  2. I would like bozo to pick one of the many IPCC models used. that can predict our climate accurately. Surely one of these is capable of predicting the current lack of warming over the past 17 years! Perhaps we could use that one going forward…

                    Oh, you mean there isn’t one? But if we’re 90+% sure, how can we not have a measurement model that supports such a consensus? It’s not as if they’ve only been off the mark for a year or two. But as we approach 2 decades of consistently missing the mark, what are we supposed to believe?

      1. The green movement is one of the best PONZI schemes ever devised.
        – Those at the top of the Ponzi scheme are looking for political capital and money.
        – Those in the middle are the mules and are looking for a crumb.
        – Those at the bottom, are the sheep and get nothing.

        1. And… There is NO way to DISPROVE it!!! Warm weather proves climate change, cold weather proves climate change, normal weather proves climate change. What are the factors in the model to disprove it???

          1. ‘And… There is NO way to DISPROVE it!!! ‘

            Except there are. and many of them.
            I suggest you learn a little of the matter before you bother broadcasting your supreme ignorance on the matter.

            Try actually reading the material more, and listening to the FOX-fed crud your mate barf at you, over a beer or 50, at the strip club.

        2. I love watching the redneck crud you intellectually bereft clowns continually regurgitate on sites like this – if there was any doubt that the cerebrally inadequate in the usa are force-fed the equivalent of baby formula, by such mental giants as glen beck, you folks provide conclusive justification for the data suggesting the usa has an educational calibre slightly poorer than the 2nd world country of cyprus.

          kids, glen beck is the comical butt-clown of the rest of the planet, haven’t you figured it out?

          My only question to you is – since you’ve been told what to say by your shepherd, are you really such mindless sheep it doesn’t occur to you, to actually look at the data? Thanks to the H1B visa, the usa actually DO have scientists who know what they’re talking about – often not native-born to the usa, I might point out.

          So, pauli – your bleats are cute, for an 8 year old, but are you really 8? time to flick your idiot box to something other than the FOX channel mindless drool, don’t you think? time to actually learn what you’re foaming about, before you actually babble to laughably about it?

          1. Every post of yours I’ve read has offered nothing but put-downs and inanities but no proof. Your supreme teacher Saul Alinsky has taught you well. Instead of insults and attempting to marginalize your opponents without providing any actual proof, you’re proving you have no case and all you have is hot air. Maybe YOU’RE the source of AGW. Come back to the adult conversation when you actually offer some proof to your posts. Otherwise, the kiddy table is over there.

            1. “Every post of yours I’ve read has offered nothing but put-downs and inanities but no proof”

              I find every single post here offensive to all of human intelligence. That you think there is no data in any of them simply means you’re not reading them – there is.

              Hun, I’m perfectly happy for you to refute what I say – that is how science works, but when you do, do it with data, not a whimper… oh, and as I said above – -do your homework.

      1. Interesting,
        Since you think the data does not support the expectation,
        perhaps you can explain to me how, in austraila, we are yet again breaking all temperature records, even those set as recently as last year, oh, and 2009?

        I find it fascinating the extent to which the myopic redneck brigade in the usa simply refuse to look further than the sheltered fuzzy confines of their own FOX tv. hun, if you don’t like what climate change scientists say, fine, prove them wrong. Sorry to say that the conditions experienced in australia are entirely consistent with their predictions.

        oh, and since you’re probably reading this in between watching re-runs of your intellectually-challenging ‘everybody loves raymond’ episodes, you would be also fascinated to ignore that in fact, the high temperatures in australia are directly linked to the polar vortex you folks are bleating about: just quickly ( I don’t want to cut into your time you put aside to ‘shewt yerself sum mekkikans’ – but the polar vortex power is provided by a temperature differential in the arctic and atlantic regions – the same as a thermopile technology that you would also know nothing about – thus, the hotter southern hemisphere is in the american winter, the more powerful is the vortex.
        and here’s the kicker – this isn’t even an el-nino year.. so the temperatures in the southern hemisphere will be even greater when the cycle comes around – and yes, you guessed it, the polar vortex even stronger.
        back your woollie panties hun, you’re gonna have a lot more to whinge about them damn scientists who haven’t given you and your half-sister/mother a way to escape the cold that you think doesn’t exist.
        american rednecks.. ffs.. do you wonder why the world laughs at you?

            1. The planet has gradually been warming up since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1800s, the coldest period since the glaciers retreated 10,000 years ago. Thank goodness. There is ZERO evidence that man has increased the 1°F/century rate, and even that has gone flat (zeroed out) in the last 17-33 years, except for a single 2-year El Nino burst in 1997-8.

              Meanwhile CO2 is greening the deserts in Africa and China, boosting the rainforests and agriculture everywhere, and so much is coming from China that cutting back elsewhere is irrelevant.

              1. ah yes, your use of Fahrenheit is telling..

                Your lines are from the standard bogma puked by folks who really are just told what to say, by other people who are also failing to examine the data.

                Firstly – the ‘little ice age’ is a legitimate phenomenon, but of course, you’ve ignored the rest of the data – you’re cherry picking of course – part of the standard tool for people like yourself who have been fed yet more cherry picked data in an effort to obscure the actual long term effects.

                you might want to look at
                in particular, I found these data interesting:
                Yes, an ice age in the 70’s, superimposed on a longer warming trend – it’s barely noticeable in the final plot on that page – the mini ice age is a temporary blip on the observed and much longer-term trend, which has it’s roots in the growth of industry.

                as for “There is ZERO evidence that man has increased the 1°F/century rate” – firstly, farenheit? ugh.. clearly not a scientist, nor someone who has a grasp of scientific data which is ALWAYS published in SI units (sorry, that’s french, I know americans are bitter about french.. or something).

                As for ‘zero evidence’ – well hun. refusing to look at the data that does exist, does not mean there is zero – it just means you’re utterly ignorant of it.
                As for flattening out??
                Righto, I’ll tell my mates in Aust that the record temperatures in the southern hemisphere, again, are merely a figment of their imagination. Sorry, but can you really be this thick?

            2. So the fact that CO2 has risen rather linearly for the past 16 years and the global temperatures have not proves that Man-made Global Warming is not occurring, right? That would be “A failure to correlate increased global mean temperatures with man-made CO2 output.” Pointing to one relatively small land mass (Australia) as proof is statistically insignificant, by the way, with AU being about 3 million square miles of the 196 million total square miles of the planet.

              1. “So the fact that CO2 has risen rather linearly for the past 16 years and the global temperatures have not proves that Man-made Global Warming is not occurring, right”

                Yes, if that was the actual observation, which it is not.

                The actual observation is that global mean temperatures are increasing, and as you suggest, that would suggest a correlation.

                “Pointing to one relatively small land mass (Australia) as proof is statistically insignificant”

                Yes, that is actually quite a valid point. Fortunately we also have data for the north american continent, the pacific, tasman, and atlantic oceans, which show the same things, and together comprise something like 75% of the entire earth’s surface.

                Fortunately, for my point, and unhappily for your point, it appears the australian data are consistent with the global measurements too.

                  1. That’s ironic, the first hit in your page is to ‘’, explain exactly why you’re seeing what you talk about – I find it amusing you think an article that talks about exactly that topic, and why it occurs, is actually in support of the positive aspect of your claim.

                    Yet more testimony that you muppets really just don’t bother to read pretty much anything after you count the number of hits your google searches get you.

                    Here’s a tip – when you do the google search, actually click on some of the links to check they don’t actually argue against your case.

                    Since you failed to bother to read it, here it is.

                    What it is, how it’s measured, and why it occurs.

                    Read first, rant later.

                    1. Ahhh, perfect win. I love it when an internet argument ends so quickly, so cleanly.
                      You lose for two reasons.
                      1. You cherry picked one article of the thousands, that one article coming from a biased source.
                      2. You resorted to name calling, an automatic loss.

                      Have a nice day.

                    2. strange, you accuse me of cherry picking data that YOU provided? I merely reported the FIRST link in the list YOU provided.

                      What a curiously inept argument. and rather amusing all round.

                      Calling your argument is not name-calling, it’s fact.

                      you gave me the link, I checked it out – and showed you the data from your OWN link – and I’m cherry picking data from the link you sent me?

                      remarkable reasoning. but yes, best you admit defeat at this point.

                    3. LOL, missing the point and moving the goalpost.

                      You picked one article of the thousands I provided, that is the cherry pick; you would never allow an argument that was one WUWT post and I don’t allow one SKS post to define an issue. The thousands of links I provided were predominantly discussing the lack of warming that is no longer questioned (even the Met office in the UK admits no warming, hardly a ‘skeptic organization).

                      The second point was the ‘muppet’ slur; automatic loss in any debate to denigrate the opponent with name calling.

                      Again, thanks for playing, have a nice day.


                    4. sigh…
                      A post script here – I provide a LOT of links here to a lot of research, at the bottom, that show your nonsense is indeed nonsense – I’m just letting you know in case the big words are confusing you, and you can’t make it to the bottom.

                      you should have quit while you were only slightly behind..
                      “A simple Google search reveals that there has been no warming for 17 years”

                      the VERY FIRST LINK in YOUR provided data does not.
                      but okay, I’ll bite, here is the list of your sites that show ‘proof’
                      Addressing for now, not the thousands that you certainly haven’t read, but only the first page of your list – 11 hits.

                      three of them are WUWT – a blog and no science (actually that’s not entirely true, they cite a comments from railway engineer.. um.. really?)
                      the remainder are:
                      climatedepot – no science
                      CNS – conservative news service – no science.
                      financial post – no science
                      godfatherpolitics – no science.
                      Mean while, the others:
                      forbes outright refutes the claim – and uses science to do it.
                      climateskeptics also refutes the claim, and uses science to do it.

                      So – what you’ve managed to show me is a list of rightwing newscasters that don’t look at the science, and claim it is different to the consensus. The only two sites that DO look at the science, refute the claim you’re trying to make.

                      so it seems your modus operandi is this – ignore the science, wait for FOX news to say something stupid so you can brainlessly parrot it. Continue to ignore the science, and pretend that whatever FOX news said, now taken up by various other muppet (ooh, that word pops up often!) mouthpieces, is gaining a groundswell, simply because more and more people like you, don’t bother to check the data.

                      Well, hun, I’m sorry, but you’ve really screwed up on your google attempt, you just shot yourself in the foot – are you out of feet yet?

                      Even so, a significant problem in this context appears to be that there are simply too many cooling processes – and they’re not having an effect anyhow. Some of these processes are runaway – e.g. ice melt, and some are stochastic: e.g. volcanoes. Some a pseudo periodic e.g. el nino/la nina. They’re only represented as yearly averages in the models, if there are too many eruptions in one year, that will manifest as a discrepancy from the model. But there are bazillions of them.

                      At BEST, you can claim the heating is simply slowed down – not stopped.

                      but very, very recent work shows this is not the case.

                      Here’s some things you can ignore too:
                      (ohhhh, looky there.. wow, a ramp up in global oceanic heat content.. continuously.)

                      and an overview of the whole nonsense you’re attempting to vomit on my screen:


                    5. LOL.

                      Really. You make me laugh with your obvious fear of losing this argument. Immediate personal attacks (and I notice that attacking like that is your favorite thing to do) mean that you have no faith in your arguments.

                      Let’s put the goal posts back where you first set them:

                      A failure to correlate increased global mean temperatures with man-made CO2 output.

                      I showed that, hmm, how did you put it:

                      At BEST, you can claim the heating is simply slowed down

                      I concede your point for the sake of this little exercise, that the warming has ‘slowed’. This fact fulfills the demand you made that started this off. There has been an explosion of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet warming has slowed. End of point, your side loses.

                      Any attempt to ‘explain away’ the lack of warming increase by pointing out natural variations admits that natural variations are more powerful than made made variations, again, proving that AGW simply isn’t happening, just nature being nature, same as it has for billions of years.

                      Again, have a nice day, it was fun using your own words against you.
                      (go ahead and spew more personal attacks at me, I don’t care, this is over)

        1. So the fact that Time magazine in 1974 said the “circumpolar vortex” (yes, the term polar vortex is NOT new) was due to global cooling must mean temperatures in Australia were at an all time high (according to your assertions)? Or were the 1974 temperatures in Australia at an all time low? Or were they “normal”? Which was it? If your assertion is correct, Australia should have had extremely high temps that year.

          So Time magazine said the 1974 polar vortex was due to global cooling (“OMG, we’re going into another Ice Age” was the cry at the time. I know…I was there. Were you?) but now the exact same conditions are caused by global warming according to Time (and you).

          Progressives always assume there is no past history and they will never be found out when they offer up contradictory information. President Stompy Feet is a perfect example, changing what he says from one press conference to the next. Sorry, dood, but you’re a non-starter and I refuse to feed the troll anymore. It’s obvious your religion is climate change and no facts will ever convince you otherwise, same as trying to convince Christians that no one will or has ever risen from the dead.

          1. Again, a religion is something mounted in the absence of data – which, I might point out, is your approach. The data DOES actually show global warming, like it or not. by definition then, global warming is not a religion – but global warming denial IS.

            What a curiously paradoxical argument you make, does your other foot have bullet holes in it too?

            But to address your question: was there exact same conditions in 1974?
            Well – no, but of course, that is the wrong question. The question you should be asking is: was there a significant rise in temperature in the SH, above the global mean in 1974.

            And: I have to thank you, I went and did a little research on SH temperatures, in summary:
            1974 followed, in fact, a significantly DECREASING spike in temperatures, from about 1970. That is, 1974 suddenly spiked upward. i.e. a temperature differential.
            You can get the data from here:

            If don’t want to plot the data yourself, you can find a plot of it on a blog:
            If you don’t like blogs, as I don’t, you can plot the data from noaa and verify it.

            So there is a sudden upward swing in temps in the SH, in 1974.
            But what was ALSO interesting was the same kind of spike and upward swing ALSO occurred in about 1953-54.

            You might not have noticed that what I said was the vortex is driven by a temperature discrepancy, not simply ‘hot’, just ‘hotter’ than it was before. It is the derivative that provides the energy to drive the vortex, not the value (sorry, that was math).

            So, being a good little scientist, I searched through the peer reviewed climate literature for data on vortices in 1954-ish.. and guess what I found?
            entitled ‘THE WEATHER AND CIRCULATION OF DECEMBER 1954: A Month With a Cyclonic Polar Vortex and Fast Westerlies in High Latitudes’

            But anyhow, let’s keep an open mind ;D

            enjoy your research, I know I did.

    1. It’s amazing how many people think that climate change is NOT normal. And yes, it has been happening for ages and will keep on happening for as long as the planet exists.

      1. It’s amazing to think that YOU think -30 degrees is normal.
        It’s amazing to think that YOU think record high temperatures in consecutive years is normal.

        It’s amazing that you’re so completely ignorant of basic statistics, you can’t even process the significance of consistent statistical outliers, relative to an data ensemble comprising a few thousand data points – and instead concluding that the consistently-occuring outliers are ‘normal’.

        What is amazing to me is what appears to be the calibre of the basic education of people posting on this site – if you are mostly from the USA, does it lend weight to the oft-citied poor quality of basic education in the USA? is it really the case that the intellectual and innovative power is not driven by native-born and educated USA-ians, but rather, the vast influx of dedicated immigrants given access to USA over-reached wealth via the H1B visa?

        Does it really not occur to you how incredibly inadequate and basic your comments are, in the fact of the real, actual data you’re apparently consistently failing to examine?

          1. A resoundingly useful and definitive rebuttal of nothing at all.

            Actually, it is incredibly amazing you can’t process basic statistics. Why is that?

      1. I’ll point out that 4.5 billion years is a time period that science has told us is the age of the planet.
        science also provides very strong evidence that AGW is a reality – ‘liberal’ or not, simply has nothing to do with it.

        Interesting you refer to science.. to refute science. 😀

        Oh, I do so love handing butts to folks like you. but why do you have to make it so easy?

    2. Excuse me, but flooding ALL and ONLY White countries with MILLIONS of non-Whites and telling everyone to ‘assimilate’ to create a blended humanity IS White GENOCIDE.
      Africa will still be full of Africans,
      Asia will still be full of Asians,
      Only White children will suffer from this insanity.
      iT’s wHiTe geNOcide!
      Except ‘anti-racists’ don’t call it GENOCIDE when it’s done to White children.
      They call it ‘diversity’.
      Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White and Diversity is a codeword for White Genocide.

  2. Yea, great! The earth has been around for some billions of years, and all weather is driven by the sun (and some internal forces), YET, the globalists (soros) have determined that “greedy men” are responsible for…weather? Hmmm… Sounds like another religion in the offing. Where is L.Ron when you need him.

    1. Religions are not supported by data.
      Climate change is.

      That you’re ignorant of the data, or are incapable of understanding it, does not mean it does not exist, it just means you’re ignorant of it.

    1. I thought there was an official thermostat somewhere, you know, the kind that has a lock box over it that only the janitor has a key for.

      I think it’s in the UN building.

    2. A matter of the loons trying to guarantee victory by taking both sides of the argument. I would say it was funny watching them argue with themselves if so many people didn’t take them seriously.

    3. oh boy…

      can you show me any of the models that assume it does?

      come to think of it.. have you actually ever bothered to look at the data, much less the models?

      I have a question for you azgirl.
      your claim is ‘climate change science is wrong’ – I want to know how you think you can claim that, without actually knowing even the most fundamental minuscule, basic information on the matter?

      to be more accurate, and so you can make it clear to the punters what an ignorant fool you’re being, you need to say something like this:

      “I have no idea at all what you’re talking about, but whatever it is, it’s wrong”
      please suffix all your comments as such, in the future.

  3. Time magazine is the print equivalent to television media. They lie to the American people to further their progressive agenda. Facts be damned. Controlling the lives of millions of people is far more important to them.

    1. Yep. How true. It’s really not about political parties. Strip it down to the bare bones. It’s all about power, money, greed and looking at the world in a euphoric way. Hippidom is stupid and not realistic! Wake-up lib dumb-a**es!

    2. Time Magazine had Hitler, Stalin and Mousolini listed as men of the year in the 1930’s They haven’t changed. I believe Vladimir Illyich Lenin worked as a Geneva war correspondent for the New York Times in 1916 and Marx or Horace Greeley’s New York tribune. Communism has always come from Manhattan?

    1. I saw that movie. It must be true…

      Seriously, in today’s age of information, you can prove any point by selective statistics. It works kind of like the Oracle of Bacon. Eventually you’ll find a connection as long as you ignore anything contradictory. The hitch comes when using your selected statistics to predict the future.

  4. The hidden truth is that man-made global cooling has caused man-made global warming and the net effect is non man-made natural global climate..

  5. No matter WHAT happens, it ALL is just bricks in the pyramid (scheme) of “climate change”. Bad weather; CC. Good weather; CC. Lots of hurricanes; CC. Very few hurricanes; CC. See how it works? With no provable connections anywhere, The World Is Yours.

  6. I can stop climate change but it will be expensive. I will need about half your income. Trust me. E-mail your bank account information ASAP. It is all for the children.

  7. I’m so glad global cooling in the 70’s turned out not to be true, or we surely would have boiled by now(due to global cooling that is), instead we are freezing to death from all the extra heat. Thank God.

  8. At no point have the predictions made by supposed climate change scientists matched the actual observations.

    This is a linear chart comparing various climate change predictions to the actual observations. It was created by Dr. Roy Warren Spencer a climatologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite.


    After he released this other climatoligists complained that his chart was deceptive because it was in linear form, so he created a non linear chart.


    Actual climate observations have not matched up with predictions made by the IPCC. anthropogenic climate change has been disproven.

    1. Dr Spencer and Dr Christy at UAH are the lone voices of sanity in a world full of loons. Their work is based soley on observation not a hypothetical model that has been proven over and over again to be inaccurate. I wish more people would listen to them in Washington.

  9. Raise your hand if you believe that our scientists have a clue………………………….let alone a sup1d weatherman. Glad he had a v-cut, hate to have more sup1d kids running around.

    1. Had a physics teacher comment once that meteorology was the only profession in existence that allowed you to be wrong more than half the time and still keep your job.

  10. Cold temps have killed far more people than heat throughout the history of man. Civilizations have flourished when the globe warmed up. Famine and plagues decimated civilizations during the cold periods. It was warmer in Roman times than it is now. The Vikings flourished during the warm periods and died off when things turned cold again. Global warming is now part of the religion of the left, which includes unrestrained abortions, restrictions on economic activity, rewarding of non productive behavior, moral relativism, drug use, unionization of all workers, admiration of tyrants and dictators, and a powerful centralized government that controls its citizens (serfs). Liberals will still be crying “global warming” as the cold snuffs the life from their frozen bodies, just because they cannot admit they were wrong.

    1. I was “taught” that garbage from lib teachers in the 70’s.

      Even then, we laughed at these nitwits.

      That’s right folks, the SAME idiots said humans would be EXTINCT by 2005 from an ICE AGE.

      It’s 100% pure political BS.

      Thank a brainless idiot liberal teacher or “professor” today for making you laugh.

  11. How can anti industrial society collectivist (faux) liberal elites make money when nothing is produced? Answer: tax schemes vice and fear. A society turned in on itself in economic and social cannibalism. Now you know what the modern world is actually about and how these idiots run what’s left of western society….They need to be purged.

  12. The most amusing thing about Global warming is that the left keeps talking about “consensus” science and then calls those who disagree “flat earthers” Never once realizing the irony. Flat earth at one time was “consensus science. It was the skeptics that advanced science…not those stifling debate by shouting “Consensus” LOL Liberals are so funny.

      1. I’ll help you hun, I know some folks have trouble with a dictionary;

        1. a general agreement.
        “there is a growing consensus that the current regime has failed”

        And a general agreement is exactly what is found.
        Any more questions? any more big terms you need explained to you? how about ‘wilful ignorance’?
        Thats’s where you deliberately avoid bothering to learn anything at all on the grounds it will screw up your pet idea fed to you by such scientific luminaries as glen beck. (oh, since you might not be aware, that was a sarcastic description – glen beck is probably one of the most cerebrally inept butt-clowns on the planet; interesting that he’s managed to cultivate you as his disciple).
        learn first, rant later, okay hun?

    1. Flat Earth was never “consensus science”. The ancient Greeks deduced that the Earth is a sphere and without any technology estimated the circumference pretty darn close using only their observations and logic.

        1. There was no consensus the earth was flat. Aristotle demonstrated why it was spherical and a whole lot of other Greeks went about figuring how big it was and stuff like that. They didn’t even believe the earth was flat in medieval times – or at least the 1/10 of 1% who could read didn’t. No one else mattered much being serfs and all.

      1. I have a few astronomers who went on trial for heresy well after the Greeks were a power, that might have an argument with you on that point. Whatever though, who cares about things like recorded history.

        1. If you are referring to Galileo, that was for heliocentrism – not that the earth was flat. The idea that people in medieval times believed the earth was flat was a myth invented by Washington Irving in the nineteenth century in his biography of Columbus. The truth was that everyone knew the earth was spherical, but disagreed on its circumference. Columbus thought it was much smaller and he could reach the West Indies. Everyone else thought he was wrong and he and his crew would starve to death before finding land. Columbus was wrong but no one counted on extra continents in between. That is why he called the people here “Indians” – he thought he made it.

  13. I swear. There should be a national holiday called “Beat a L!BTard Day”.
    They’re constant moaning and whining about something and nothing satisfies these deviants.

    Just shoot ’em I says.

    1. More like “International Beat a Leftie Day”.

      We have them in Australia. They shoved a Carbon Tax down our throats.

      They cost us taxpayers money with their recent Eco-Tourism in Antarctica…AUD$400,000 to rescue these dimwitted Global Warmer activists.

      They pissed off other Australian, French, and Chinese scientists who were actually doing REAL science experiments. (Their own ships had to be diverted to rescue these losers, so their own scheduled experiments were disrupted. They were PISSED.)

      There is only one solution to the Leftie problem in Western Society. A good old fashion all-in-brawl. You see a Leftie, punch them in the head. If you still feel a pulse, keep going…You’re doing future generations a favour.

  14. Doesn’t “Chaos theory” dictate that it is mathematically impossible to determine long-term weather prediction being that one would need to know an almost infinite number of initial factors to use in an indeterminate algorithm.

  15. I think that the “polar vortex” could be caused by ObamaCare. Yeah, that’s it. We did not see any of this widespread cold temperatures until Obamacare was being implemented. Until then, the Earth had been warming. Thus, there is NO OTHER EXPLANATION that is plausible.

    1. Well done research! Now
      On comrades, to achieve Lenin’s dream of controlling the means of production by controlling the means of combustion. Not to mention allowing the too big to fail bail out recipients of Wall Street a chance for more lucrative gain selling these carbon ration cards and permission slips. Do you think the elite Communist Party mebers of China are laughing at this debacle or imposing cap and trade in the decadent, indebted West as a condition for the Treasury Bills they buy? Loans are made with terms, conditions and with pledges of collateral. Regulating the gaseou mtabolite that result from combustion a, that only comprises 0.0037 of the atmosphere , of which most is made in China thanks to free trade, only benefits Wall Street, Washington bureaucrats and politicians and th Chinese elite who own much of our debt.

      1. Yes they are right in our face, but what concerns me …obama and his agenda was right in our face as well and he was able to scam two terms as the president.
        Big corp is laying low , yet very involved. But then again, I guess they are not laying that low, if you or I can do about 5 minutes of home work on this subject matter.

        Quote attributed to Len d
        “This is not socialism it is fascism ” Couldn’t say it any better myself.

    2. “Follow the money going to these so called scientists from big corporations”

      yes, I suppose the petroleum industry is but a small player here

      but in my country – australia, there are no big corporations making money out of this, not even the government.

      What drugs are you kids on, exactly?

      1. Well it looks like the Aussies finally see the light Sir.

        My info was based on the US govt being in bed with big corporation .

        I am sure if you guys follow the money , you will see the truth.

        Australia Elects New Prime Minister, Scraps Old Carbon Tax

        So you guys do get it. Too bad the commie in charge of the US govt and his minions do not.

        Tony Abbott has already directed his department to begin drafting legislation that would repeal the carbon tax, instituted by the previous government on July 1, 2012.

  16. We don’t know if it’s getting warmer or colder, if hurricanes will be more or less frequent, or if the ocean is rising or falling, but we do know for sure that whatever happens is because of global warming and CO2. And the only way to fix it is more tax on energy. And a global beurachracy to mitigate useful consumption of energy.

  17. I was present and accounted for in class the day the lectures on the coming ice age were given …


    News week ….July 1974 …as I recall…carried a summer long year long rant on it …money for ice defense was needed …

    If the morons would of just stuck to the original story they would all look like geniuses

  18. The problem with an Ice age for the left …by in large …there would be very little wealth transfer to third world nations from evil capitalistic western countries ..
    as per the global warming crack and meth induced fantasies of theirs….
    in other words…

    There are more poor non whites affected by drought than there would be by snow ….

  19. why isnt any one from the space community wieghing in on this? i thought extreme weather periods were tied to the magnetic flipping of the sun every 22 or so years? lets see 2014 – 1974….how many years is that? i mean come on logical people get it, yes man made pollution does cause acid rain in places. yes man made pollution can kill rivers and then pollute large bodies of water. so thus regulations need to be placed so people are forced to not pollute the rivers or air as much . but global warming? im sorry but volcanoes have been producing more pollution into the sky in the last 100 years then man kind has in its enitreity. from the first little camp fire some ancient person cooked its first medium rare chunk of meat to chinas plumes of yellow black purple and all the other colors into the sky today. so how does the earth handle hundreds of thousands of years of natural pollution from volcanoes? why it goes out the holes at th top and bottom where the magnetic fields have created a thin spot to release the built up gases and particulates……but some “scientists” found these “holes” and found large concentrations of “man made pollution” and decided it was profitable to blame it on mankind instead of going with the science. look i offer no links to no tin hat web sites. im not blaming obama or the repblicans. but if the shoe fits you looney toon climate change global warming nut jobs, then you must wear it. as any one with half a education can read the facts and make conclusions about how the world actually works instead of making it up and then making up a invesment scheme around it …. “you pollute too much, you HAVE to buy carbon credits from this exchange to offset your pollution… and we will then trade your carbon credits on some shady exchange and treat them like we did with the real estate loan markets. sorry we are in charge and thats what we are going to do like it or not.”

  20. What is striking about those who hypothesize about climate change is how shallow their thinking is. We are supposed to be impressed by their theorizing that very subtle changes at the periphery of air masses will cause the air masses to migrate from where they are “supposed” to be to where they end up.
    Yet, it doesn’t occur to them that subtle changes to the wobble of the earth’s axis, variations in the earth’s orbit about the sun and variations in the sun’s activity could produce measurable temperature and other climactic changes on the earth. Indeed, these have occurred many, many times in the past and will do so again and again in the future.
    To pretend that just because you thought up a hypothesis it has to be true and that any and all evidence proves your conclusion is as far away from science that one can get.
    A true scientist will realize that he or she doesn’t understand enough about the underlying factors to reach any conclusions. We have learned, haven’t we, that one size does not fit all.

    1. And all this time I thought the someone flipped a switch to turn the sun on and off. I didn’t realize that the Sun consists of hot Plasma interwoven with magnetic fields which was formed about 4.6 billion years ago and that it’s energy supports almost all life on Earth by photosynthesis and drives Earth’s climate and weather which can fluctuate by an average of 5 degrees each millennium?.Crap now I bet your going to tell me I can’t keep my Doctor.

  21. Dear Lying Democrat Cowards:

    Is CLIMATE CHANGE MANMADE too, you know like the global warming lie was supposed to be manmade?

    What is Climate but an aggregation of the weather over a period of time?

    Democrats are the most gullible people in America, and the most cowardly when it comes to answering questions about their manmade global warming lies.

    I know you Sniveling cowards wont answer my questions, but I enjoy illustrating that Democrats are pathetic, sniveng cowards when it comes to answering questions regarding their ridiculous lies.

    Please feel free to call me names, because we all know you liars won’t answer.

  22. Heck, I was in elementary school and they were feeding us that global cooling stuff for years before 1974. Maybe I could sue them for the mental anguish they caused me during childhood thinking that our city was going to be underwater soon due to rising oceans….

    1. Liberal scientists have no credibility.

      Conservative scientists are never given the chance to have their positions known!

      We have entered the dark ages of science!

  23. This just in, MSNBC reporting that in the upcoming months it will get warmer which is proof that global cooling and global warming is occurring at the same time. Next up, ALGORE with another look at how much more money is needed for him to stop blaming man.

  24. This whole climate nonsense is just a scam by globalists to control the energy output (read productivity and wealth) of developed nations (read the US). This way they can hamstring the US while looting it of its wealth to be redistributed to the developing world with a cool 30% or more skimmed off the top for administrative fees. This is no secret. Globalists longed for issues that transcended national boundaries since the days of FDR. This would give them reach into the internal affairs of nations. Strobe Talbott has long argued that the nationstate is obsolete and there are many who are working very hard to make sure it is.

  25. If there were only a fraction of the “global warming” hysteria focused on the loss of America’s freedom and liberty, we might just have a chance of surviving as a free country beyond the current generation!

    I have been warning the world for over a decade about the upcoming GLOBAL COOLING trend, but the Socialist Semite Democrat Media has ignored me, because unlike Al Gore, I do not want to raise taxes on the middle class by TRILLIONS of dolares!

    GOOGLE “ALBERTO GOREZ” and educate yourselves, you foolish poltroons!!!!
    P.S., does anyone want to buy some carbon debits to help warm the earth back up?

  27. Hey what happened to the weather control the US is involved in? Can we not fire up that ‘weather station’ and warm things up? Or did we make it cold to prove warming?

  28. The recent exposures of fraud coming from the Hadley Climate Research
    Unit, then followed by similar exposures at New Zealand’s NWIA,
    Australia’s Climate Centre, and NOAA have only confirmed the doubts
    arising from the obviously NON-scientific methods employed by the
    Anthropogenic Global Warming supporters.

    Human Caused Global Warming is not being researched; it is being
    promoted. Al Gore and his fellow investors have spent over a hundred
    million dollars in creating a crisis of human-caused global warming out
    of (quite literally) thin air. They are not doing this out of the
    goodness of their hearts. They expect to reap billions in profits from
    the trading of Carbon Credits, a “license to pollute” available for a
    price and subject to brokerage fees. One of the people Al Gore relied on
    to create this scheme was Ken Lay, late of ENRON, aka the Crooked “E”.
    Al Gore plans to use Carbon Dioxide to do to the world what Ken Lay did
    to California using electricity; loot the people!

  29. I recall when I was a young boy in the 1960′
    s my father saying this .. ” someday these Democrats will figure out a way to tax the weather”. He passed in 1972, I wish he could have lived long enough to say I told you so.

  30. The polar vortex was caused by the displacement of air as Moochelle’s rear end left the continental USA and headed to Hawaii. Meanwhile in the Bermuda triangle …

  31. This should be the last gasp for the fraud called global warming but it will not be. Paul Erlich’s1970’s prediction is coming true 40 years late but it may only last for a few months. What will last is the imagined crisis that the left creates to raise money, incite fear and spread the disease called Communism.

  32. This latest cold spell is NOT CLIMATE, it is a result of Dick Chainy and the HALLIBURTON WEATHER MACHINE.
    They are trying to make me look stupid. I invented the internet so I am NOT stupid.
    GLOBAL WARMING MAKES IT COLDER AND WARMER, as well as wetter and drier, and lighter and darker.

  33. It is worth revisiting the underlying political agenda behind “climate change”
    science revisiting the Stockholm Conference on the Environmental Crisis. Meeting
    minutes reveal they needed a vehicle (climate change) to get people to accept
    global governance and the gradual erosion of national sovereignties and private
    property rights (which belongs to the “common humanity”).

    From the April
    14-16 1972 Conference on Environmental Crisis meeting minutes (co sponsored by
    the Institute of Environmental Studies and Institute for Theological Encounter
    with Science and Technology): “What kind of vehicle will get the world community
    along the road that we’ll have to travel?…Sometime something is going to happen
    that is truly irretrievable, but we have not yet come to this…Stockholm is
    looking to world-wide situations and there is no particular environmental…issue
    that needs an immediate global response…Earth Watch, as a global effort at
    environmental cooperation, should obviously be directed to a global problem. The
    problem priority for Earth Watch should involve that global problem which may
    most easily become irreversible. We suggest the seas and oceans represent a
    prime global concern.”

    The warming seas and the oceans is the basis for
    the climate change science. In a nutshell: Earth Watch was directed to
    manufacture a crisis because “in every revolution there is an idea and ideal”.

      1. I’m not sure my repy was published so I’ll try again. I’ve scanned and published part of this document on a critical assessment I published on the Occupy Movement available here
        Please send me an email and pinelinecafe at aol dot com (subject line document request) and I will scan it in its entirety this weekend and make sure you have access to it.

      2. My response keeps disappearing. Please contact me at pinelinecafe at aol dot com and put “document request” as a subject line and I will see you get the information.

  34. The President’s Science Adviser, John Holdren, is a cheerleader today for global warming. However, back in the early 1970’s, he was warning about the coming Ice Age. These guys just can’t have it both ways!

    1. It’s never been about “saving the planet” and it’s not about clean air or water, it IS about controlling you. Control of how you live your life, what food you are allowed to eat and how much, the # kids you can have, the house you can live in, how warm or cool it can be, how/when/where you are allowed to travel and the job that you are assigned. For people in undeveloped countries it forces then to live just above a caveman with; starvation, no clean water and no hope of a better future for their children. I heard ALL these same arguments before with the same kind of energy restrictions and my limits of my personal freedoms back when the eco nuts were saying it was man made global cooling back in the 70’s that was man causing a new Ice Age to start. They will manufacture ANY crises to push their agenda. “We can run your life better than you so shut-up and do and we say not as we do”.

  35. If you like your climate you can keep it; period.
    But you’re going to have to give me a boat load of money and dictatorial powers or I’m not going to be able to keep this promise.

      1. I was there a few counties away (Goodhue County) delivering newspapers (Mpls Tribune) on my bike before school in Lake City. Didn’t think anything of it back then. Its just was what is was…freaking cold. We still had school too.

  36. Global cooling predicted in 1890’s
    Global warming predicted in 1930’s
    Global cooling predicted in 1970’s
    Global warming predicted in 1990’s
    And now global cooling being predicted in 2010
    don’t worry the eco-nuts will be back in 2040-2050 with global warming again

  37. i find it fascinating that in the 4.5 billion year history of planet Earth we’ve seen man made global cooling followed by man made global warming in a span of only 30 years. Who do these alarmist a$$clowns think they’re fooling? This is irrefutable proof that their argument is ONLY about income redistribution. It has NOTHING to do with climate change.

    1. You can only solicit money for something that can be fixed.

      And the easiest thing to fix is something you cause,
      because then you just stop whatever you were doing and it goes away.

      Thus the concept of “Manmade Global Warming” was born…

  38. Too many polar bears on one side of the north pole created a heat imbalance that threw off the symmetry of the heat budget conditions that create vortex formations. Solution? Take polar bears back off the endangered list.

    Obama can just sign an EO like he did for killing eagles with windmills.

    1. WHAT!?!? THERE’S A THERMONUCLEAR REACTOR IN THE SKY!!!! I bet it’s not even a very clean one, spewing all kinds of radiation in every direction. Don’t let the environmentalists find out about this, or else they’ll organize a protest, march on Washington, and demand that it be shut down permanently.

  39. Climate Change….. Let’s look at the facts…..oh,there are none.
    How much money has the private sector spent “researching” climate change,worldwide……..none.
    How much money have goverments, spent “researching” climate change,worldwide……..billions and billions.
    Seems climate change is a “goverment” problem……..worldwide.
    BTW what is the correct temprature of Mother Earth? After all this “research” there must be a number.

  40. Obama’s latest helping the poor in flyover country.
    EPA increasing clean air requirements on woodstoves.
    Burning wood is suppose to be carbon dioxide neutral, the CO2 already exists, but they propose to push up costs and reduce the usefulness of the woodstoves by more regulation.
    These people are the only ones not being forced to support BIG ENERGY ie gas and electric monopolies.
    Newest stoves now will only work at two levels efficiently enough for EPA, almost wide open and wide open.
    Kind of like having a furnace that only has an off/on switch for a control except you can’t turn a fire off and on!


  41. If it’s hot outside, it’s Global Warming. If it’s unbearably cold outside, it’s Global Warming. If it’s 72 degrees and partly cloudy, still Global Warming.
    None so blind as those who will not see.

  42. Everyone one is a -gist now!! Weathermen are meteorologists, bartenders are mixologists, and scientists with 50lb brains without 2oz of common sense are called climatologists. There is another good article about that MIT professor that says global warming is all crap and spew said crap just to get more funding. Back after WWII the nation was grateful for scientific achievement and funding was guaranteed, but after Vietnam and the Great Society welfare crap, the US Government didn’t have so much to spend, and after a short lived global cooling scam, it has been global warming scams.

  43. They predicted – more hurricanes and there were less
    They predicted – less snow and ski resorts will suffer and we are getting more snow
    They predicted – More tornadoes and 2013 was a record low # of tornadoes
    They predicted more wildfires – 2013 was a record low # of wildfires.
    The problem is these scientists are in too deep and refuse to change their theories and will blame global warming on whatever happens. It is quite odd and hilarious at the same time.

    1. They also predicted that the ice caps would completely melt by 2014. Remember too that if these scientists do not continue to support the agenda then the money dries up and they lose their jobs.

  44. Have they ever been right???
    “Artic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.” Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.

    April 1970: “If present trends continue, the world will be … eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Kenneth E.F. Watt, in Earth Day, 1970.

    “By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots … [By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” Michel Oppenheimer and Robert H. Boyle, Dead Heat, St. Martin’s Press, 1990.

    In 1968, Paul R. Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb and declared that the battle to feed humanity had been lost and that there would be a major food shortage in the US. “In the 1970s … hundreds of millions are going to starve to death,” and by the 1980s most of the world’s important resources would be depleted. He forecast that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980-1989 and that by 1999, the US population would decline to 22.6 million.

    In 1974, the US Geological Survey announced “at 1974 technology and 1974 price” the US had only a 10-year supply of natural gas.

    In 1939 the US Department of the Interior said that American oil supplies would last only another 13 years.
    In 1944 federal government review predicted that by now the US would have exhausted its reserves of 21 of 41 commodities it examined. Among them were tin, nickel, zinc, lead and manganese.
    In 1949 the Secretary of the Interior announced that the end of US oil was in sight.

  45. I think these leftist hippie climate change weirdos should do their part to end global warming by committing mass suicide. They can leave notes about how they are “happy to go extinct” and thousands of sources of CO2 emissions will be gone and the Earth will be saved. Win-win, right?

  46. Climate change is normal. The amount of additional carbon being thrown into the atmosphere each year since the industrial revolution IS NOT! The 4 billion years in which normal climate change has occured is now being affected by the last 100 years of man made pollutants into the air. This is not a liberal or conservative issue this is a human issue.

    1. Barry, please tell us what percentage of the atmosphere is man-made carbon? And then tell us the impact removing every single fossil fuel-powered vehicle from the roads would have on that percentage. Right. You are howling at the moon.

    2. You can’t argue with “The 4 billion years in which normal climate change has occurred is now
      being affected by the last 100 years of man made pollutants into the
      This is even more dire than I had thought. It appears our last 100 years of pollution went back in time and affected the previous 4Billion years of climate change. Astounding. /sarc

  47. The LIB’S RELIGION is falling out of popular favor, like Obamacare. These woodstockites have too much THC embedded in their cerebral cortex.

    1. I believe they would point to mammoth farts as the cause. Remember, the dinosaurs died out and so the mammoth population exploded leading to run away methane production and the melting of the ice.

  48. Everything “science” comes up with needs to be viewed with a large dose of skepticism. We’re eager to celebrate a new scientific breakthrough, but we fail to notice that the new knowledge only proves that scientists were DEAD WRONG on the matter previously. Every new discovery is an “oops” for the previous concensus.
    Yes, there are many irrefutable scientific truths, but really, almost everything known to science was wrong before they got it right, that is, unless it turns out to be proven wrong again by the next discovery….
    Anything you believe today based on current scientific evidence could be out the window tomorrow with the newest discovery.

  49. King Chanute was the first leader that I can find that though he could change nature. He had his throne placed at the sea shore and he was going to stop the tide from coming in. All he proved is he got his feet wet. There has been global warming, not to the extent the models have shown. Some of this may be from man-induced inputs into the atmosphere. However, some of it has been from the normal cycles that have been observed in the past. When the sun was as inactive as it has been over the past two years, we had the little ice age. Could we be entering another cooling period? Only time will tell.

  50. “Global Warming” was all based on lies, just like Obamacare. The chickens are coming home to roost for those lying liberal democrats. And the complicit main stream media can no longer hide the lies.

  51. Yep, I was in the Navy back in the 70’s when these same Scientists who pushed ‘global warming today started claiming ‘global cooling’ back then. What gets me is AGW Scientist are all Liberal Academia Democrats firmly in the pockets of Liberal Democrat Politicians who favor lying because the end justifies the means. All AGW Scientists along with their Political counterpart should be in Federal Prison for pushing this fraud upon the American People.

  52. I’ll tell you, these junk scientists will never be happy. When we were going through the hot spell it was global warming and we were all doomed. Now we’re going through a cooling pattern and its global warming and we’re all doomed. They make it so confusing that the average person can’t understand what the heck they’re talking about and, therefore, will not dispute it. But apparently if we all install solar panels, windmills, drive electric cars and wipe our butts with only 3 squares we’ll all live in blissful harmony forever.

    1. It’s not ‘junk scientists’, its Leftist Ideologic Zealots who are either hopelessly naive, perfect Lenin useful idiots or purposely lying and distorting to advance their agenda…

  53. Can someone tell me why this post keeps getting removed?

    It is worth revisiting the underlying political agenda behind “climate change” science revisiting the Stockholm Conference on the Environmental Crisis. Meeting minutes reveal they needed a vehicle (climate change) to get people to accept global governance and the gradual erosion of national
    sovereignties and private property rights (which belongs to the “common humanity”).

    From the April 14-16 1972 Conference on Environmental Crisis meeting minutes (co sponsored by the Institute of Environmental Studies and Institute for Theological Encounter with Science and
    Technology): “What kind of vehicle will get the world community along the road
    that we’ll have to travel?…Sometime something is going to happen that is truly
    irretrievable, but we have not yet come to this…Stockholm is looking to
    world-wide situations and there is no particular environmental…issue that needs
    an immediate global response…Earth Watch, as a global effort at environmental
    cooperation, should obviously be directed to a global problem. The problem
    priority for Earth Watch should involve that global problem which may most
    easily become irreversible. We suggest the seas and oceans represent a prime
    global concern.”

    The warming seas and the oceans is the basis for the climate change science. In a nutshell: Earth Watch was directed to manufacture a crisis because “in every revolution there is an idea and ideal”.

  54. Well, gee. If global warming causes cooling, then we need to increase global warming activities in order to reverse the warming effects. Makes about as much sense as sense as the IPCC.

  55. The Cooling World

    Newsweek, April 28, 1975

    There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

    The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

    To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

    A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

    To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

    Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

    Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

    “The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

    Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

    —PETER GWYNNE with bureau reports

  56. Have they ever been right???
    “Artic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.” Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.

    April 1970: “If present trends continue, the world will be … eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Kenneth E.F. Watt, in Earth Day, 1970.

    “By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots … [By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” Michel Oppenheimer and Robert H. Boyle, Dead Heat, St. Martin’s Press, 1990.

    In 1968, Paul R. Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb and declared that the battle to feed humanity had been lost and that there would be a major food shortage in the US. “In the 1970s … hundreds of millions are going to starve to death,” and by the 1980s most of the world’s important resources would be depleted. He forecast that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980-1989 and that by 1999, the US population would decline to 22.6 million.

    In 1974, the US Geological Survey announced “at 1974 technology and 1974 price” the US had only a 10-year supply of natural gas.

    In 1939 the US Department of the Interior said that American oil supplies would last only another 13 years.
    In 1944 federal government review predicted that by now the US would have exhausted its reserves of 21 of 41 commodities it examined. Among them were tin, nickel, zinc, lead and manganese.
    In 1949 the Secretary of the Interior announced that the end of US oil was in sight.

  57. I can understand the hypocrisy between the 1970’s global cooling and today’s global warming.
    In the 1970s, while politicians threw away our money to get votes, the sheer amount of money was miniscule compared to the money now being used. Lobbyists and politicians have improved with their ability to lie and exaggerate to suck in our hard-earned tax dollars.
    it’s classic marketing – if one message doesn’t work, evolve the message until it does work.

    1. In the 1970s they at least asked (informed) before they pi$$ed away our money. Now Kerry gives away 7.6 Billion for climate reperations…to third world countries.

  58. to the GW alarmists:

    1. what exactly is the “ideal” temperature you seek to maintain?
    2. If a new ice age with colder temperatures is imminent, will you support expanding industry and carbon emissions, in order that mankind artificially raise the Earth’s temperature to your ideal?

  59. I find the Global Warming heretics entertaining in a cute, pathetic sort of way. Hang in there guys, summer is approaching. Whenever we have a hot day you can send out your alarms to other sheep grazing on what the media feeds you…

  60. in 1971 or 72, when I was in 8th grade, the science book said that even a relatively small rise in the global temperature would result in greatly increased evapotranspiration, creating more cloud cover, which would throw us into an ice age.

    I asked the teacher if the resultant cooling would not just cause precipitation, dissipating the clouds, so the temperature would return to normal before it could cause an ice age. He assured me that the authors of the book had researched it and knew what would happen.

    Far too many in the climate change community are invested, either emotionally or financially, to ever admit that the earth’s climate is far more complex and robust than we currently understand. Often their egos are tied to the notion that human beings are important enough and powerful enough to significantly influence the climate, despite evidence to the contrary.

        1. It can’t of course. (a lot more than you’re lead to believe) But China and India are polluting many more times than the rest of the world including America. Restrictions and limits however ,are geared more towards America.

  61. What amazes me with these radical, globalist loving, global warming nuts is that they NEVER consider that perhaps dumping billions of gallons of oil into the Gulf Stream may play a role.

    Nor do they consider that maybe the radiation that is utterly decimating the sea life all over the globe may be having an effect on things.

    Bit then again, how could they? Mostly all of the media stations and outlets are beholden to General Electric, Big Oil, and special interests for advertising and revenue.

    It is the same reason that no reporters will draw the comparison to almost EVERY mass shooting and school shooting.

    1. Kara, FYI – while Time Magazine has been a past alarmist about global cooling, this cover is a photo shop do-over of the Time Magazine cover warning about global warming.

  62. Warming…cooling…cold…hot…stormy…calm…cloudy…clear…more CO2…less CO2…it’s all caused by human activity and it all needs to be TAXED TAXED TAXED!

  63. Climate Change = Money. How many chicken little AGW alarmists are funded by government research grants? Protecting their fiefdom by perpetuating bogus claims is how these pseudo science fear mongers operate. And it’s costing way too much for the American public to let it continue. AGW is a colossal scam.

  64. “Meteorologist Eric Holthaus, who announced in 2013 that he was going to have a vasectomy to help save the planet, boldly proclaimed on Twitter “Yes, you can thank global warming for this taste of the ‘polar vortex’.”

    I suggest a lobotomy instead of a vasectomy.

    1. I suggest suicide.

      Since the eco-freaks are so determined to decimate the world population, they should lead by example and kill themselves en masse. I for one would be willing to part with a few bucks to watch the suicides on PPV, starting with Al Gore.

  65. Asian countries for Asians.

    Black countries for Blacks.

    but White countries for everybody?

    That’s genocide.

    Anti-racist is a codeword for Anti-White

    1. Flooding ALL White countries and ONLY White countries with non-White immigration combined with forced integration is a program of White genocide.

  66. When you listen to these idiots, two thoughts should come to mind:
    – FOLLOW THE MONEY! Most climatologists are being paid grant dollars by the government.
    – More importantly, if the Arctic melts, it will NOT raise sea levels because that is floating ice. If Antarctica was melting, we could have another discussion because that is land ice; but it is growing! Just for your own edification, get a glass of water with ice. Wait for it to melt. Does it overflow? NO, because ice and water have the same volume!

  67. This story is proof of the old adage, “what was old will become new again”. “Polar Vortex”, sounds like the next block busting box office hit coming to theaters this Thursday. Just goes to demonstrate that Hollywood Marxist really do come up with the “latest News Stories” which we hear day in and day out, delivered by the “Drive By Media”.

  68. Astrology is a better religion than Climate Change. At least Astrology is based on something that can be easily measured and predicted — the movement of stars and planets. The fact that the followers of both just make things up to fit their pre-conceived notions after that point still leaves astrologers looking more grounded in their beliefs.

  69. Lmao……they have too much control over the media…….if everyone knew that they blame cooling and warming in tandem over the dedades no one would believe the Eco crap. Sad people…..freaking eco-dorks

  70. Professor admits faking AIDS vaccine to get $19M in grants
    Is there any reason to believe that “climatologists” wouldn’t resort to the same type of scam to obtain grant funding? Follow the money.


    I have been warning the world for over a decade about the GLOBAL COOLING trend, but the Socialist Semite Democrat Media has ignored me, because unlike Al Gore, I do not want to raise taxes on the middle class by TRILLIONS of dolares!


    and educate yourselves, you foolish poltroons!!!!

    P.S., does anyone want to buy

    some carbon debits to help warm the earth back up?



  72. Dear Lying Democrat Cowards:

    Is CLIMATE CHANGE MANMADE too, you know like the global warming lie was
    supposed to be manmade?

    What is Climate but an aggregation of the weather over a period of time?

    Democrats are the most gullible people in America, and the most cowardly when
    it comes to answering questions about their manmade global warming lies.

    I know you Sniveling Cowards wont answer my questions, but I enjoy
    illustrating that Democrats are pathetic, sniveling cowards when it comes to
    answering questions regarding their ridiculous lies.

  73. Delaware Democrats spent 72 million dollars on “green
    jobs” based on the democrats Global Warming Lies, and so far have
    ‘created” ZERO permanent jobs!

    So, they have the same record of job creation as the ObowelMovement does after
    spending 3 TRILLION!

  74. Global warming kiss of death was The Rev Al Not So Sharp ton chiiming in.
    Gold standard verification the whole thing is based on making the elite rich

  75. GLOBAL
    WARMING turned out to be a BIG FAT DEMOCRAT LIE, so the DEMOCRAT LIARS changed the name to CLIMATE CHANGE!!!

    Funny how the “problems” associated with GLOBAL WARMING (sea level
    rise) are the EXACT SAME “Problems” caused by CLIMATE CHANGE! The “CAUSES”
    of those “problems” are the EXACT same “causes” under

    (Raising taxes by TRILLIONS) is also the same for both!

    But they’re different say the Democrat liars!!!!!!
    Alberto Gorez

  76. I consider myself an amateur Climatologist. You folks are all wrong on this one. I can tell you without a doubt that we are going to experience Global Warming. I’ve noticed a pattern here just south of Chicago. Starting in late April/early May, the temperature definitely starts warming. This pattern continues through August into September. Some of us have nicknamed this “Summer.”

  77. It’s all about wealth re-distribution. The left wants to tax and regulate oil and coal companies out of business and bleed tax payers to line their elitist pockets.

  78. This is the third post of this which I’m sure will be removed also. It looks like anything factual that originates from the “climate change” crowd is being censored.

    It is worth revisiting the underlying political agenda behind “climate change” science revisiting the Stockholm Conference on the Environmental Crisis. Meeting minutes reveal they needed a vehicle (climate change) to get people to accept global governance and the gradual erosion of national
    sovereignties and private property rights (which belongs to the “common humanity”).

    From the April 14-16 1972 Conference on Environmental Crisis meeting minutes (co sponsored by the Institute of Environmental Studies and Institute for Theological Encounter with Science and
    Technology): “What kind of vehicle will get the world community along the road
    that we’ll have to travel?…Sometime something is going to happen that is truly
    irretrievable, but we have not yet come to this…Stockholm is looking to
    world-wide situations and there is no particular environmental…issue that needs
    an immediate global response…Earth Watch, as a global effort at environmental
    cooperation, should obviously be directed to a global problem. The problem
    priority for Earth Watch should involve that global problem which may most
    easily become irreversible. We suggest the seas and oceans represent a prime
    global concern.”

    The warming seas and the oceans is the basis for the climate change science. In a nutshell: Earth Watch was directed to manufacture a crisis because “in every revolution there is an idea and ideal”.

    1. Well, those on the left love to trot that out – as if being a skeptic of AGW somehow now means we all want rampant pollution and the destruction of all life! Au contraire! Those on the conservative right have no qualms with “conserving” (**wink**wink**) the environment. Being “good stewards” of this planet and all that. Any rational person cannot jump from skepticism of AGW to mean those skeptics want all out destruction. It’s a red-herring and strawman argument. Which is why I say those on the loony left are not rational, as they spout their sophomoric inanities and drivel about those EEEVVVVIIILLLLL “far right” that want to destroy humanity! ((all the while that it’s THEIR ideology and perspective that will destroy civilization as we no it – with nothing but despotism to replace it.

  79. Why is this article suggesting that TIME is being inconsistent? If you take a moment to connect the dots, TIME’s position is not only consistent, but makes sense. It’s very simple, as TIME reported, the planet began slipping into an ice age (global cooling) in the early seventies. Fortunately, the global warming (caused by George Bush) has kept the effects of the new ice age from being felt. The global cooling has been offset by the global warming! If you think it’s cold now, think how much colder it would be without all the global warming. (And then tell George Bush “thanks!”)

  80. Knew a university professor/scientist in years past. Didn’t at all believe in global warming, BUT they put in for a bundle of grants which was funding so called pro global warming research. When I heard I asked him about this, he laughed said he didn’t believe in global warming but they could tap various government funding sources for money He told me that most colleges don’t have a bundle of cash laying around to fund research so to get the money, they have to research whatever the crisis of the moment is. Essentially the Feds push money to whatever the crisis of the moment is and the University’s and other institutions then use that as a cash cow opportunity.

    1. considering how much fun the “scientists” tasked with proving how little ice exists were having while stuck in the ice in the artic…

      the joke is definitely on us

  81. What is most alarming is that every proposed “solution” to global warming involves BIG government and the redistribution of wealth. Who actually believes that if we give more money to the State, the U.N. and the developing world that the climate will change?

    1. “Climate change” is a pillar of global governance. It became the cornerstone crisis of the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth report. Every person named on the cover of the report is associated with conscious evolution. Conscious evolutionaries believe they have evolved to a higher species and are about to quantum jump their evolution. It has long appeared to me that “climate change” deniers are viewed as their karmic opposites (or sub species) who are holding them back from their leap forward. Friends of the Earth, for example, calls for a reduction of earth’s population so that there are no more than 1.7 billion people. Today there are approximately 7 billion. The “mother of conscious evolution” Barbara Marx Hubbard divides the world into 4 camps and calls for the elimination of 1/2 of the earth’s population.

  82. Enough already we’re at 17 years and counting of no net increase in global temperatures yetthe EPA still acts as if warming is settled science, and silences any dissent against dogma. Companies are being driven out of business and workers are losing their jobs because scientists would rather rely on faulty computer models than look out their windows

  83. It’s hot – Global Warming
    It’s cold – Global Warming
    It’s raining – Global Warming
    There are droughts – Global warming
    Scientist caught fudging climate numbers, lying in emails about climate results – Climate Change

  84. GloBull Warming wouldn’t exist today if AlGore had only carried his own home state in 2000.

    Why couldn’t he pretend to build houses or travel the world chasing pussy or wear funny socks or try his hand at painting like a normal out of work politician?

    But Noooooo, he had to have a “cause”. *and it made him rich*

  85. Climate Change is the hoax that the UN and the New World Order is using to MAKE every country conform to their Agenda. That way they will be able to dristribute wealth as they deem fit. Look it up it’s called Agenda 21 by the United Nations. Owebama can’t get our Congress to vote for it so he did it by executive order. Here’s proof it’s and old idea and that it’s a HOAX! Owebama should be impeached for this criminal deed.

    Global warming is BS…

    Global warming hoax planned in 1961….

    Al Gore’s… Baloney

    Terrylovell53 astronaut’s call BS on NASA

    Glenn Beck it’s BS

    Dr Don Easterbrook testifying in Congress calls BS…

    NASA manipulating the statistics…?

    Global Temperatures: (2500 BC to 2040 AD) – The Man Made Global Warming Hoax

    Global Warming Hoax Admission by the EU President

    Lord Christopher Monckton ends the Global Warming Debate and proves its a Hoax

    1. Global governance has long been in the planning. Agenda 21 was brought forward from the 1992 Rio De Janeiro Earth Summit. Their constitution is the Earth Charter. Rio built upon the work of the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Environment which set the agenda into a political framework. They admitted then that there was no crisis but they needed one to move people politically to accept their agenda. Hold on to your seat, because the population reduction piece to this agenda is going to get ugly.

    2. I’d also like to add that the Rio aka Earth Summit aka Agenda 21 political platform is a pillar of the Occupy Movement. Ted Schulman of Transformative Communities took a leading role in Occupy’s General Assembly in making the movement a UN NGO and took part in the Rio +20 Conference.

  86. Face it… The 1974 issue of Time would be more appropriate for today’s climate discussion but they are simply not smart enough to realize that.

    The whole alarmist movement is factually bankrupt…

  87. The weather doesn’t matter to those that worship at the altar of Global Warming. Their faith is sufficient to sustain them thru blizzards, thru record cold, thru heat waves, thru rain, and thru sleet.

    So long as the high priests and priestesses are satisfied with the cult offerings from the world’s governments, their religion will continue to generate true terror in the believers, dire warnings of apocalypse, scorn and mockery for the unbelievers, and fabulous beach homes for the favored among them.

    Me? I would appreciate a little warming, please. This -12° stuff ain’t for cowards.

  88. The grant hunters and politicians hungry for power and additional tax revenue keep making claims that not only never materialize but are commonly contradicted by what actually occurs.. But the truth doesn’t seem to matter only what they say matters. I don’t understand it and I’m sure a minority of sane people are like me. However, it seems the majority of people have mush between their ears.

  89. Global warming has done immeasurably damage to the credibility of science. As this story shows, scientists are far form objective. Instead, they show a remarkable bias in their willingness to make inconsistent evidence fit their theory rather then adjusting the theory to fit the evidence. That they expect us to accept whatever they say on the basis of their authority, even when their basis is patently and ludicrously apparent, is deeply insulting.

    1. Those you speak of are NOT scientists.

      They are activists with scientific qualifications. That is to say, to them, science is nothing more than to be used as a tool to support their propaganda.

      Notice how the Left treat science as a form of higher authority that shouldn’t be questioned? And the way they tried to cover things up is almost like a really bad cult or religion! Calling people names like “deniers” in place of heathens, infidels, etc.

  90. Slime Magazine has no credibility. This is the same rag that pretended that Jay Carney was an objective reporter when he was a bureau chief there from 2005 through 2008.

  91. Funny how these kooks have stopped using the phrase “global warming” and have switched to “climate change” What do you do when no one is buying your product? RE-BRAND IT!

  92. I just saw a replay of a “climate expert” on MSNBC claiming that the extreme cold was definitely cause by global warming. He then went on to explain it by saying “it might be caused by…” He has no idea HOW global warming is causing it but he is sure gw is the cause. What an objective “expert”

  93. the real miracle is just HOW amazingly steady the weather has been for the past few thousand years, but don’t tell a tyrannical oppressive liberal that.

  94. It doesn’t matter. No matter how asinine the global pantswetters theories are, half of the population is even more asinine and actually believes this stupidity. I wouldn’t care except that that’s about enough votes to enable us to tax the crap out of everyone for no real good reason. Just include a picture of a cuddly little seal pup in every halfbaked “news” piece and I promise you, we’re all toast. Well, it’s time for me to go put a ‘have you bitch slapped a liberal today?” bumper sticker on my car. And by the way, if Time magazine publishes a story is it really news unless someone actually links to their dried out waste of fossil fuels?

      1. Yes, it’s all about low taxes, not preserving the earth for posterity. Think beyond your pocketbook and consider the children of today and what they’ll inherit.

  95. The Global warming movement has become a religion…so we will just have to have faith in their illusions or just ignore them……like any other religion ….Nothing you say will change their mines….

      1. “There is no Goddess but Gaia, and Al Gore is her prophet.”

        I coined that years ago since the “watermelons” (green on the outside, red on the inside) are every bit as fanatical as Muslim jihadists.

  96. Gore is my hero and it’s all Bush’s fault. Keep on supporting Gore’s money making scheme, er, I mean, his efforts to save the world!

  97. What I get a kick out of is how scientists seem to think that they can predict global weather a decade or two or three from now when meteorologists can’t even accurately predict simple LOCAL weather more than a week in advance!

  98. In my lifetime (as a kid) I have worried about a new ice age coming all the way down to North Carolina (I live in Florida and hate cold), acid rain that was going to kill all the fresh water lakes and rivers in the world etc., etc., etc.. If this new global warming is happening and the oceans are rising so fast what islands have we lost? I have many times flown over Sable Isle and it seems to me that it is located in a very dangerous spot and would already be showing signs of being over run by the Atlantic, it is only 13 square miles in area and the highest point is 4 feet above sea level. Dare I mention the oil spill in the gulf that was going not only to ruin the beaches of the gulf but also all of Florida’s coast including the Keys and even going to take the gulf stream along the whole of the United States East Coast and as land surveyors say, THENCE move East to Europe and play havoc with all of their Westerly beaches. Oh! and don’t forget the 700 to 750 oil well fires (complete with booby trap bombs) set several years ago by the good old boys from Iraq. Worlds greatest scientists led by Carl Sagan said that it would take many years to put the fires our and the world would feel terrible affects like BLACK RAIN and BLOCKED SUN that would destroy forests and crops and bring the would to almost total devastation. Well a couple of old American companies name Red Adair Inc. and Boots and Coots loaded up and went over there and put the fires out in seven months (damn the booby traps full speed ahead). By the way Boots and Coots was later bought by the hated Halliburton and were the ones that capped the oil blow out in the Gulf of Mexico. I sleep better with folks like the ones that work at these great American Companies being around than with all the college egg heads in the Ivy League schools in the country that try to scare the dodo out of our children and even most democrats and liberals (is that redundant?).

  99. Lindzan just admitted the climate scientists have a hard time telling if the warming they perceive is not just occurring naturally and man has little or no affect whatsoever. That is the basis of the whole climate scam and the scientists don’t even know. This whole AGW/IPCC CO2 is nothing but a POLITICAL SCIENCE SCAM to raise your taxes grow regulations and government to employ those that work in these fields. Democrats.

  100. Climate change, global cooling, global warming <– emotionally twisted up Gaia Planet, tree-worshipping, whale-hugging, antartic-ice-trapped nut-jobs.

    I was not even a teen in 1974, but clearly recall the blathering on about the "coming ice age!" It was the rage from the news and just another emotional rant to get people ginned up and ready to throw their norms overboard to accept the "new norms" from whatever cesspool sewage line the media had going at that particular time — all the way up until today.

    And so the story continues. The names have changed. The contents of the stories have changed. The times have changed. The date and the calendar have changed.

    What has not changed is the modus-operandi of the media. It is still an emotional-ginning-rant designed to get people worked up about something and dissect and disconnect us all from our traditional beliefs and get us moved over into a "new mind" — a "global mind" — where we all, like sheep, go about following the voice of our new global masters, ignoring the REAL Master, Jesus Christ, the Son of God — the only begotten of the Father and witnessed to by the Holy Spirit of God.

    Time to throw the bums out and put common sense back in place — that is — if you're smart enough to know to do it and have that revelation from God. Otherwise, you'll continue to believe in Star Trek, aliens, "there-is-no-God" and other such humanist drivel. Yes — you'll spout how homosexuals are a minority like blacks and in need of civil rights. You'll ignore black mob violence, claim that abortion is a woman's-right-to-choose and think the repeal of Don't-ask-don't-tell is a good thing.

    Go ahead. Keep drinking the Kool-aid-O'-da-world and see what it gets you! About 30 seconds after your last breath you'll become acutely aware of the rather awkward mistake in your belief system and wish you could go back just a few minutes and reclaim God, His Christ and a faith and trust from and in Him. But — no bother. You don't believe in that anyhow, so — just keep on as you are — FOOL!

  101. think back the dinosaurs, the earth been going through changes, long before mankind was put on it, the recent excursion to the Antarctic to prove no ice, but they got stuck in the ice, that wasn’t supposed to be there in the first place, the only global warming is from charlatan liars shame on this scam being perped on us all.

    1. Orwell had the eco-freaks pegged decades ago.

      Global warming = Eurasia
      Global cooling = Eastasia

      Just change the “enemy” every few years and deny the change was ever made.

  102. Progressive cool aide drinkers have a new flavor of the month to try. They live in their own little world and do not even realize that the rest of the world is laughing at them. Typical progressive … prefer feelings over facts.
    If you like your global warming, you can keep your global warming.
    If you like your progressive nonsense, you can keep your progressive nonsense.
    I think progressives are truly progressive. Their delusion is progressive.

  103. The global warming malarkey is all about fear. Gotta have that ‘something’ to keep the minds of the masses off the economy, the overreaching of gov’t, the abuses, on and on. Read Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear”. The guy was brilliant. Hit the nail on the head.
    When I was in grade school, ice age was the opinion of science.
    Once the politicians got into it, and we underwent a brief warming trend, global warming became a panacea to the socialists who wanted more taxes and more control . . . and to the “smart growth” crowd with their theory of the earth only being able to sustain 500 million people.
    All hooey. All lies, all about control.
    Better get the cold weather gear, because these cycles happen every 50 years.

  104. My favorite part any internet “news” article is always the comments and this story is no exception. Good work people! I always get a laugh out of reading some clever and funny remarks.

  105. Almost daily over my home in Eastern NYS near Albany my wife and I spot planes so high in the atmosphere you cannot see their markings with a telescope of very high powered binoculers.
    These planes spew long trails behind the which are not con trails. They are chem trails and they are seeding the sky with chemicals that cause many weather shifts.
    Yesterday it was 50 degrees and raining and washed away a huge volume of snow. Today it is 4 degrees and falling.
    Take some time and check out chem trails and HAARP all funded by your tax money. The government wants your butt and there is no such thing as liberal or conservative. They are all mafia crooks, including corporations and banker, that are using these methods to control you and most people on this planet.
    Obama, Bush, Clinton, Cuomo are all part of this BS. This includes the media they control.

  106. when I was a kid, I used to hunt for fossils in the sandstone that was about 100 feet above sea level. The fossils that I found were seashells. Why did the ocean subside? Was it manmade global cooling? Were they from the flood that brought us Noah’s ark? Or, was it just from the stuff happens department?

    1. Oceans “subsided” (not exactly what happened) because the Earth’s crust uplifted. What was an ocean floor got pushed up and the water drained off to seek its own level, leaving evidence of previous underwater life. Uplift the result of a variety of possible causes. Biggest source of uplift being collision of shifting tectonic plates.

  107. No serious writer would use the phrase “screwing with” in connection with the subject Mr. Walsh was trying to draw attention to. Nor would any serious reader be swayed by such terminology. That makes Mr. Walsh a dirtbag writing for idiots. The “global warming” scam is nothing but a symptom of gross culture rot.

  108. I love have the general media likes to let these people off the hook. The press should do a list of all the predictions scientist made that have been wrong and ask them why were YOU wrong. Don’t let them off the hook because dismissive comments only mean that they don’t know what the hell is going on. This and that answers don’t cut it when Al Gore quotes scientists saying that the polar caps would be melted by now or that we would have more and more hurricanes. The list of wrong predictions go on and on.

  109. Just so you know the reason I quit taking Time magazine in the mid 70’s is because I had had all the liberal crap I could stand. They do not tell the truth about anything and only push their liberal agenda.

  110. “Other warmists have joined in blaming record cold on “global warming.”

    That begs the question, “So how can we tell when we’ve succeeded in reversing global warming?” By observing warmer temperatures?

    Of course, we all know that with liberals, they are always moving the goal posts back.
    (Just like during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, once our US military arrived at one goal post location, the liberal establishment would say that, no, the military needed to accomplish THIS before we’ll concede any US military success – only to have Obama get in office and basically surrender the US on our behalf. But I digress….)

    As Rahm Emanuel once famously said, “Never let a crises go to waste.” And he also could have said, “And if you don’t have one, manufacture one.”, such as the global cooling/warming crises. ( I guess they’ve changed the crises name to “climate change” to encompass either variation of their “crises”, since they plan to ensure there’s always some sort of climate “crises” in the works.)

    The thing the left loves about global warming is that they can reach into so many areas of our life with it, and grasp ever so much more control, such as the EPA is now doing with all of its breath-taking numbers of new regs it’s promulgating.

    And don’t forget, “The rich is not paying their fair share share of taxes!”

    So, what is “the rich’s” fair share of taxes? They’ll never tell you, because it never will be enough, however much the rich pay!

    The left just keeps moving back the goal posts.

  111. With every $25.00 donation to the foundation to stop global warming we will send to you a free pair of long johns, just specify your size and if you use the code Al Gore is a lying sack of polar bear poo we will throw in a pair of thermal socks as well. This offer applies to the first one hundred callers so act now time is running out.

  112. The further north you live the less you believe in “global warming”. In fact the further north you live the more you wish the “global warming” BS was true.

  113. And it’s about time someone asked one these climate tools to show us a data set that indicates sea level rising at the gawdawful rate of 20 feet per century, or whatever the latest scary propaganda is. They can’t, because no such data exist. All the maps showing the oceans swamping coastal cities are just projections of what would happen IF… but there just isn’t any data showing that it WILL!

  114. Around 3% of carbon pollutants thrown into the atmosphere is man-made. The other nearly 97% is from naturally occurring events. Climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon that’s been happening for eons.

  115. Every event predicted by the AGW models has come true. What you Teabillis fail to understand is global warming may produce colder, wetter or dryer areas on the planet. Take a look at any day’s world weather and you will find SIMULTANEOUS areas of hot, cold, wet and dry. These multiple and coincident weather patterns are a brand new phenomenon, which scientists universally agree is caused by excessive CO2 levels. No one seriously disputes these findings. The years 2000-2009 were the hottest decade on record with 2005 and 2009 the hottest years, respectively. Deniers claim there’s been no warming in 15 years and yet, as just noted we just exited the hottest decade ever and are on a path to break the record this decade.

    1. “on a path to break the record this decade”? It must be a circuitous path, indeed. Solar activity peaked last decade, now at historic lows. It’s all about the sun, Son.

    2. 1) Quilviov:

      These multiple and coincident weather patterns are a brand new phenomenon

      Evidence? The IPCC has only low confidence present bad weather is linked to (human-made) climate change, stating:

      There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.

      2) “Warmest decade on record” is consistent with both an upward and a steady trend, the latter actually being found for 15+ years now.

      ..on a path to break the record this decade

      So we keep hearing, and yet the trend is not up; if anything, it looks to be down.

        1. Right, but #1 the trend is not up, so warmest not same as warmer; the temps are flatlining. #2 it’s not proof of the cause of the warming. On that NASA page you link to it explains cooling as due to natural factors, while warming is due to AGW.

    3. Wait, wait, are you saying it’s never been hot on one side of the world, and freezing on the other, ever? Or sunny here, and 10,000 miles away raining? That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. The WEATHER does that here in Texas!

        1. Then please educate me. When has the weather not been extreme from one side of the world to the other? See, the beauty of the climate change philosophy is no matter what happens, heat, cold, rain, whatever – this crowd gets to blames everything on climate change. If I find some sea life fossils in my backyard, well, it must be man-made climate change because an ocean was once where my back deck is now. In the 70’s the Ecology crowd said watch out! Global cooling, a new ICE age is coming. In the 80’s a hole in the Ozone layer said we would all burn up in 20 years. Now, to avoid the specifics, Climate Change can go either way, hot or cold, it doesn’t matter. The truth is, the messiah said he would stop the oceans from rising, when the only thing he did stop from rising is employment in the United States.

        1. it’s a tough one: : Confusion tends to arise regarding the forms for the past tense and past participle of drink. The standard past tense is drank: We drank our coffee. The standard past participle is drunk: Who has drunk all the milk? Yet drank has a long and respectable history in English as a past participle: Who has drank all the milk? While this construction still occurs in the speech of some educated persons, it is largely rejected, esp. as a written form. drunk as the past tense (We drunk our coffee) was once a standard variant but is now considered nonstandard, although it sometimes occurs in speech. See also drunk.
          Random House Kernerman We

    4. And what YOU fail to grasp is that climates on the Earth change. We haven’t even a tiny sliver of a sample yet you want to claim all sorts of impending disasters over a hundred years of measurements, many not even accurate.

      How about we really get to the bottom of this? Let’s declare by law that Global Warming exists and is all caused by man. In return, ALL LEGISLATION, FINES AND RESEARCH GRANTS in connection will be banned and illegal. How’s that? Won’t find many takers, rest assured of that.

      The mighty Boa even remembers a copy of Popular Science back then with the cover story “The Coming Ice Age”. ….. THAT is where we were supposedly heading then. Along came 1988, with a beautiful, warm summer. The “Global Warming” nuts have been out of the tree ever since….

      1. While I admit I had to reread his post to get the gist of it, you might consider reading his bio/profile as well. It appears that you are on the same side of the debate.

        1. The mighty Boa thinks not. He believes in “global warming”, “climate change”, whatever the name of the day is. IN ADDITION he appears determined to keep the money flowing. All things opposed by the mighty Boa. Sî?

    5. World renown climate scientists do dispute these findings and only leftists go out of their way to disagree with them. Even your own words tells who and what you are in your second sentence which also tells us what this is really all about.

      In other words, you are discredited. Have a ice day. :o)

    6. To make myself clear, I’m not suggesting it’s odd for it to be cold at the Arctic while hot in Miami. But in the last few years when we’ve had extremes and rccords it’s not one record that is set bu hundreds if not thousands smashed within days. And the records are out of place as well: extreme cold in places that should be hot and vide versa. It is the combination of extreme and simultaneous variances that are evidence of AGW.

  116. It is amazing how many fools are willing to buy into any nonsense that the elite put out there. What is worse is the media is a wicked tool of the elitist establishment which is attempting to dominate every aspect of our lives.

  117. So global warming might cause cooling of the earth? I studied thermodynamics and heat transfer, but am having a little trouble with this. Maybe a liberal scientist can help explain.

  118. The bottom line, so called global warming is a globalist socialist attempt to create one world government out of fear mongering and exploiting dictatorial force wherever they can find it.

  119. We need to put an emissions tax on any intestinal flatulence
    based on the decibel level of the escaping gasses! Monitoring stations could be
    created that would contain high amp microphones that would pinpoint any abrupt
    animal discharges of methane gas. NSA could oversee the technical operations
    and Homeland Defense could then arrest the miscreants and round up the animals.
    Studies have shown that most of the methane flatulence comes from Washington
    DC! We need to tax the government first until they cannot print anymore money
    and then every living thing that breaks wind.

  120. Isn’t it fun to watch the globe moving towards a mini ice age while the wizards-of-smart contort themselves into pretzels to explain to us why we should continue to believe their message of hope and change – climate change, I mean.
    You can’t make this stuff up…unless you can, Time “Magazine.”
    Here’s my advice to all my friends earning a living in the climate change industry…get out now, before the jig is up.

    1. It’s called a Liberalologist and they can do a lot more then predict the weather years in advance.
      1.) They can make all your wealth disappear right before your eyes.
      2.) They can tell you what you’re thinking and why it’s wrong.
      3.) They can convenience half of America that starving to death is the best way to live.
      4.) You even have one named Paul Hellyer that talks to the aliens that walk amongst us. He even tried to diffuse the Intergalactic War started by Bush. I’m not sure if he succeeded you’ll have to consulate a Liberalologist to find that out.
      5.) They seem really good a convincing poor people that rich people are evil and that a Rich Liberalologist is not really rich.
      6.) They’ve mastered making jobs move at the speed of light, out of America.
      7.) They are so good a being hypocrites that they call themselves hypercrites.
      8.) They are such fools that they move the average IQ curve down 30 points.
      9.) They always travel with an entourage of Cult of Personalities lead by the Cult of Personality himself.
      10.) They are so full of hot air they create Global Warming. It is so bad that when their Messiah shut up and went on vacation North America almost completely froze over.

    1. Your racist spam job is getting irritating. You’ve posted the same crapola in numerous forums while completely out of topic for the subject matter over and over again.
      Take your racist garbage elsewhere. We already get enough of it from the likes of the leftists at the DNC and the leftist neo-na zi bunch..

        1. Ok, I’m anti white. I hate whites. I hate myself for being white. If I could get a color change I’d do so tomorrow.

          Now, do you recognize yourself as a total idiot yet? Did you know that Moses was married to a BLACK woman? Maybe you can tell God that he’s anti white. See how far that gets you.

  121. Tonight’s NHL game between the Hurricanes and Sabres had to be postponed due to “record warming” in Buffalo that made it impossible for anyone to get to the arena.

  122. Polar Vortex!!!!!! You mean SNOW-NADO.

    And there are plenty of Democrats, Liberal elitists and just plain idiots proselytizing the great anthropogenic global warming/climate change debate. It is the greatest SNOW job ever.

    That is why the term Polar Vortex should be equated with SNOW-NADO (defined as the act of employing low information politicians, mainly Democrats, to pass legislation forcing everyone, the voters, into a particular belief or political view point).

  123. You say global warming, I say global cooling….global warming, global cooling…it’s warming, it’s cooling… let’s call the whole thing off.

    Critics are calling it the feel-good play of the winter. Starring a full cast of global warming scientists on a ship stuck in a record thick ice sheet, L. DiCaprio as the Heat Miser and a special guest appearance by A. Gore as Huggy Bear.

  124. Unlike religion, science can be wrong, learn from mistakes and correct them. So science was wrong about 40 years ago. With new advances science is constantly learning about global temperatures.

  125. Once again, proof the politicians could care less abut the climate or “nature”. We watch Obama calmly chop up bald eagles in his wind turbines, while fining oil companies a million dollar per sparrow “harmed”. They have the cajones to dig out of a 100 foot glacier and tell us about global warming and explain it as the “polar vortex”, but in new terms with the opposite conclusion of a few years ago when the agenda was the same, but reasoning was different.

  126. Climate change of this kind is NOT normal.
    the biggest joke is that people who simply refuse to actually look at the data make absurd comments like this.

    The polar vortex is driven by temperature differences in the atlantic,
    temperature differences are exacerbated by global warming – i.e. the hotter the southern hemisphere becomes relative to the polar temperatures, the greater the temperature difference, and the more powerful the LOCALISED cooling by the polar vortex becomes.

    Here in australia, we are suffering from yet another year of record high temperatures. This year, we are breaking records set only recently, in 2009 and 2012. That we are, year after year, breaking temperature records is exactly consistent with the predictions by climate scientists, which show also that water surface temperatures are increasing.

    The trouble is: the el nino index is nominal this year, and the record temperatures in australia are actually LOWER than they will be in an el-nino year.

    In an el-nino year, the temperatures in the southern hemisphere will be even HIGHER than they are this year.
    The temperature difference between the north polar region and the atlantic will be even greater, the polar vortex will be even colder.

    If you’re thinking it’s too cold in the northern USA now – then now is the time to leave. in a el-nino year, it will be even worse.

    Enjoy your delusions climate change skeptics – if you’re still unsure, come to Australia in december 2014, welcome to the heat, and for the love of god, stop your pathetic bickering, the data is utterly irrefutable. Pack your winter coats for next year folks. this is, to indulge in an appropriate metaphor, the tip of the iceberg.

  127. Don’t you guys get it yet? Every newsworthy storm and every weather extreme is solid evidence of global warming! Unless it isn’t…then you’re too much of a simpleton to realize that weather is not climate.

    Record cold and a bunch of AGW clowns stuck in Antarctic ice is proof that we’re heating up the globe like crazy! And all those lies…uh, i mean predictions that England will never see snow again, the Himalayan glaciers are melting, Kilimanjaro is melting, Arctic ice is gone, well, the only tactic now is to deny those things were ever said. Distract! Distract! Look over there! Income inequality!

    1. yea, I guess the ~50 degree temperatures in australia, never seen before in recorded history, matched only slightly by previous records in 2012 and 2009 should be dismissed out of hand.

      Here’s a physics lesson for you:
      Heat is conserved, to some extent, as you rapidly ADD heat to a complex system that is in balance, guess what is going to happen? there’s going to be massive shifts of energy from one place to another – this is what you see in any cyclone or typhoon. In a system as fluid and dynamic as weather, those energy shifts can ONLY be brought back into balance by pretty dramatic events.

      The cold you have in usa is driven by a temperature differential in the polar and atlantic regions. If you bothered to own an atlas that actually covers a part of the REAL world – not just the usa you think comprises the entire planet, you would notice that the atlantic is closer to the equator, and gets heat energy distributed FROM that region – that is to say, heat energy added to the southern hemisphere propagates up to the northern hemisphere – increasing a temperature differential in the atlantic/polar regions, and driving the polar vortex – nature hates imbalance, thus the higher a differential, the harder the drive to bring it back to balance – the spectacularly high temperatures in australia are driving your magnificently cold storms in the usa.

      The high temperatures in Australia are also driven by global warming – therefore, your COLD storms are driven by global warming.
      unnastan now? no? time to flick on the footy, relax and don’t worry about anything. Them big words them scientists use are confusing anyhow right? damn scientists should stick to making your Xbox better!

      1. I’ll give you some credit here. At least you attempt an argument. You’re guilty of impressing your core beliefs and coming up with a model that matches your worldview, but you tried. While we don’t have actual climate data we do have historical agricultural and geologic data that tells us that the planet has gone through significant climate shifts prior to industrialization. Limiting pollution (which we already do) is one thing, hysterical climate models based on biased assumptions mean little as to what this giant weather machine will actually do. Keep on riding that bicycle though if you think it will help. Better yet — lead the way and get off the grid. The climate hystericalists should start and put their actions where their mouths are. Fortunately there are a lot of damned scientists that disagree with you.

    1. Sounds wise, and thank you for identifying that link for me.

      I did also enjoy watching moran constantly having to overspeak and bully bill, of course, facts will nail the ignorance every time, which is why the ignorant muppets don’t want to hear them – and have to overspeak and bully people that ARE actually looking at the data.

      Is Morano really the kind of guy that the majority of posters here listen to, and say ‘oh yes, okay, thank goodness I don’t have to think!”?

  128. I have a general question for the myopic disciples of glen beck here.

    why have none of you bothered to take a basic statistics class?

    This is a genuine question. I really, really want to know why you all so adamantly refute what you know nothing about.

    the argument:
    ‘I have no idea what you’re talking about, but it’s wrong’ – is not a very valid one. do you see?

    1. For a group of art degreed lisping idiots unable to list all the earths species , explain why humans sneeze , have yet to map the surface beneath the oceans , cant really explain gravity or why a bumble bee can fly AND ……have no p h u ck ing idea what a password on a voice mail account is if Rupert Murdoch is any indication ..

      They sure know a f u c k of a lot about a molecule of carbon
      W H Y
      I’b be the last one to tell any of the lisping campus dwellers in need of STD testing
      go f u c k themselves….


    2. That would be a really great argument if anyone actually used that argument. Statistics and myopia indeed. Your use of tautology speaks to your inability to actually produce a coherent argument. It also speaks to your inability to actually look at the data and see the serious holes in man made climate change models. Keep on drinking that Kool Aid while basking in your own shallowness.

  129. 30 years ago the “climatologists” were claiming that we were heading for a new Ice Age because the Carbon Dioxide was causing the planet to cool down. They called it “Nuclear winter” and we would all freeze. They told us that the polar ice cap was getting bigger and would eventually cover most of North America.
    One of their solutions was that they would load transport planes with ashes, fly the planes over the arctic ice, and sprinkle them over the ice. The darkness of the ashes would allow the heat of the sun to melt the ice, kind of like a patch of dark pavement on your driveway will cause the ice to melt.

    Aren’t you glad they never got to pull that one off?
    I spent a half day last week shoveling 12 inches of global warming off my driveway, and this morning when I got up it was 0 degrees F., and those mental giants keep telling us that we are going to burn up.

  130. Anyone who has been paying attention must surely realize by now that the majority of our fearless political leaders are nothing more than Mafiosi’s writ large. Sorry, I don’t believe a word that they say.

    We no longer live in a Constitutional Republic – instead, we live in a Plutocracy. Please don’t tell me to leave the country if I don’t like it, this is MY country and YOUR country. We need to take it back from the criminals in D.C. (both parties) – peacefully of course.

    1. The point is, the AGW myth is all about the power elite endeavoring to transfer more money from us to them, and about power and control over every aspect of our lives.

  131. Aw, come on youse guys, it really IS all because of The Vortex – I mean the latest Lib Emotional Vortex (L.E.V.) that serves to sweep self-styled climate saviours into in a self-important melodrama cooked up by their imaginations and for their own desperate need to be pretend heroic on the cheap. But as with all self-appointed lib saviours, it is only OTHERS who must be made to sacrifice “for the common good”, never themselves. The Algores, the Pachuris and the host of bubble-headed singers and actors who claim to be proxy members of the Mother Gaia saviour cabal will not themselves sacrifice anything.

    Let the daily ablutions to Gaia Mother Earth begin!

    Repeat the latest lib pseudo-science cathechism:

    Polar Vortex Proves Glo-Bull Warming!

    Polar Vortex Proves Glo-Bull Warming!

    Polar Vortex Proves Glo-Bull Warming!

    Repeat at least 1000 times a day to pay for your daily carbon indulgences.

  132. Excuse me, but flooding ALL and ONLY White countries with MILLIONS of non-Whites and telling everyone to ‘assimilate’ to create a blended humanity IS White GENOCIDE.
    Africa will still be full of Africans,
    Asia will still be full of Asians,
    Only White children will suffer from this insanity.
    iT’s wHiTe geNOcide!
    Except ‘anti-racists’ don’t call it GENOCIDE when it’s done to White children.
    They call it ‘diversity’.
    That’s why everyone’s saying Anti-racist is a code for anti-White, and Diversity is a code for White Genocide.

    1. you’re perfectly free to go and have children in china, africa, japan, india, mongolia, uzbekistan.
      Go ahead. oh, you don’t want to?
      fine, then stop your complaining.

  133. I’m new to climate depot.

    it’s the funniest site I have ever seen – it’s laid out like something a 15 year old kid new to html might attempt, and has the quality and look and feel of a cult website. you know, the kinds where some guy in an arkansas trailer park proclaims he is christ, and sucks in a bunch of people so knock back some ‘liquid’ to join the aliens that will save them.

    I’ve posted a lot of stuff on this page. The reckneck backlash has been predictable. It boils down to this:
    1. read something you don’t like, or more easily, have your pals slur it to you at the pub, or during some meth-sucking session.
    2. get mad about it.. not because you really know why you’re mad about it, but just because you’re full of meth, and wanna rage.
    3. build a site, get your meth pals to rage with you.

    caveat. at no time should you ever attempt to engage your brain, or learn even the slightest thing about the material. Learning is the antithesis of sites like this. You are only allowed to learn about science to the extent you completely misunderstand it, and use the science you mis-learned, to refute science you know nothing about (for examples, see comments about the scientifically-validated age of the planet, to ridicule other science.)

    Here’s a tip, hicks. Science is science. It follows the same method, the same process, the same review – regardless of if it’s palaeontology, or climate science. Science led to the development of the computer you’re using, it helped build the meds you really should be on. If you don’t LIKE science, put down the computer, walk into the bush, and leave the rest of the planet to continue unmolested from your.. embarrassing brainfarts.
    really. please.

  134. oh, and the little ads for, variously: testosterone supplement, retouching software, snoring medications and blood-pressure supplements speaks volumes for the clalibre of the disciples here.
    you’re meek, envious, unphotogenic, apnoea-ridden and overweight?
    nono, that would be trolling – but I DO find it amusing.
    Seriously, is the main server in a tralierpark as I heard?

  135. I find it hard to believe any sane person could honestly believe this week’s record cold temperature was caused by global warming. We were told several years ago that global warming caused warm winters, which seems more believable.

    The simple truth is that global warming is a hoax and its adherents try to spin every weather event into a sign of global warming. In an effort to hang onto their gullible following, the hoaxers have transitioned to the term climate change. Well, guess what, the climate changes with the seasons. This movement is about taking away our constitutional rights and our hard-earned money.

  136. I like the Bear-a-nado, which was clearly spawned by the Shark-a-nado that devoured Los Angeles last summer.
    But I do get confused. Are supposed to hide in the basement when the sky is falling or run in circles while waiting for the government to save us?

  137. Welleewelleewell Teaboners. My local paper just printed the real story about that South Pole ship “stuck” in the ice. Turns out they didn’t run into a sheet of thick ice but were caught in a storm. The storm pushed LOOSE chunks of ice, chunks that should have been part of larger icebergs if not for warming, around the ship, entrapping it. Looks like scinece was right and Teaboners were wrong. Again., Same as always.

    1. Teabagger douchebags have nothing to do with this. I’m a democrat. The researchers who got stuck there kept claiming that there shouldn’t be any ice where they were, and they kept trudging forth. Ice at that point of the extent is all a shelf that breaks off and moves around quite a bit, so ALL of it iis “loose” ice. These aren’t chunks of icebergs, just the ice shelf. You’re the one who doesn’t know what you’re talking about, and to come to these conclusions based on what your local paper says is ridiculous.