Gore Effect: UN Climate Summit Greeted With ‘Dramatic Decline’ In Global Temperature (1.2°C Drop) Since Early 2016

Via: http://notrickszone.com/2016/11/17/satellites-show-1-2-c-temperature-drop-since-early-2016-as-scientists-project-low-solar-activity-cooling-in-coming-decades/#sthash.zFTpptNd.dpbs

Satellites Show -1.2° C Temperature Drop Since Early 2016 As Scientists Project Low Solar Activity, Cooling In Coming Decades

By  – The most recent Super El Niño natural warming event exerted its maximum effect on surface temperature anomalies during the last few months of 2015 and the first few months of 2016.  Since then, surface temperatures over land have dramatically declined by about 1.2° C according to the RSS satellite dataset.

WoodForTrees graph:



Background on ‘Gore Effect’:

Factsheet on the ‘Gore Effect’– ‘Happens when global warming-related event, or appearance by Gore is marked by exceedingly cold weather/snow’

Man Unicycles Across Canada for Global Warming During Record-Breaking Cool Summer

British Antarctic Survey trapped without power during record cold -55.4° C

Al Gore’s climate-changers at EPA hearings foiled by cool temperatures

EPA forced to move climate hearings on coal plant restrictions due to ‘large scale power outage’ – EPA’s own version of ‘Gore Effect’?

‘Gore Effect’ Strikes Another Global Warming Hearing: Senate climate hearing met by DC snowstorm – ‘Snow coats D.C. area’ – Area under ‘Winter Weather Advisory’


Background on “Hottest Year” claims: 

Global temperatures have been holding nearly steady for almost two decades (nearly 18 years, according to RSS satellite data). While 2005, 2010, and 2015 were declared the ‘hottest years’ by global warming proponents, a closer examination revealed that the claims were “based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that were within the margin of error in the data.” In other words, global temperatures have essentially held very steady with no sign of acceleration.

The media and climate activists hype ‘record’ temperatures that are not even outside the margin of error of the dataset as somehow meaningful. Even former NASA climatologist James Hansen admitted ‘hottest year’ declarations are “not particularly important.”

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen ridiculed ‘hottest year’ claims in 2015. “The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree. When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record, what are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period,” Lindzen said. “If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree.” 11 So-called ‘hottest year’ claims are just a fancy way of saying that …

Greenland gaining ice at a record rate


Greenland is actually gaining ice at a record rate.

Greenland wasn’t always gaining a lot of ice like it is now. In 1939, the glaciers of Greenland and Norway were nearing “catastrophic collapse


17 Dec 1939, Page 15 – Harrisburg Sunday Courier at Newspapers.com


Via: http://notrickszone.com/2016/11/17/satellites-show-1-2-c-temperature-drop-since-early-2016-as-scientists-project-low-solar-activity-cooling-in-coming-decades/#sthash.zFTpptNd.dpbs

By Kenneth Richard: Since September, the Greenland Ice Sheet surface mass balance has risen +100 Gt above the 1990-2013 average:

DMI graph source:


– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/11/17/satellites-show-1-2-c-temperature-drop-since-early-2016-as-scientists-project-low-solar-activity-cooling-in-coming-decades/#sthash.zFTpptNd.dfF24zK6.dpuf



By Phil Kerpen
When is a treaty not a treaty?  According to the Obama administration, whenever the president says so.  This claim is especially dubious with respect to the Paris agreement on global warming, which as Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has shown, is more ambitious than predecessor agreements that were universally accepted to be treaties.
Surely if President Obama possesses an asserted authority to declare an agreement identical in form and more ambitious in substance than previous treaties to be a non-treaty then President Trump will have the authority to reach the opposite, more plausible conclusion.
There is little doubt that the Trump administration will reject the Paris agreement, but the option of properly recognizing it as a treaty and allowing the Senate to formally reject it has several advantages.
First, it prevents the dangerous precedent of a president binding the country and his successor to international commitments without the broad support that the Constitution requires through the advice and consent process.  Secondly, it sidesteps the question of whether the withdrawal provision of the Paris treaty itself forces us to wait four years before withdrawal is effective.  Finally, it exposes as false the talking point that skepticism of the Paris agreement is outside the political mainstream.
John Kerry, who infamously declared global warming a greater threat to the United States than terrorism, gave his final speech on the subject this week to the UN functionaries in Marrakech, Morocco. He offered a soothing fantasy.
“No one should doubt the overwhelming majority of the citizens of the United States who know climate change is happening and who are determined to keep our commitments that were made in Paris,” Kerry said to applause.
Last week’s election emphatically showed the opposite.   The Midwest delivered the White House to Trump, who dominated among the working class voters who care far more about how much they are paying  to fill up the gas tank and keep their lights on than they do about what United Nations computer models predict about the climate in decades or centuries – the results of which show minimal change anyway.  Appalachian voters in particular preferred Trump in a stunning 469 of 490 counties.
The Paris treaty is a magnificent example of the bad deals made for America that ultimately paved Donald Trump’s path to the White House.
Specifically, the Paris treaty effectively bans coal-fired power plants