Saturday, September 24, 2022
HomeLeft Column'Rapid cooling' underway: Big Drop In Earth’s June Temperatures According To Satellites

‘Rapid cooling’ underway: Big Drop In Earth’s June Temperatures According To Satellites



Second largest 2-month drop in global average satellite temperatures.
Largest 2-month drop in tropical average satellite temperatures.


NOTE: This is the fifteenth monthly update with our new Version 6.0 dataset. Differences versus the old Version 5.6 dataset are discussed here. Note we are now at “beta5” for Version 6, and the paper describing the methodology is still in peer review.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2016 is +0.34 deg. C, down 0.21 deg. C from the May value of +0.55 deg. C (click for full size version):




This gives a 2-month temperature fall of -0.37 deg. C, which is the second largest in the 37+ year satellite record…the largest was -0.43 deg. C in Feb. 1988.

In the tropics, there was a record fast 2-month cooling of -0.56 deg. C, just edging out -0.55 deg. C in June 1998 (also an El Nino weakening year).

The rapid cooling is from the weakening El Nino and approaching La Nina conditions by mid-summer or early fall.

With most models predicting La Nina conditions by the autumn, we can expect temperatures to tumble a lot further by the end of the year.


Full report here:


Related Links: 

2013 Report: ‘Growing number of scientists are predicting global cooling

Flashback 1974: U.S. Government’s Top Climatologist Said ‘Global Cooling’ Threatened Us With ‘Severe Food Crisis’


May16 globe

The 12 month mean to May 2016 is +0.46C.  The Pause is still an embarrassing reality!



  1. I have absolutely zero trust in data derived from gubment sources when it comes to the climate. Especially since they started using their models to “predict” the past instead of using the actual data.

    • Louie3rd:
      Absolutely right. When we look at all the causes of global surface temperature, there is a whale in the room. Sunlight. Nothing else comes even close to sunlight as a variable that controls temperature. With no sunlight, earth would hover near absolute zero. At least it wouldn’t vary so that much!

      In multivariate equations, little things like methane are trivial compared to one huge variable that does most of the work of determining surface temperature. The little variables like methane, CO2, cloud cover, etc., are blown away by even small variations in total sunlight.

      So yes, until we know very, very precisely what sunlight is doing, and how sunspots and other changes produce variations in sunlight, then all the other variables are too small too measure accurately. This is just elementary statistics.

  2. Well, statistically, there is one big thing that jumps out of this graph. The variance far exceeds any trend line that goes through it. Let’s face it. We don’t know what is happening with climate. With so much noise present in the myriad “spaghetti graphs” that we are expected to sort through, there is only one real finding. Spaghetti.

      • TroyGale:
        Thanks for your reply. Through all this controversy there is one statistical finding that is strong, robust, and can be replicated easily over time. The proportion of “warmists” is vastly over-represented by leftists. This over-weighted proportion could not happen by chance. It’s is too huge to dismiss. Thus, prima facie, there is something that strongly connects leftist beliefs and warmist beliefs.

    • For the most part, “climate scientists” seem to assume global temperatures are normally distributed with consequently well-behaved variance over about 30 years. In fact, there is no basis for that assumption, as temperatures appear to have statistical “fat tails.” It’s entirely possible that climate variance can’t even be calculated as a meaningful statistic. In such a circumstance, one might expect the 30-yeay running average widely used among climate scientists to have significant fluctuations over, say, a 60-year cycle, a 300-year running average over a 600-year cycle, etc. You get into trouble somewhere around a 3 billion-year running average because the Earth’s not much older than that.

    • That’s been my argument for a while. We don’t have a fully functioning model of Earth’s climate. We understand some things about it, and know some variables. But we don’t fully understand it, and are not able to account for all of the variables.

      The real truth about climate and human activity probably lies in the realm of we have an effect, but it’s not a very large effect…or at least not large enough to counter other effects that occur in response. Because if it were a major effect, we would see a clear trend. But we don’t. As you said, it bounces all over the place. So that means it is a small effect. And being small, we can’t reasonably predict anything about it.

      The bottom line is, the majority of climate papers that have come out for over a decade aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. You can’t make predictions about a system, when you have no way to fully model that system.

      • Quite right. For all there sophistication and complexity, climate models are still mostly empirical. That is, they depend on thousands of arbitrary constants that govern processes, such as regional cloud formation and ocean currents, that are too complex for first principles treatment. A climate scientist adjusts those constants such that the model reproduces climate trends over the past how ever many years, and then makes claim that the model can be used to pedict future climate trends. The rub is that there is a high likelyhood that other, completely different sets of arbitrary constants produce essentially the same results. How does one know whether a given set is the “correct” one, or even whether the model itself is “correct?” Smart money says that if your model has been adjusted to reflect an increasing temperature trend over the past 50 years, it will predict that trend to continue over the next 50, regardless what set of arbitrary constants you’ve chosen.

  3. Ok, it wasn’t global warming, it was global cooling after all. Now we can all transition from hand wringing about the polar bears not having ice to….what’s next- monkeys shivering in the rain forest? Break out the imaginary computer models and start refudging the data, another version of imagined climate disaster is on the drawing boards.

    • jd44:
      There is not enough data know either way. Statistical training is not even necessary to see what is on that graph. Huge variability. Common sense tells us that if there is huge variability, it’s hard to know what’s going on.

        • There never were any massive changes in the direction of warming either. The scale, as you point out, has very small gradations. The elites pushing leftism via rabid ecological religion used that to scam the folks who don’t pay attention, or are very poorly informed, which is unfortunately a LOT of people.

      • Actually we KNOW what is going on. If you look at the past 100 million years you see a repeat pattern of wtrming and cooling which is well known to be related to the earth’s orbit. We are near the end of a warming period so yes, the planet has been warming but it has absolutely nothing to do with humans.

        • I saw an item buried in the news about 7-8 years ago, where geologists took core samples in Greenland from a depth that was equivalent to 10,000 years ago. No ice or snow, just green vegetation indicating Greenland was damn near tropical back then. It’s all cyclical, always has been.

        • Continental drift and various other cosmic events that can be easily referenced make this comment pure hor$e$hit! And if you had a clue about the Earth’s natural cycles you’d know that it is in long-term cooling due to current global axial nutation compounded by a slightly cooling sun. The unprecedented unnatural warming is due to human-induced CO₂.

    • We have too many refridgerators that are left open and are producing global cooling. Or air conditioned cars with the windows open. So global cooling is a man-made phenomenon. Save the monkeys! Save the monkeys!

      • Actually, they moved to “change” from “warming” because change is more difficult to argue (one way or the other) than it is to argue warming. They’re simply implying, or in some cases flat out saying, that they’re smarter than everyone else and we’re just to trust them; that they’re so steeped in the models that they no longer have to look at the data. I suppose I would act like a rabid dog too if my livelihood depended on government funding.

        • I believe in climate change, winter spring summer and fall. What I don’t believe is that i or anyone else have any influence over that climate change. Anyone who believes they do is deluded.

          • Actually you do have an affect. Has been computed at; .000000000001 percent. p.s. That is a universal “you” as in all of man’s activity.

            Seriously; Looks like they are trying to get a jump on a recently confirmed Astrophysics Theory with regards to the SUN. Does not address anything other than a range of expected cooling and a duration of about three decades.

            Companion commentary indicated rapid climate change over regional areas, And, that it would not be consistent. However, this is outside of the purview of Scientific inquiry.

            Gets a little scary when Scientists won’t discuss consequences. Would welcome a guess from them over anything climatologists have to say.

        • Who is “they”? You know it was the Republicans who decided to push the term “climate change” over “global warming” in the early 90s. Republicans realized global warming sounded scary and the public would push for the government to take action, so they decided to call it something more benign sounding. In any case, the scientific community has been using both terms for decades.

            • I mean, look dude, you’re free to believe whatever nonsense on whatever blogs or such you follow. I’m just telling you the reality as it happened. Take it or leave it, I suppose. I’m not claiming to be on the left or right, just on the side of facts. It’s not really a matter of debate and is well established that Republican pollster/messaging guru Frank Luntz ran focus groups in the 90s showing “climate change” was a less alarming term and so would be less likely to get the general public riled up and recommended to Republicans in a well documented memo that they reposition the issue as “climate change” instead of “global warming”. As I said scientists have always used both terms pretty much interchangeably. As the public became more accustomed to “climate change” the left generally adopted it as well. They also adopted it upon realizing that the lay public assumed that “global warming” implied that localized weather patterns would always be getting warmer and so “climate change” was a better descriptor for the lay public to understand that adding heat energy to the climate system would lead to broad changes and wider swings (and overall warmth over the long term) rather than localized warming at every location at every point in time.

        • Liberals always claim to be smarter than normal people. Not one discussion I have been in with liberals has been devoid of them calling me a “repubtard” of a “wing nut” or any one of a hundred creative names to say how stupid this author and college professor is. I am just plain humbled by their brilliance and their ability to avoid facts in favor of name calling.

      • God, not this ancient trope again. It was Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster, who advocated calling it “climate change” because it seemed less threatening. And the climate has indeed been changing over time, but not over the last few thousands of years, and never near as fast. And while CO₂ may have been a following indicator in the past, it is the leading cause at this time, as has been understood by atmospheric physicists for decades.

        • left-etc:
          Please re-check your data. The Co2 data has been heavily cherry-picked. It’s not clear that Co2 has even changed. The single Co2 observatory is in Hawaii, near a volcano that produces Co2. It’s time to stop saying, “as has been understood by atmospheric physicists for decades”.

          Atmospheric physicists are in strong disagreement about every single claim of the global warming scam. If a scientist agrees with you, check their pulse. They may be dead. Scientists disputed Newton’s laws of motion and Einstein eventually proved they were right to dispute those laws. Scientists disputed Einstein, and Heisenberg showed that people were right to question Einstein. Co2 doesn’t ’cause’ global warming, sunlight causes global warming. It explains more than 90% of the variance. Co2 makes a trivial contribution, if at all.

          Commies agree, because they are driven by dogma. But scientists don’t agree. They don’t do dogma.

          • The Co2 data has been heavily cherry-picked


            The single Co2 observatory is in Hawaii, near a volcano that produces Co2

            You’re either delusional or a liar. Pick one. There are observation and monitoring stations around the world include the Arctic and Antarctica.

            doesn’t ’cause’ global warming, sunlight causes global warming. It explains more than 90% of the variance

            It takes 1 calorie to heat 1 g of water 1°C, and 1 J/s (1 W) is equal to 0.238902957619 calories, we now know that it takes 4.184 J/s to heat 1 g of H₂O by 1°C. To expand, 4.184 joule of heat energy (or one calorie) is required to raise the temperature of a unit weight (1 g) of water from 0 to 1°C. The volume of ocean, granted is not pure water but will work for illustrative purposes. There are 3785.4118 g of H₂O/gallon. It takes 15,838.163 J/s to heat that gallon by 1°C. That’s 15,838 Watts consumed to heat that water 1°C. The link below will fill you in on how much heat is currently estimated to be stored in the oceans. Anyway, it must be clear to you by now that the miniscule amount of VARIATION in solar metrics, the solar enthusiasts are putting forth, has the energy to do anything at all measurable let alone observable to climate via transfer of energy from the TOA to its surface and below is just not plausible. Not even when somehow amplified.

      • Who is “they”? You know it was the Republicans who decided to push the term “climate change” over “global warming” in the early 90s. Republicans realized global warming sounded scary and the public would push for the government to take action, so they decided to call it something more benign sounding.

      • The dems and their bought scientists have consistently and defrauded the citizens by conveniently calling their fiasco “climate change”! Climate change has existed upon this earth from the beginning of earths creation.

        ” On our 24-hour clock, modern man would have only appeared about 1 second ago and the sum total of all recorded human history amounts to about 1/10th of a second.”

        Did man cause the receding of the glaciers that gouged out the depressions that are now filled with water and we call the Great Lakes? Glaciers would indicate that that area once had a sub-polar climate!
        I live in a mountain climate in which there is coal at elevations of 4,000 feet above sea level. The fossils of plants and animals in the strata around those coal seams are in an abundance that indicates that at one time this area of which I speak once had a humid sub-tropical climate. This climate change! occurred before man!

        The ”warmers” want to include in their alchemy – using falsehoods (by omission) – all of the climate change results that occurred before man came onto the scene! One seldom sees in the MSM the term man-made climate change! How can it be proven that the alleged man-made climate change would not have happened had man not ever been here on earth?

    • It’s both. While the earth has been warming due to greenhouse gases, another equally strong counterforce is just starting to build. The sun cycles through its own hot periods and cool periods — times when there are very few sun spots shooting solar mass material at the earth. About every 300 years, the sun goes into an extreme cooling period for approximately fifty years, called a “solar minimum.” The last solar minimum was in the 1700’s when the US was just becoming a nation.

      Sometimes we have called these periods “mini ice ages” when they have become extreme enough. The sun entered one such period around the year AD 1000.

      The sun appears to be entering a solar minimum now, right on schedule. This year we’ve had some days with no sun spots at all. The number of days like that will increase as we get deeper into the solar minimum, and the earth will cool significantly as a result.

      That does not mean that global warming due to greenhouse gases has ceased. Instead, the solar minimum will be less cold than it would have been without the greenhouse gases, and during that time we’ll be glad we had the greenhouse gases because, however cold it gets (even if this turns out to be one of those minimums that lasts long enough to be called a “mini ice age,” it would certainly have gotten colder without the greenhouse gases.

      The downside to that is that the sun always comes out of solar minimums and returns slowly to solar maximums. With the greenhouse gases, the solar maximum will be worse than previous solar maximums. The sun started slowly sliding toward its minimum at about the point where greenhouse gases reached their peak, so that somewhat countered the effect of greenhouse gases over the past decade.

      For the next thirty or so years, however, we may be glad we had our greenhouse gases; but we’ll be very sorry if we still have them after that.

      –David Haggith
      The Great Recession Blog

      • These goofballs like David Haggith never fail to pontificate on what they do NOT know. Ever notice these climate nuts always speak in 30-50 year cycles? They can’t be proven right or wrong in their lifetimes but they use the opportunity to go around pretending to be “experts”. Sorry, David…your above text is just another in a very long list of “expert climate analysis” pieces that very likely is all hogwash!!

      • “About every 300 years, the sun goes into an extreme cooling period for approximately fifty years, called a ‘solar minimum.'”

        Um, no. Please educate yourself first.

        You know it’s bad when even Wikipedia gets it right and you don’t: “Solar minimum is the period of least solar activity in the 11 year solar cycle of the sun.”

        This happens every eleven years, dummy. Quit copy/pasting such garbage.

          • Very true, but only one specifically called the “solar minimum,” which is what the poster I responded to claimed was a 300-year cycle. That is false.

            Protip: If you don’t know what you’re talking about, you should butt out of other people’s business, dummy.

            “Solar minimum” happens every eleven years. Fact.

            • Indeed the term ‘solar minimum’ refers mainly to the immaculate phase of the 11-year cycle. But there are other longer term cycles and possibly non-cyclical changes in solar activity which modulate how much activity there is in the active parts of the cycles (the ‘solar maxima’) between the minima. From lots and lots to not very many. It would be good to know how inactive the solar maxima really were during, for, instance the ‘Maunder minimum’. Records indicate basically no spots for decades running, but nobody was observing with modern methods. Many small spots could have been missed.

        • Um, no. Please educate YOURSELF first. You only got half an education when you went to Wikipedia because you didn’t know where to look for the rest of the story. If you read my comment closer, you’ll see that I said about every 300 years we go into a “mini ice age.” That is different than just going into the regular solar minimum.

          One of the times when the sun did this was called the Maunder Minimum. Another time was called the “Little Ice Age.” When we start to go into a quiet period like the Maunder Minimum, the peak number of solar flares in each eleven-year cycle gets lower than the cycle before.

          So, yes, we go into a solar minimum every eleven years, as your research shows (and then climb back up to a solar maximum every eleven years, too). However, these eleven-year cycles follow a larger cycle where the number of solar flares in each maximum gets higher, then stabilizes for a long time at a certain level, and then the number of flares in each maximum starts getting lower again until there is NO maximum or, at least, very few flares even in the maximum. That cycle goes into its low phase about every 250-300 years.

          For the last three eleven-year cycles, the peak of each cycle has been significantly lower in solar flares than the cycle before it. The present cycle had only half as many solar flares at its peak than the cycle that peaked 22 years ago. Whenever we’ve seen that much change over the course of three cycles, the sun has gone into one of its mini ice-age periods. During that time, there are almost no solar flares from anywhere from thirty to about a hundred years. Since the last low phase ended almost exactly 300 years ago, it stands to reason we are going into another one just as the diminishing peaks of the last three cycles indicates.

          If it follows its typical pattern, there will be one more peak, but it will be very low. Then, the next cycle after that will have no peak at all. Then the next cycle after that will have a very low peak, and then the peaks will rise at the same rate they’ve been falling for the past 33 years.

          “The current solar cycle 24 is the lowest sunspot cycle in 100 years and the third in a trend of diminishing sunspot cycles. Solar physicists expect cycle 25 to be even smaller than Cycle 24 and expect the sun to move into a new minimum, comparable with the Dalton or even the Maunder Minimum.”

          That said, thanks for providing some additional research for the people above who don’t like to think hard enough to do some research on their own before they fire off insults just because someone shares something interesting. At least, you’ve revealed to them that there ARE solar minimums on an eleven-year cycle, and those are the basis for the mini ice ages. (Look up the “Maunder Minimum” if you want to learn more about this very real, fascinating and fairly predictable solar cycle.)

          Here’s an article from this same site that covers the normal solar minimums AND shows how much the peaks have been dropping:

          Graph of the major low minimums over the past 1,000 years:

          –David Haggith
          The Great Recession Blog

          • “If you read my comment closer, you’ll see that I said about every 300 years we go into a ‘mini ice age.'”

            No, you didn’t. You copy/pasted someone else’s statement that contains a provably and demonstrably false statement that “solar minimums” happen every “300 years.” You then edited in your other points after the fact because you KNEW you were wrong.

            Here, I’ll educate you, since you can’t even remember what you, yourself, pasted. Here’s a DIRECT QUOTE of what you copy/pasted:

            “About every 300 years, the sun goes into an extreme cooling period for approximately fifty years, called a ‘solar minimum.'”

            No. That is wrong. The “solar minimum” happens every eleven years. Fact. End of story. And anybody that gets such a basic tenet of solar cycles wrong should not be trusted on anything else concerning the subject.

            Plus, nice how you edit your post to add in your “mini ice age” garbage to try and save face.

            Own it, cupcake. You were wrong. I know it. You know it. Everybody here knows it.

            • Now you’ve shown yourself to be both unfair and also a liar.

              Yes, the event that happens every 300 years or so is called a “solar minimum,” and it is one of MANY solar minimums, which I didn’t explain sufficiently for you in my first post. I’ll grant that my first post should have gone into more detail, but I was trying to keep things short (at that point). Clearly, I needed to explain the deep solar minimum or mini ice ages in greater detail from the beginning.

              What is notable about the 300-year cycle, as pointed out in the articles I just posted, which you just completely ignored out of laziness, is that it is far more extreme than all other solar minimums. That’s just a fact, Sugar Plum. It happens almost like clockwork. Sun spots have been cataloged by astronomers for hundreds of years, so we have a pretty good record of how they wax and wane on a longer cycle.

              If you were fair in quoting what I said, which you obviously have no intention of being, you’d notice that I qualified my statement about the “last solar minimum” by stating that I was talking about “an extreme period of approximately fifty years.” To be more clear, I should have said “the last EXTREME solar minimum.” Yes, it was one of many “solar minimums,” but it is notable in being much deeper and longer than other minimums, which happens about every three-hundred years.

              Where you are a liar is in claiming I edited my post to add “mini ice age” to the original. At that point, you go from just ignorantly ignoring the articles I posted about the cycle of extreme solar minimums to outright lying. The term “mini ice age” was in my original post from the beginning and was intended to qualify the kind of solar minimum I was talking about.

              Were I to have edited it, I would have changed it to “Little Ice Age” because in writing my follow-up post, I noticed the last extreme minimum was actually called the “Little Ice Age,” not the “Mini Ice Age,” but I left the original as it was, figuring if you are going to take me to task over accuracy on as fine a point as that, you’re not worth the pixels it takes to argue back. There was also a period in AD 1000 that is even more commonly called the “Little Ice Age.” It is not known, though, if that was due to an extreme solar minimum because no one was looking at sun spots back then.

              The fact is there is no precise term for these deep minimums that I could use because they are a cycle that has only recently been noted. Only recently have scientific papers been published that note there is a pattern of deep minimums (the term used by one scientist) and that we appear to be going into another one that fits right into that pattern.

              While I have not seen any scientist arguing against the existence of this 300-year pattern, there is some argument among scientists as to how much that pattern affects weather. Some say only a little (probably because it doesn’t fit their global-warming motif). (None claim that it has no affect.) Others say it affects global temperatures quite a bit.

              I think those who say it affects temperatures quite a bit make the most sense. Since solar flares bathe the earth in huge amounts of solar radiation, they have to add energy (and, therefore, heat) to the earth. Removing all solar flares for a period of fifty years or more is a huge change. So, i think the scientists who are now claiming that we will be going into a global cooling period, rather than more global warming, make a lot more sense. Others are just reluctant to give up the global-warming argument they’ve dedicated their lives to.

      • But if we peasants would simply start acting like peasants, return to the soil, and toil away without creature comfort, for the good of the earth, the world would be saved. Of course, the elites deserve all wonderful things like rapid transportation, food that is kept refrigerated, and homes that are kept at comfortable temperatures, because they are taking care of the rest of us lowly serfs, eh, comrade? Gimme a break already.

        • Has nothing to do with anything I said. I’m just talking about the sun and its effect on temperature. If you want to serve the elites, go for it; but I think you’re a fool if you do. Not my suggestion. I have a whole website dedicated to getting people to STOP serving the global elites and stop voting for the foolhardy establishment. ( ) So, serving the elites is not my coup of tea. Go Brexit!

          –David Haggith

      • David . . . the predominant GH gas is “Watervapor” . . . .
        Every Molecule of CO2 is surrounded by 2500 Molecules of “Other Gases” . . .
        Watervapor has always been there . . . the CO2 thing is a Scam of Gorebull Proportions.

    • It is climate change now, not global warming. This way it can be used for heating, cooling or anything else that happens in the world and the governments can extract more money from rich countries for wealth redistribution.

    • It doesn’t matter if the earth is cooling to “warmist’s”. They are true believers in man-made global warming.
      Even if the facts support a global cooling (the big fear back in the 70’s), they will still say it is caused by man-made global warming.
      It’s fascinating to watch their mental contortions to justify their “belief’s” while the data is against them.

        • Ummm…. were you around in the 70’s? I was, I was in my 20’s. And, yes, the “scientists” of the day were convinced that we were going to enter into a prolonged period of cooling. If you “consensus” you mean “mania”, like there is with “gloaal warming”, then the answer would be no. People were hadn’t been dumbed down by the government’s educational gulags, and, frankly, people just had a load more common sense back then. And, of course, the internet didn’t exist, so lame brains couldn’t get togehter and whip themselves into infantile emotional tangents that happen today.

          Hey, even Leonard Nimoy got in on the act.

          • Sorry I admit I misinterpreted your original message, as you didn’t mention anything about scientific consensus. Was there a mainstream fear whipped up among the mass media and the lay population? Perhaps. Was the scientific community on board with that interpretation of the data? Certainly not. I’m not putting my faith in the media then or now to sort this out. They’re notoriously bad at interpreting and communicating scientific research. But the scientific consensus in the 70s was not on cooling, while it most certainly is on warming today.

            • No worries… it’s the internet where words go to be misunderstood.


              It was a different day and time. Less histrionics, but there were a significant number of scientists, such as the ones at NOAA (ref’d in this article) that were predicting global cooling, even an ice age and the possible extinction of mankind due to our pollution of the atmosphere. While we clearly we needed to get our pollution of the atmosphere under control, and we did (compare our skies to China and India today) the views of those scientists was clearly comparable to the hysteria of the warmists today.

              I was in college from 1971 – 1975 and there was a lot of hype on global cooling and the same kind of idiots who fell for global warming today were around back then falling for global cooling and demanding that the government take over the economy, eviscerate the constitution and Bill of Rights, etc. so that the government coiuld save us from ourselves. Just like today.

              While it may seem the press was driving the story, they were basing it on the discussion of the scientists of the day.

              That’s my opinion and worth nothing more than that. Others will/may remember/view the situation back then differently. Cool beans. Either way the lot of them were wrong back then and now.

    • No, they are smarter than that….they the elites…the ones who go to climate conferences by burning jet fuel in their personal aircraft. They will come up with another crisis to exploit. They are evil, but smart.

      Their supporters among the masses are dumb as rocks.

    • The next looming disaster will be Lack of Adequate Climate Variation, requiring a new LACV agency to be created and manned by hordes of unemployables, recent graduates with degrees in Toadying, Problem Invention, and Obfuscation. The last will be drawn mainly from the legal profession, primarily from those who have failed their state bar exam.

    • The “climate change” propaganda is used for a globalist/UN agenda to force the NWO on sovereign nations. The NWO….a scheme birthed decades ago that plans to put power into one centralized group. It is a fact- they called it “global warming” until the science was not backing that – then for political reasons called it “climate change” which is the most unpredictable crap shoot to unsuspecting masses. I am an environmentally minded person who has reduced my “carbon footprint” by reducing my gasoline use, recycling water in So Cal and everything else, composting – recycling metal…etc – and I don’t use pesticides. Of course polution is bad and we need to clean up the environment. However, these NWO globalists have used the planet for propaganda. They have lied to advance their political agenda and they will even prosecute “climate change deniers.”

    • Global cooling follows the solar minimum and is not imagined. According to Nasa scientist John Casey, we should study the impact of previous eras of cooling. In the US the last one, in the 1800s – devastated crops and at that time the US population (not including Native Americans) was 4 million. He says agricultural/crop failure is the biggest concern. Beyond that, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions increase, both being more severe. The eruptions could leave a lot of debris in the atmosphere which will also impact crops. Since most Americans are no longer farmers as they were in the 1800s – they rely on corporate farms and corporate distribution of food. This dependence on government is a weakness of modern society if corporate farms fail to produce. The same idea could be applied to any region on the globe.

    • IN the 70s it was Global Cooling, in the 80s Global Warming in the 90s Global warming could cause global cooling. then in the 2000 when they had no idea what was happening they changed ti to climate change.

    • No worries. My 1998 Ford Expedition with 157,000 miles gets all of 9 mpg and I drive it to this day. F Algore, F Obummer. F every lib that tries to change my behavior. Sorry a-holes, you’ll literally have to kill me to change me. I will not comply.

  4. ALGORE will be busy trying to come up with another scam, to make more millions off of idiots that are looking for something to freak out over.
    Meanwhile the rest of the sane human population will say “it’s the weather, it changes”

  5. Al Gore and other charlatans claimed global warming was man made and through government intrusion into our lives forced us to change our lifestyle costing us billions that enriched their bank account. Maybe they were right but they forced us to go too far to stop the warming and now we will be forced to reverse ourselves to bring heat back. Of course that will further enrich their bank accounts. Then somehow we will go too far in that and will have to reverse ourselves again…………………………

  6. Isn’t it odd that the solar cycle just so happens to coincide PERFECTLY with global temperature fluctuations? CO2 is driven by temperature and it just so happens that during the active sunspot cycles increased CO2 just happens to coincide with that temperature increase?

    Hmmmm…… Here I was told that my car and I can change the entire planet’s temperature just by breathing and it seems it was the Sun the whole time.
    Dang it! How am I supposed to feel super duper important now? I need to go to my safe space 🙁

  7. Solar activity is the largest influencing factor on our global climate/temperatures. No one vested in perpetuating the man-caused global warming scam ever acknowledged that our measurements of temperatures on Mars tracked identically with variances on Earth. Not the same temperatures, of course, but if you look at graphs, the same identical pattern of temperature variation. The climate scammers will not show this data because it totally invalidates their argument of man-causality.

  8. You left wing, communist global warming freaks need to get your crap together. Which is it going to be? Are we going to be boiled alive or frozen solid? Either way your goal is to have all of our money to redistribute. You are not fooling anybody.

  9. When oh when will the Global warming/cooling/kinda warmish/colderish alarmists realize that observed real data trumps theoretical computer models EVERY SINGLE TIME?
    It’s the foundation of science in testing a hypothesis and somehow this precept is thrown away? Why do the alarmists continuously ignore the real data in favor of the hypothetical model data?

    Oh yeah… they get grants from the government.

    Never mind!

  10. First they were freaking out over global warming, then global cooling, then warming again, now freezing again. They flip flop more than a fish out of water. Will George Soros make up his freaking mind already. His bought off self-proclaimed scientists are getting a headache out of being completely confused over what he wants.

  11. But this can’t be. The elite say the science is settled and unless we give them more power over our lives and taxes to fix what isn’t broken, we’ll all die.

    Funny how their logic and certainty is constantly shown to be empty isn’t it? It’s called weather.

    There was a time when Greenland was green. Man had nothing to do with it. Then the long term weather changed again. They had vineyards in places much too cold today. These are long term weather cycles based on ocean currents, solar activity, and a host of variables that the “it’s solved and certain” crowd can’t grasp.

    • Did we see this in the New York Times? Source: Dr. Tim Ball. It shows the ice coverage during the last ice age. In some place the ice was 9,000 feet thick (!). 14,000 years ago, the Atlantic ocean was still frozen as far south as Spain. In those areas you see that were under ice, the land is still rising, as iti rebounds from the massive weight of ice. So in the North, the sea level is dropping quite quickly.
      Thus, the last ice age is not over yet.

  12. Oh, and for those of you who haven’t read it, I highly recommend:
    “Dark Winter” by John L. Casey. It predicts with detail what the author believes will happen to our climate over the next 30 years or so. One point he made in the book was so odd, that I’ve been watching for it. He indicated that when the Sun enters periods of minimal activity, that small earthquakes increase, though he nor anyone else can say why. Anyone else notice that small earthquakes seem to be on the rise? Think Oklahoma quake swarms, and their are more places recording small quakes. A good book which should be read by all concerned citizens.

  13. This is almost too absurd to comment on. First it’s global warming and now scientists find the earth is cooling. The earth goes through natural cycles, not man made. These cycles have been occurring for thousands of years. If we can get the politics out of this debate and have credible reporting by scientists with credible information, etc., maybe we could all agree on one thing–we’re being played.

  14. So, how do you get a bunch of scientists to say “The science is settled” and continue with the lie of AGW?, you control the grant money and force them to say and do what they’re told. Politicians will always do what politicians do, corrupt the system for personal benefit. The scientists who actually care about science are ridiculed. It’s like say an FBI chief telling us that Hillary made a “Mistake”.

  15. Saw a poll on this page asking if climate change causing extinction due to habitat loss is possible.
    And I saw the results were 51 Possible to 49 Impossible.
    It should be 100% Possible. Of course climate change can cause extinction. Heck it could make every living thing extinct.
    It just depends on how extreme the climate change is. Al Gore spewing carbon from his jet travels? Probably not gonna do it.
    An asteroid hitting the Earth? That might do it. Way different climate after something like that happens.

  16. If you think this news will stop the money grab by the money changers, you are sorely mistaken. When these fools did their original models, they left out that large fusion generator as part of the equation. The sudden lull in solar activity once again proves their absolute lack of scientific standards to take into account all variables when modeling.

  17. Sounds to me like Al Gore may have picked up a bunch of bankrupt West Virginia coal mines at bargain prices and wants to make another boat load of money. First tobacco and cigarette fortune, second carbon credit fortune and now, some kind of energy fortune. Since the Democrats are already making money from putting our military into non-winnable situations, then leaving them on the steps of the VA to suffer, one might think the “scientists” are too smart to fall for their scam of more research money.

  18. OK, fine. Now, let’s see if the loony left can figure out some scam to try to make money from this development. For starters, with temps in TX now running uncharacteristically HIGH for this early in the season, I guess they’ll have to start cooking the books on these temps like they did with the “global warming” myth to make it work. Pretty pathetic bunch of losers, the loony left is.

  19. Billions and billions of dollars have been extorted from this tyrannical plot, and the perpetrators need to be tried and convicted of conspiracy, fraud and extortion. Sentences that include hard labor in deep east Texas under the watchful eyes of Texas Rangers on horseback would be appropriate.

  20. Pull back the scale on your graph above. The little uptick everyone is worried about is simply part of a larger variation in temperature that is NORMAL for our planet. If you zoom the lens in on the ripples in the bathtub they look like a tidal wave. Pull back the lens a bit. This has been going on longer than man has been able to put out carbon into the air. What we should be worried about is pollution of the oceans which is a real and impactful thing we can change.

  21. That’s it !! I am putting turbos in my VWR32 !! This is perfect PROGRESSIVISM. I was a new teacher in a Minneapolis suburb in 1970 for the first “Earth Day.” The 3,000 student campus was overrun by past graduates whose morality was jump started by academics to invade the schools with the message about “GLOBAL COOLING.” All these years later the “Coolers” have come 360 degrees around… to their original hysteria. One of my Profs in the U of M History Department… a scholar of Progressivism, always had fun with his analysis of their ideas … Their idea of “PROGRESS” was always “Progress into the Past.” They want to go back into an age before petroleum especially. . In the Twin Cities they have ruined major streets and avenues with their pet projects of bicycles and electric trains which cost billions, few people ride and almost none pay for. Next I predict they will mandate horse troughs and be surprised when the unanticipated outcomes are horse dung and attendant flies and disease. Their hatred is always so focused and ignorant about the effects of their ideas. These “Planners” have implanted themselves in the unelected structures of government where they are funded lavishly allowing them to bring their utopian schemes into reality and imposed on us like a huge cookie cutter in the hands of Mustapha Monde. They need to silence and crush the opposition. That leads to less free speech and more intimidation and finally, perhaps, a new Gulag Archipelago.. perhaps deep in the trees of Northern Minnesota.

  22. Climate Change! The climate changes. It has been warmer, and it has been cooler. We do not live in a thermostat controlled environment. We need to learn how to adapt to the weather and not think that we are so powerful and wise that we can control Mother Nature. Gia can be a real bitch when you tick her off.

  23. I see the government (NOAA and NASA) along with higher education global warming researchers in a pickle. After years of “corrections” to the historical record, and years of assigning blame for these climate highs to mankind, do we abandon the global warming meme? Do we massage the data once again so that new climate lows appear alongside the recently discovered climate highs suggesting the meme “global climate change”, either warming or cooling? Or do we attack global cooling by attacking the messengers of global cooling as was done to “global warming deniers”?

  24. “global WARMING” . . . . . . . . . . ~ Al “the sex poodle” Gore
    “ah . . not warming .. but climate CHANGE” . . . . ~ Al “the sex poodle” Gore
    “ahhh . . . ok . . I’d say it’s getting COOLER then” . . . . . . . . . ~Al “the sex poodle” Gore
    “ohh… hmm….. OK …. OK …. I MEANT global COOLING” . . . . . . . . . .~Al “the sex poodle” Gore

    Stay tuned folks . . . . for more “CHANGE” . . . . . any day now . . . . .

  25. I do think there is a direct correlation between climate change and dingle Barry. Notice it was warming when he was giving speeches and when he stopped the Temps have been decreasing. Solution, ban democrats from giving speeches that are nothing but hot air.

    • Temperature effects from methane, water vapor, CO2, cloud cover, etc. are TINY compared to sunlight. Current climate models do not even come close to handling the effects of sunlight properly. As this graph shows, sunlight is NOT a constant, and it cannot just be “subtracted’ from the temperature data. It’s far too big for that. Tiny changes in sunlight from sunspots, etc. could obliterate the effects of methane or CO2.

  26. Could the fact that there are a record number of ongoing active volcanoes combined with 5 new ones that have recently erupted spewing ash into the atmosphere have anything to do with this precipitous drop in temperatures… ? HMMMM… ya’ THINK?

  27. Now seeking: members to join the new “Global Cooling” movement – first up, litigate car manufacturers for being complicit in the intentional manufacture of electric vehicles, knowing full well that they would contribute to the cooling of the planet…

  28. Let’s see…in my amateur look at the top chart, from 1979 to 1997 the earth seemed to be in a cool cycle but was trending warmer. Then from 1997 to the present the earth looked to be in a warm cycle but trending cooler. If you ask me, Mother Nature has earth’s climate well in-hand and under control.
    The ARROGANCE of humanity to believe they can affect and then fix the climate is jaw dropping!!

  29. The Co2 data were cooked from the get-go. We don’t know what global Co2 levels are. We don’t now if they are rising, because the warmists cherry picked the low Co2 measurements form the past. That makes the present levels look higher, but nobody knows the truth.
    Source: Dr. Tim Ball

    • There are 400 PPM of C02, a critical, naturally occurring gas in atmosphere.

      That is 400/1,000,000.

      Mankind is responsible for less than 10 percent. (IPCC) 10 percent of 400 PPM is 40. USA emits 25 percent, or 10 PPM. That is 10/1,000,000. It would cost HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars to get a 20 percent reduction in our C02 emissions.

      Assume we did reduce emissions 20 percent. That would be 2 PPM or 2/1,000,000. So the USA could effect perhaps 2 PARTS per MILLION change in C02.

      With season C02 variations of about 7 PPM, it would be near impossible to even measure any c02 changes outside the typical margin of error.

  30. An old friend of mine passed the other day. I have known him since the 1st grade. He started my first band and played guitar way better than average. We both served in Nam and remained friends for so long, we thought we were brothers. We fished together, drank together, laughed together. We took on the PUC with action for “the people” together. We talked politics and religion and children and wives and relatives and friends. We shared a lot of things, including our disdain for the politicians who rule America now. He was a patriot. I am a patriot. We both cared a lot about our country. Now . . . . . he has not a care in the world. He doesn’t know about Clinton’s new revelation. And he doesn’t give a
    d ^ m n. I’m starting to think he’s in the best place and I shouldn’t give a d ^ m n either.

    That’s today. We’ll see what tomorrow brings. . . . if it gets here.

  31. What we need is out door heaters and air conditioners. So when it is too hot the government can turn on the ac and cool us off and when it is too cold they can turn on the heat to make us warmer.

    Just think of all the money they can tax us.

  32. So does that mean I can leave this copy of Newsweek on my coffee table?

    The Cooling World – Newsweek – April 28th, 1975

    …there are ominous signs the earth’s weather patterns are changing dramatically and these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production with serious political implications for all countries…

    the evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so drastically that meteorologists are hard pressed to keep up with it…

    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 its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climate change is as profound as feared, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.

    A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of NOAA reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to Geroge Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos show a sudden large increase in snow cover in the winter of 1971-72 and a study released last month by two NOAA scientists note the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental US diminished by 1.3 percent between 1964 and 1972…

    Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to to compensate for the climate change…the longer planners delay , the more difficult will they find it to cope with climate change once the results become grim reality.

  33. I don’t think this is an issue of earth’s temperature as much as part of the awakening of the public’s proof of government/media/academia/politician/elite incompetence, inefficiency, injustice and corruption. We have lost trust that our government cares about anything other than maintaining it’s own power and growing. There is simply NO TRUST anymore….We either need the biggest air cleaner ever built or need to completely vacuum out the trash.

  34. Arctic sea ice extent is not changing. In summer, it goes down. In winter, it goes up. And year after year, the cycle is the same. The annual graph lines are so similar, they sit on top of one another.
    Source: Environment Canada, Arctic sea ice extent at Sept 18 2015

  35. Are you all looking at the same chart that I am? Because the one I’m looking at shows a trend line with lots of ups and downs, but is slowly and inexorably creeping upward. Have I misinterpreted the data as presented? And global temperatures may decline this month and next and maybe even next year. But the facts are that as the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, temperatures rise. That’s not a theory or a speculation. That is a fact that can be reproduced in a lab. The graph also shows the reason for the bogus argument that there’s been a pause in global warming because the temperatures today are about what they were 18 years ago. Who uses 18 years as a measuring stick? If you wanted to pick the biggest spike in global temperatures to argue that temperatures are not going up, you do. What about 20 years? Up. 10 years? Up. 30 years? Up.

    • Don’t confuse the trend line with the variability. The variability is huge, and if you start the graph a few years before or after, an upward or downward trend may seem to appear. But the data are unreliable, because hardly any real data fit along the line. The numbers are all over the place.

      • There is considerable variability. But the trend line is unmistakable. The only point you can pick to show no increasing trend is 18 years ago when there was a huge spike. Pick any other point 20 or more years ago, going back hundreds of years, and the trend line is up. And that is consistent with the fact, which is indisputable, that with increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, temperatures rise. You can cherry-pick the data all you want, but with increasing concentrations of CO2 come increasing temperatures.

    • Good. We need some more CO2. Let’s warm up this rock. Earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling before. At the end of the dark ages the warming planet allowed for huge gains in food production that jump started the Renaissance, reduced wars and feudalism to some degree. More CO2 is beneficial to plants using photosynthesis and results in larger, healthier plants. We could use an increase to help start re-foresting parts of the Amazon and maybe even the Nile and northern Africa. Warm air holds more moisture that evaporates from the oceans and that can help in those arid zones. Increased warmth will drive cloud formation that brings life-giving water to land masses and actually shade parts of the planet from solar heat. It could green up parts of Africa and reduce famine and hunger, stimulate wildlife production and reduce the border warfare that plagues the continent.

      I was in college in the late 60s to early 70s when some people were warning of a coming ice age. Why? Because global temperatures showed a steady cooling trend. There were claims that by 2000, 2010 at the latest the Great Lakes would be solidly iced over, NYC, Boston and Portland, Maine would be buried under snow and ice. They were talking about heavy winter snows as far south as Orlando and Houston. That didn’t happen either.

      It’s obvious to those of us who aren’t drinking the Kool-Aid that the climate computer model is broken. It’s not working and not close to being a predictor. If you have a computer model that is supposed to predict how fast a tree will grow in an arboretum under controlled conditions but the tree’s growth doesn’t meet your predictions what’s the most likely diagnosis? Is the tree to blame because it refused to grow enough? Is it automatically due to some man-made cause? Or is it your computer model is wrong?

      • I was in college in the 70’s when, as you say, “some people were warning of a coming ice age.” The key words here are “some people.” Climate models are not doing as badly as you say, particularly considering how many more factors they have to consider than how fast a tree will grow in an arboretum. But let’s look at your main argument: The Earth has warmed before and the warming now (so I’m actually not sure if you believe that the Earth is warming) is not so bad.
        The record doesn’t support your Panglossian view. There have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth’s temperature jumped abruptly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today.
        Those abrupt global warming events were almost always highly destructive for life, causing mass extinctions such as at the end of the Permian, Triassic, or even mid-Cambrian periods. The symptoms from those events (a big, rapid jump in global temperatures, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification) are all happening today with human-caused climate change.
        So yes, the climate has changed before humans, and in most cases scientists know why. In all cases we see the same association between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And past examples of rapid carbon emissions (just like today) were generally highly destructive to life on Earth.
        Think of your best arguments and go here:
        They will be discussed in an objective, factual, and easy-to-understand way. Go ahead, I dare you!

  36. Al Gore is fat.

    If he cared about climate change he wouldn’t eat so many calories and wouldn’t have a carbon footprint the size of small 3rd world countries. Nor would he own his oceanside mansion…

  37. Whatever happened to the ozone hole over Antarctica? Or the missing ice in the Artic for those poor polar bears? Or the rising ocean levels? Or the “hockey stick” climate chart that was supposed to predict our climactic doom? Or the “settled science” the Department of Justice was so certain was correct that they threatened to prosecute “deniers”? I know what happened…they went to the same place that the global cooling and “the world is running out of oil” people went in the 1970s and 1980s.
    Our government is so damn corrupt — even non-political scientists sell their souls to get on the government public grant dole. Dear Lord, please be merciful upon our once great nation!!

  38. Britain panic over rising sea levels. They think global warming is causing the south of England to get swamped. But here’s the real story. The last Ice age covered Scotland, and pushed it down. Now the ice is gone, and as Scotland pops back up, England tips down a bit.

  39. Mothball the Wind Turbines, doze the solar panels, break out the oil and give our children a chance at getting a job and rebuilding the flailing economy. Will never compete with the Chinese and the rest of the world without a level playing field

  40. I looked at the chart. It shows a huge rise in temperature followed by a huge decline in temperature. This article only notes the decline but not the rise. Overall the temperature has averaged a gradual rise – not a decline. I am willing to review any new data but this chart contradicts the claim of falling temperature.

    • And with bad data being used for the most important “studies” that have already “proven” glow bull warming to the libs, I don’t trust any data. I’m especially not interested in a 2 month decline. I can’t latch onto bad data like a lib.

  41. Rev up the SUV folks we need some real warming here; burn those fossil fuels double time. Stoke that old coal burner. Winter is Coming as they say. Now the real question is how are the scammers going to make the taxpayers pay for this one?

  42. We all get a good laugh at the pseudo scientists claiming that the earth is first warming, then cooling but the biggest laugh of all is they say that it is man made “greenhouse gasses” that are at fault and that the main contributor is carbon dioxide. They may as well have said it is Oxygen that causes global warming. All life on earth can be divided into two categories: flora and fauna. Flora are the plants and fauna are the animals. The plants can’t live without C02 and the animals can’t live without 02. How fortuitous that the plants take in C02 and give off 02 and the animals take in 02 and give off C02. Reduce C02 and reduce the flora which in turn would reduce the fauna (us). Oh, I see. Nevermind.

    • Here’s the little hiccup in your argument: It’s not whether there is CO2 in the atmosphere or not. What matters is the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 and what is O2. There are some facts that are not disputable, since anybody can make the measurements. One is that the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 has been steadily increasing since the Industrial Revolution. This makes sense, since we have been using more energy, mainly by burning fossil fuels, since then. The second is that with increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere comes increasing temperatures. That’s not a theory. That’s a demonstrable fact. Take those two facts and it makes sense the the earth is getting warmer through the actions of humanity. Consider your best arguments for why this is all a hoax and then go to this website:
      I guarantee that your arguments will be there. And they will be refuted in a detailed, factual, and scientific way. Go ahead, I dare you!

      • Australian scientist Ian Plimer — geologist and volcano expert, professor of geology at the University of Adelaide, and professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne — is one of the many scientists who have tried to inject sensible consideration of the effect that volcanoes and earthquakes contribute to the production of atmospheric CO2.

        Here is a quote from just one of the thousands of scientists worldwide that disagree with anthropomorphic climate change…

        Australian scientist Ian Plimer — geologist and volcano expert, professor of geology at the University of Adelaide, and professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne — is one of the many scientists who have tried to inject sensible consideration of the effect that volcanoes and earthquakes contribute to the production of atmospheric CO2. In a 2009 Op-Ed in The Australian entitled “Vitriolic climate in academic hothouse,” Dr. Plimer wrote:

        “To demonise element number six in the periodic table is amusing. Why not promethium? Carbon dioxide is an odourless, colourless, harmless natural gas. It is plant food. Without carbon, there would be no life on Earth.

        The original source of atmospheric CO2 is volcanoes. The Earth’s early atmosphere had a thousand times the CO2 of today’s atmosphere. This CO2 was recycled through rocks, life and the oceans.

        Through time, this CO2 has been sequestered into plants, coal, petroleum, minerals and carbonate rocks, resulting in a decrease in atmospheric CO2.

        The atmosphere now contains 800 billion tonnes of carbon as CO2. Soils and plants contain 2000 billion tonnes, oceans 39,000 billion tonnes and limestone 65,000,000 billion tonnes. The atmosphere contains only 0.001 per cent of the total carbon in the top few kilometres of the Earth.

        Deeper in Earth, there are huge volumes of CO2 yet to be leaked into the atmosphere. So depleted is the atmosphere in CO2, that horticulturalists pump warm CO2 into glasshouses to accelerate plant growth.”

        This fact is becoming widespread as the world learns how the Military Industrial Complex works. Not only is the science not proven, it is a lie and because of it, the people of the world are being endangered while the powers that be, in an effort to combat “runaway global warming”, have taken it upon themselves to change the climate by spraying aerosolized aluminum and barium into the atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays back into space. Although many are waking up, the dumbed down population doesn’t even look up to consider what might be going on, they are too stoned on the distractions intentionally placed in front of them. They don’t think and they certainly don’t question anything they’re told by the complicit mainstream media (bought long ago by the PTB). Heaven knows, they don’t want to be labeled a “conspiracy wacko” so they believe the lies they are fed and the crazier, the better. Good job, so far. But the battle is already won (it’s been won from the beginning) and it isn’t the PTB who are the winners.

        • Let’s ignore the fact that Plimer is a Director of several mineral exploration and mining companies, which might make him less than objective. And let’s ignore that scientists estimate that burning fossil fuels puts about 100 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than volcanoes. There is no disputing that the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, and has been increasing since the Industrial Revolution. And there is no disputing that with increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere come increasing temperatures. These aren’t opinions; they are facts. If you’re truly interested in understanding the science, think of your best arguments, go here, and see if they aren’t dealt with in a calm, clear, rational, factually based way:
          See if you are one of those rare individuals who can consider facts that are contrary to your beliefs and come away with a different viewpoint. After all, as Paul Simon wrote, “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”

          • I have studied this topic ad nauseum. I AM one of those rare individuals that considers facts and then THINKS them through. I am a truth seeker or, as many that seem to come from your camp have labeled, “truther” – to their own detriment because if “truthers” seek truth, (which has always been a good thing) – what are those on the other end of the debate referred to? Doesn’t it follow naturally that they are “falsers” or liars?

            It’s comical, just like “Gay Pride”… If there is anything within the realm of truth that a man SHOULD BE ASHAMED of it must be “laying” with another man for Pete’s sake, yet in this age, they are proud of it!

            Oftentimes the truth is NOT “convenient”. One must look at ALL aspects (and motives) of a particular topic to discern the truth e.g. could the rise in C02 levels be attributed to another man made cause such as depleting the Rain Forests?

            And prior to this, what science has PROVEN that C02 is a “greenhouse” gas? Furthermore, you state that ” And let’s ignore that scientists estimate that burning fossil fuels puts about 100 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than volcanoes.” What scientists? Where?

            • >>could the rise in C02 levels be attributed to another man made cause such as depleting the Rain Forests?<>what science has PROVEN that C02 is a “greenhouse” gas?<>scientists estimate that burning fossil fuels puts about 100 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than volcanoes.” What scientists? Where?<<
              You've "studied this topic ad nauseum"? Evidently, you become nauseous far more quickly than most. Google CO2 output by volcanoes.
              So, just out of morbid curiosity, what "facts" do you rely on to conclude that the widespread belief in anthropogenic global climate change is not real. And just to be clear, facts are things that people can check on independently of one another. They are not opinions. So, for example, global warming is a myth invented by those leftist wackos are just trying to ruin the country/world and achieve total power over us little'uns, would not count as a fact.

              • Rhetorical question. I know all about the volcanos. The fact that you intimate that I am not as studied as I proclaim due to a rhetorical question I asked you (which you mistook as a real question) makes me desire to conclude this conversation more than I wanted to at first. Stop. I dare you.

      • Southpaw— Skeptical Science isn’t “science” and it’s not “skeptical”.. It’s a clearinghouse for CAGW propaganda, that doesn’t come CLOSE to providing factual or scientific data.

        Anyone with a scientific background that tries to refute Skep-Sci’s propaganda on the site is soon banned from posting and all posts are removed….

        That site is a complete joke.

        • Okay, where’s a better website that presents factual information?
          And how do you get around the fact that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere cause temperatures to rise, which is a fact, not an opinion?

  43. check out the first 3…4 years of EARTH DAY Claims….its Hilarious….and what these money grabbing Thieves said back then..
    The dumb American public being scammed again by the CORRUPT DEMS……FREAKING HILARIOUS..

  44. The drop in temperature is irrelevant to glowbull warming alarmists. That’s why they changed the meme from “Anthropogenic Global Warming” to “Man Caused Climate Change” that way no matter whether it’s cold or hot, or somewhere in between they can claim they need to tax us in order to stop the weather from changing. The climate alarmists want to tax everybody, all the time, for everything, that’s how they roll. That’s how one world order, multiculturalism/communism works.

    • ds:
      If Hillary gets in, we will be forced to believe in global warming whether we like it or not. Carbon taxes will roll in, and the rule of law will be toast. Here’s the new secretary of commerce:

    • She’s no dummy on that subject. She studied at the feet of Howard Zinn & Saul Alinski…idols of her kind, fellow travelers.
      signed, Karl, Groucho, Gummo, Zeppo, Harpo and Chico Marx

  45. Oh boy now the left will try and trell us that the cooling is do to cliamte change. because as wee have all learned about this scam. IF IT RAINS IT IS DO TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND IF IT DOESN’T RAIN IT IS DO TO CLIMATE CHANGE. That is how they are making sure they are able to scam middle class Americans.

  46. And it’s cooling off even with all the Hollywood libs flying their personal jets to the grocery store a few times a week. When I first found out that the “scientists” adjust the past and present temps I knew the entire thing was garbage.

  47. Climate changes over time.
    With or without mankind. The Earth is still thawing from the last ice age and is nowhere near the warm world it once was. That world was vibrant with life. Humanity does a fine job of exterminating life. The major problem with this world is there are too many humans. We shall soon resolve that problem. Prepare for the next wars. If we don’t do it nature shall do it. Population reduction. Coming soon.

  48. I wish I could remember the name of the researcher, but about 20 years ago, I read a paper by a climate scientist. He had studied the geologic climate record going back about 500,000 years and had come to one conclusion. He concluded that man had benefited from an extremely benevolent climate pattern for the last 25,000 years and that the climate was about to revert to actual ‘historical’ behavior – hotter summers, colder winters, more droughts, floods, unpredictable weather – exactly what we are seeing. And he never blamed CO2 one time

  49. I miss the ACID rain dude….far out, man (infinitely distant)
    and Bob Zimmerman said “you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”. So there’s that. Right, Bill Ayers?! Punk.
    signed, Wavy Gravy

  50. We can still hold out hope for:

    Global thermonuclear war by the year 2000 over dwindling food supplies (preached as Gospel truth in the 1970s)
    All 7 Great Lakes becoming chemical pits of unquenchable fire producing smoke that will engulf the upper atmosphere and plunge the world into a millennium-long Ice Age by the end of the 20th Century if not sooner (ditto)
    AIDS mutating into an airborne pathogen that will infect all of humanity by the turn of the century (1980s)

  51. Consider this – climate “scientists” (yes, I use that term loosely) say that the “science is settled”. SCIENCE, real science, is NEVER settled. REAL scientists are ALWAYS poking, prodding, testing that which is “known” or “settled”. That is how advances in science are made. Science once held that the Earth was flat – it was “skeptics” and “deniers” that proved that “settled science” wrong. Now, the “climate scientists” are saying they no longer need to even show data, everyone can see for themselves that the climate is changing. It amazes that so-called “scientists” are afraid to have their raw data examined by “skeptics”. If there is actual objective, scientific, raw data to support their conclusions – not just their personal ideological beliefs – they should welcome skeptics to test their conclusions.

    • You unerringly pointed out the IPCC’s fallacy. Their “settled science” is based on the false premise that “global warming” has been accepted by “consensus.” Science is not conducted by consensus. Scientific inquiry is conducted by the impartial examination of the facts…ALL the facts, the development of models based on rational and defensible observations, the use of data provided by reliable and untampered-with sensors, the conduct of experiments, the attempted replication of results and the drawing of rational and coherent conclusions based on ALL the results. Almost NONE of these is in the IPCC repertoire. Their models are flawed, their premises are one-sided, their sensors have been compromised and their conclusions are bunk. Yet they try to sell them to the world based on a “consensus.”

    • Trivia tidbit: Columbus’s wife’s great(?) grandfather claimed to have sailed to the New England area 90 years before Columbus’s voyage. Columbus’s crew contained two sailors from Iceland that had fished the Grand Banks off the east coast of America. The World Fair just prior to Columbus’s voyage was selling world globes. Columbus became famous for being the last person to discover America. The things they don’t teach in school…

  52. The coming cold La Niña will offset the 2015/16 El Niño spike in global temps, so by early 2018, the “hiatus” will resume, showing 22 years with no global warming trend.

    The disparity between CAGW global warming projections already exceeds reality by 2 standard deviations for 20 years, which is sufficient divergence (2+ standard deviations) and duration (15 years for noisy global temp data) to officially disconfirm the CAGW hypothesis.

    Both the Pacific and Atalantic oceans will be in their respective 30-year cool cycles by 2020, which ALWAYS leads falling global temps. The disparity will soon exceed 3+ standard deviations for 25+ years, which is the point where this CAGW scam can officially be disconfirmed.

    We’re finally at the beginning of the end of the biggest and most expensive scam in human history.

  53. These academics need to do a little reading. During the “Little Ice Age” there were almost no sunspots. May and June of this year had almost no sunspots. Does anyone else see a correlation?

    • Right on. The Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) saw a period of about 80 years with few sunspots. That spawned the Mini Ice Age that gripped the Northern Hemisphere until around 1900. Another mini ice age was seen as a strong possibility at least a decade ago by Dr. Robert Gagosian, president of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Recent studies of the Atlantic Ocean “conveyor belt” that conducts water of vastly different temperatures and salinity from near the equator to near the North Pole show it may be happening again. That’s likely why “global warming” appears to have stopped in 1998.

  54. All global warming can easily be traced. All you have to do is measure the amount of time DC politicians and pundits open their mouths. They spew nothing but hot air (some more than others), creating a heat bloom over DC that spreads worldwide. On top of that, the UN is doing its part to spew additional hot air.

    Mother Earth is doing her best to offset the political BS.

  55. So they were RIGHT in the mid-70s! Global Cooling, New Ice Age, oceans shrinking, mass starvation, shortened growing season, polar bears walking around Manhattan! Ohhhh, gawwdd, we’re all going to freeze to death in the dark!!!!! Aaaarrrggghhhhhh!


  56. No one believes the people who are there and work at jobs collecting the information for these bozo’s to analyze and manipulate to get it to say what they want it to say so they can all line up to the government feeding trough to feed on government grants and funding. They didn’t listen to the swift boaters, who were personal eye-witnesses about John Kerry either. They didn’t pay attention to Hillary and refuse to believe she did anything wrong with Benghazi or the classified information that she had on her private email server either. They believed Obama when he said he would conduct the most transparent administration while securing all of his personal background information as well as the promise that all of us would get to read the contents of the National Healthcare Act, AKA Obamacare BEFORE he signed it into law. Complicit with world media, formerly known as Pravda, the world population has systematically been lied to and the real people who know what is really happening are routinely ignored or discredited. How does this happen? Easily when you have a grossly stupid population that is more concerned with bellybutton lint than what is going on in the world around them. There never was anything to Global Warming save the attempt to steal money away from stupid people in the form of taxation and the ruin of a world economy. The planet has been cooling since the day it has been formed and at times, because of solar activity, there were periods of warmth and cold. But as the stock market indicates an overall rise in trading over the long haul, the planet’s temperature has been decreasing over the long haul and there really isn’t anything mankind can do about it except to construct his own demise attempting to fix the un-fixable. Really, the only thing that has been accomplished is to make people like Al Gore more wealthy. And to think people are afraid of Trump.

  57. Does this mean we did too much and now the earth is cooling? Do we have to fire up those coal plants again, should I be running my car even at night while I sleep to help? How do we get those cows to fart even more, feed them beans? This would be hilarious if it wasn’t so scary.

  58. Earth is in constant flux! Always has been and always will!! Global warming/cooling idiots are just trying to advance a faulty set of beliefs and enforce their selfish will on the public. They have different reasons for this. Some, like Al Gore are greedy billionaires who have invested heavily in “Green Industries” that are funded heavily by us, the taxpayers. Makes no difference to “Al” that these businesses will go bankrupt. He gets his cut up front and will never lose his personal wealth. Some are scientists who are political or have been funded by a political party. Some are mentally ill and would have us all go back 200 years to the good ole “horse & buggy” days.

  59. Glow bell cooling or warming. Last night on Nova, searching for dino’s, most of the middle of the u.s. was under salt water, way before that most everything was covered with water. Cause? Decrease in glow bell cooling allowed us to have a dry foot.

  60. Follow the new trail of money to see how scientists will now all get on board the gravy train. Look for the government ban all people who don’t believe in global cooling. This is really starting to sound like 1984.

  61. We are extremely “lucky” our solar system is as regular as it is. Almost as if it was designed this way. One thing for sure – those who have gardens – life can be very durable when you look at things like weeds.

  62. This unprecedented lack of precedent has never been seen before by some scientific experts who have declared it to be a calamity of cataclysmic proportions while others call it a cataclysm of calamitous proportions. While there is disagreement among the climate linguists over noun and adjective climate combinations, there is a strong consensus that the best way to grapple with never seen before and unprecedented catastrophic cataclysmic, calamitous, and devastating climate crisis is for our global government messiahs to establish a Global Order of Total Climate Heroism Alliance (GOTCHA). It will collect an international tax that will scientifically frighten nefarious global warming into compliance with international standards and demand the return of the polar ice caps and glacial ice that has been stolen from us.
    Further, the Associated Leaders for Global Organized Relief of Earths Faulty Air River and Terrestrial Environment Divisions (ALGOREFARTED) will be established to measure climate emissions and report on its findings to the Scientific World Incorporation for Newly Developed Levies and Exchange (SWINDLE) which will assess fines, penalties, kickbacks, and bribes when deemed necessary and expedient.

  63. OK, so now what…are these clowns still going to try and prosecute “Climate Change” deniers? Oh wait, the climate is still changing, only now it’s changing towards the cool side, so yeah, we’re still coming after you for denying it’s happening. Somebody slap these morons.

  64. I think the left needs more money from all of us to study this warming/cooling/change and to correct it. If anyone disagrees they need to be shut up and shut down if not jailed. Because after the weather will be different tomorrow and we must be the reason for the change.

  65. All real scientific measurements & calculations have measurement & rounding errors…

    The Global warming charts are in the statistical noise band of measurement & rounding error rates and are meaningless

    For example, if I’m comparing two sets of temperatures
    The older set has an accuracy of +- 1% & +-0.5 deg (rounding error because measurements in 1 deg increments)
    and the newer set has a accuracy of +-0.1% & 0.05 deg (rounding error because measurements in 0.1 deg increments)
    The results will never be more accurate then the least accurate measurement… +- 1% & +-0.5 deg!

    I can just image what the temperature measurement & rounding error rates are for tree ring & Antarctic ice core samples are… How about collecting tree ring samples from logging in meadows, valleys, ridges, and N, S, E & W facing slopes of the same national forest and see what kind of range different researchers come up with?

      • Why look at the long term?
        Isn’t it clear that the temperature warms up about every 24 hours? If as a good progressive liberal you ignore the cooling that happens about every 24 hours, offset from the warming by about 12 hours, and of course, only those horrid evil deniers would even consider that, then there is a proven, dramatic temperature increase EVERY DAY!! In the morning, when we’re all trying to get to work! Even on weekends and holidays!
        Oh, the horror! I feel faint!

  66. oops, and they still want to prosecute GW deniers…. anyone look at the sun lately? it looks like a pool ball, no spots; could it be, the sun controls or at the very least has a great deal of influence on our climate?

  67. A few more years and the warming scam will be completely defunct. The warmists will still want our money however and they will still want global control of what we do and say. It will be global cooling as their excuse and, of course, trillions of tax dollars will be needed to save us along with UN control of our lives.

  68. Those who understand the laws of physics and chemistry will be familiar with the theory of fluctuations. The earth is a complex system of three main subsystems, one half of which is illuminated by the sun and extra galactic cosmic particles. That short term varibilities develop is not at all surprising but rather expected.

  69. Many women over the age of 50 have been experiencing this warming and cooling phenomenon for centuries. Up to now, people like Al Gore did not care, but now they want to tax us all in order to eradicate it…or something like that.

  70. And this, of course, is caused by ‘global warming’. Somehow.

    We must apply the proper ‘AlGore-ithm’ to arrive at our pre-
    ordained conclusions, as usual. Dissenters shall be shot.

  71. You’re all morons, it fell from the highest average temp recorded, even with the largest decrease the average temp are still significantly higher than the historical levels. Drudge commenters are amongst the dumbest trolls I’ve ever seen.

  72. Now you’ve gone and done it, you ignorant deniers. We all were supposed to have signed on to all the sky is falling crap by now so the climate change loons could claim that their fixes were already working. After all, they’re only trying to help.

  73. Global warming claims are based on computer models that didn’t pan out. Temperature record keeping has happened for 130 years. The Earth has been warming and cooling for billions of years. That’s BILLIONS. The Earth isn’t going anywhere. We are.

  74. I believe it, where im at it has been pretty cool for july, hell in the next 5 days its not suppose to get over 75, which in the middle of july usually its around 85, average temp

  75. When I was in college in the late ’70s the radicals were apoplexic about global cooling. Time magazine had it on the cover. No science behind it, blind faith – just like the global warming. Now climate change so anything Chicken Little imagines will be within the scope of faux science. I trust in the Creator to sustain the globe just as He has promised to do, until He returns and then we will see global warming!

  76. The Alarmism Industry it the foremost growth industry in the world today, employing millions of professional alarmists who would otherwise remain unemployed and living entirely on the dole. Climate Science, a major in alarmism, actually counts in our tally of GDPs, which helps conceal the dismal reality that our nation is in a severe recession. If one were to back out the legions of PA’s (professional alarmists) from our employment stats we’d find that the true unemployment rate in our nation is closer to 15% than the officially-announced five. Throw in the hordes of state and federal employees, professional toadies, back-scratchers, skid-greasers, and bribery specialists, who mainly work to impede the efforts of our now-tiny productive sector, and a truly ugly picture emerges.

  77. Obama’s solution is to take our hard earned money and send it to foreign governments. He also wants to reduce our emissions but allowing the rest of the world to continue to pollute and put our country at a competitive disadvantage,

  78. When they plug the “data” from past years into their “models” they get temperatures higher than what actually happened. Their computer models have been repeatedly proven inaccurate and that’s when we know the data they are using hasn’t been tampered with. Yet, the so-called “scientists” keep telling us how they are absolutely certain that they are right, that no further questions need be asked, and that we just have to accept that a socialist Communist Utopia is the only possible solution to save us from the Apocalypse.

  79. The newest catastrophic threat to the planet (I just invented it) is called; “Bad Stuff”. If enough money isn’t spent by the wealthy nations of the planet on my special research, “Bad Stuff” is going to happen. It could be you stubbing your toe, or someone stealing your car, maybe someone somewhere might get a cold or the flu. This is all part of my “Bad Stuff” theory. It gets much worse… pretty much anything “Bad”. Send me money quick so I can research this!

  80. Gee, what a surprise! Climate Depot, the lackey of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, the coal mining industry et al… has proven that 97% of climate scientists have ganged up in a nefarious worldwide conspiracy to foist the global warming myth on us poor souls along with, no doubt, trying to turn us all into socialistic, Muslim, pagan, homosexual vegetarians. Thanks for the heads-up, Mr. Morano!

  81. The zero or negative chart shows an entirely fallacious application of statistics. With widely variable data one would expect a very large variance and calculated standard deviation. That is the assumed means would have very large standard errors. The coefficients in the two derived lines would also have large standard errors based on the data calculated varience (sum of squares). The aurhors might try applying the discrete cosine transform to the data.