Sunday, October 24, 2021
Home Middle Column Media falsely spins Trump's NYT climate comments - Trump cited Climategate, restated...

Media falsely spins Trump’s NYT climate comments – Trump cited Climategate, restated skepticism of ‘global warming’ – Read full transcript

-

Climate Depot Analysis

The media spin on President Elect Donald J. Trump’s sit down with the New York Times on November 22, can only be described as dishonest. Trump appears to soften stance on climate change & Donald Trump backflips on climate change  & Trump on climate change in major U-turn

The ‘fake news’ that Trump had somehow moderated or changed his “global warming” views was not supported by the full transcript of the meeting.

Heartland Institute President Joe Bast had this to say about the full transcript of Trump’s meeting: “This is reassuring. The Left wants to drive wedges between Trump and his base by spinning anything he says as “retreating from campaign promises.” But expressing nuance and avoiding confrontation with determined foes who buy ink by the barrel is not retreating.” The Heartland Institute released their skeptical 2015 climate report featuring 4,000 peer-reviewed articles debunking the UN IPCC claims.

Trump’s climate science view that there is “some connectivity” between humans and climate is squarely a skeptical climate view. Trump explained, “There is some, something. It depends on how much.”

Trump’s views are shared by prominent skeptical scientists. University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott has said: “The fundamental point has always been this. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically selected factor (CO2) is as misguided as it gets.” “It’s scientific nonsense,” Stott added. Stott is featured in new skeptical climate change documentary Climate Hustle.

Scientists at the UN climate summit in Marrakech commended Trump’s climate views. See: Skeptical scientists crash UN climate summit, praise Trump for ‘bringing science back again’

Trump also told resident NYT warmist Tom Friedman: ‘A lot of smart people disagree with you’ on climate change. (Note: Friedman has some wacky views: Flashback 2009: NYT’s Tom Friedman lauds China’s eco-policies: ‘One party can just impose politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward’)

Once again, Trump was 100% accurate as very prominent scientists are bailing out of the so-called climate “consensus.”

Renowned Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson: ‘I’m 100% Democrat and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on climate issue, and the Republicans took the right side’

Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Dr. Ivar Giaever, Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’

Green Guru James Lovelock reverses belief in ‘global warming’: Now says ‘I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy’ – Condemns green movement: ‘It’s a religion really, It’s totally unscientific’

Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming

Trump correctly cited the  Climategate scandal: “They say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between scientists…Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about.” See: Watch & Read: 7th anniversary of Climategate – The UN Top Scientists Exposed

Trump cited his uncle, a skeptical MIT scientist: “My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject.” (Yes, other MIT scientists are very skeptical as well. See: MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Mocks 97% Consensus: ‘It is propaganda’

It is also worth noting that Trump’s often cited 2012 tweet about climate change stating “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” was clearly a joke and he has said it was a joke. It is further worth noting that climate skeptics do not believe the conecpt of “climate change” was “created” by China.

The media have created a cartoon-version view of Trump’s climate views.  If he says anything short of global warming is a hoax created by the Chinese, then the media claims Trump flip-flopped.

Trump countered: ‘We’ve had storms always, Arthur.’

Trump is accurately citing the latest climate science by noting that extreme weather is not getting worse. See: 2016 ‘State of the Climate Report’

  • The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 – the longest spell since the Civil War.
  • Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.
  • Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.
  • Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.

Trump’s claim to have an “open mind” on U.S. climate policy and his comment that “I’m going to take a look at” withdrawing from the UN Paris agreement are more nuanced than his previous blunt statements that the U.S. will cancel the UN agreement. But those comments in the context of the interview are hardly a flip-flop or major signal of changing views on the issue.

(Climate Depot Note: UN Paris climate deal ‘is likely to be history’s most expensive treaty’ – ‘Cost of between $1 trillion and $2 trillion annually’ & see: NY Mag: ‘The Climate Summit of Money’ at the UN – ‘It will cost sixteen & a half trillion dollars for world to meet its collective Paris goals)

http://www.thegwpf.com/donald-trump-on-climategate-the-paris-agrement/

Donald Trump’s New York Times Interview

President-elect Donald J. Trump during a meeting at The New York Times’s offices in Manhattan on Tuesday.

[….] THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, opinion columnist: Mr. President-elect, can I ask a question? One of the issues that you actually were very careful not to speak about during the campaign, and haven’t spoken about yet, is one very near and dear to my heart, the whole issue of climate change, the Paris agreement, how you’ll approach it. You own some of the most beautiful links golf courses in the world …

[laughter, cross talk]

TRUMP: [laughing] I read your article. Some will be even better because actually like Doral is a little bit off … so it’ll be perfect. [inaudible] He doesn’t say that. He just says that the ones that are near the water will be gone, but Doral will be in great shape. (Note: Trump’s Seawall Is About His Business, Not Global Warming – ‘Only shows Trump uses climate alarmism to benefit his business’)

[laughter]

FRIEDMAN: But it’s really important to me, and I think to a lot of our readers, to know where you’re going to go with this. I don’t think anyone objects to, you know, doing all forms of energy. But are you going to take America out of the world’s lead of confronting climate change?

TRUMP: I’m looking at it very closely, Tom. I’ll tell you what. I have an open mind to it. We’re going to look very carefully. It’s one issue that’s interesting because there are few things where there’s more division than climate change. You don’t tend to hear this, but there are people on the other side of that issue who are, think, don’t even …

SULZBERGER: We do hear it.

FRIEDMAN: I was on ‘Squawk Box’ with Joe Kernen this morning, so I got an earful of it.

[laughter]

TRUMP: Joe is one of them. But a lot of smart people disagree with you. I have a very open mind. And I’m going to study a lot of the things that happened on it and we’re going to look at it very carefully. But I have an open mind.

SULZBERGER: Well, since we’re living on an island, sir, I want to thank you for having an open mind. We saw what these storms are now doing, right? We’ve seen it personally. Straight up.

FRIEDMAN: But you have an open mind on this?

TRUMP: I do have an open mind. And we’ve had storms always, Arthur.

SULZBERGER: Not like this (sic!).

TRUMP: You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind. (Note: EPA Says That The Worst Heat Waves Occurred in The 1930s)

My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject. It’s a very complex subject. I’m not sure anybody is ever going to really know. I know we have, they say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between the scientists. Where was that, in Geneva or wherever five years ago? Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about. I absolutely have an open mind. I will tell you this: Clean air is vitally important. Clean water, crystal clean water is vitally important. Safety is vitally important.

And you know, you mentioned a lot of the courses. I have some great, great, very successful golf courses. I’ve received so many environmental awards for the way I’ve done, you know. I’ve done a tremendous amount of work where I’ve received tremendous numbers. Sometimes I’ll say I’m actually an environmentalist and people will smile in some cases and other people that know me understand that’s true. Open mind.

JAMES BENNET, editorial page editor: When you say an open mind, you mean you’re just not sure whether human activity causes climate change? Do you think human activity is or isn’t connected?

TRUMP: I think right now … well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.

They’re really largely noncompetitive. About four weeks ago, I started adding a certain little sentence into a lot of my speeches, that we’ve lost 70,000 factories since W. Bush. 70,000. When I first looked at the number, I said: ‘That must be a typo. It can’t be 70, you can’t have 70,000, you wouldn’t think you have 70,000 factories here.’ And it wasn’t a typo, it’s right. We’ve lost 70,000 factories.

We’re not a competitive nation with other nations anymore. We have to make ourselves competitive. We’re not competitive for a lot of reasons.

That’s becoming more and more of the reason. Because a lot of these countries that we do business with, they make deals with our president, or whoever, and then they don’t adhere to the deals, you know that. And it’s much less expensive for their companies to produce products. So I’m going to be studying that very hard, and I think I have a very big voice in it. And I think my voice is listened to, especially by people that don’t believe in it. And we’ll let you know.

FRIEDMAN: I’d hate to see Royal Aberdeen underwater.

TRUMP: The North Sea, that could be, that’s a good one, right?

[…]

MICHAEL D. SHEAR, White House correspondent: Mr. Trump, Mike Shear. I cover the White House, covering your administration …

TRUMP: See ya there.

[laughter]

SHEAR: Just one quick clarification on the climate change, do you intend to, as you said, pull out of the Paris Climate

TRUMP: I’m going to take a look at it.

Full interview

#

Related Links: 

UN Armed Security Shuts Down Skeptics After Trump Event – SHREDDED UN Climate Treaty at Summit – Full Video of UN Climate Cops Shutting Down Skeptics

Climate Report to UN: Trump right, UN wrong – Skeptics Deliver Consensus Busting ‘State of the Climate Report’ to UN Summit

Trump wins U.S. Presidency! Climate Skeptics Rejoice! Set to dismantle & Defund UN/EPA climate agenda!

Bjorn Lomborg: Trump’s climate plan might not be so bad after all – Clexit ‘will will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end’ – ‘So Trump’s promise to dump Paris will matter very little to temperature rises, and it will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end’

 ‘The Trump Taboo’ at UN climate summit: He is ‘omnipresent…even though nobody is saying his name’ – ‘There is a taboo word at this year’s 22nd UN climate change summit: Trump. The president-elect is omnipresent in Marrakesh. You can feel him lurking behind talks on low-carbon economies and in the cracks between climate-induced loss and damage. He’s never directly addressed, but he’s always in the room. You can tell from the anxiety in people’s voices and their disapproving headshakes, heavy with concern for what the future for action on climate change holds.’

Trump casts HUGE shadow over UN climate summit

Image result for trump shadow

1631 COMMENTS

          • “1984 is so perfect for this.”

            lol!

            Do none of you have mirrors in your houses?

            “Marc Morano is the executive director and chief correspondent of ClimateDepot. com, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Morano is also the Communications Director at CFACT, a conservative think-tank in Washington D.C. that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon Scaife.”

            http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano

              • “Still crazy after all these years!”

                Are you suggesting Marc Morano isn’t funded by the companies causing global warming?

                …or are you still trying to direct messages to yourself through the internet instead of locating a mirror?

                “The primary cause of global warming is human activity, most significantly the burning of fossil fuels to drive cars, generate electricity, and operate our homes and businesses.”

                http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/global_warming_101

                • Still quoting the Union of unConcerned Shysters, huh?

                  Have you joined them, yet?

                  As you know, the only requirement to join is a credit card. Just ask Kenji, their canine member.

                  If you can’t afford the annual membership fee, they might cut you a break since you constantly spam comment threads with quotes from them. They could write you off as an Advertising Expense.

                  Still crazy after all these years.

                  • “Still quoting the Union of [Concerned Scientists]”

                    Yes.

                    Sweetheart, are you saying Marc Morano isn’t funded by the companies causing global warming?

                    I’ve asked you this once, you know…

                    What’s wrong? Cat got your tongue?

                    “Large sums of money have been spent on highly successful disinformation campaigns, capitalizing on the public’s reluctance to act on a slowly materializing threat and fully exploiting outliers among climate scientists who downplay the risks. Polls consistently show that more than 90% of climate scientists hold that CO₂-induced climate change is underway and presents serious risks”

                    web.mit.edu/vpr/climate/MIT_Climate_Change_Conversation_Report_2015.pdf

                    • Are you saying the UCS is NOT a group of activists … who pretend to be scientists … whose only requirement to join is a credit card?

                      Are you saying the UCS does NOT have a dues-paying member that is a dog?

                      Are you saying the UCS is NOT the Union of unConcerned Shysters?

                      I’ve asked you about this before … numerous times. Why are you ignoring these questions? Cat got your tongue?

                      Still crazy after all these years.

                    • “Are you saying the UCS is NOT a group of activists”

                      I am not!

                      Are you saying Mr. Morano isn’t funded by the companies he’s writing about?

                      “Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities… The main human activity that emits CO₂ is the combustion of fossil fuels”

                      www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

                    • If you admit the UCS is just a bunch of activists, why would you dishonestly use them as a credible source to support your claims of CAGW?

                      The same is true for the EPA … political appointees, activists and bureaucrats with no expertise in science. Also not a credible source for info on CAGW.

                      Still crazy after all these years.

                    • “If you admit the UCS is just a bunch of activists, why would you dishonestly use them as a credible source to support your claims of CAGW?”

                      Your question assumes that which is not in evidence.

                      If the fossil fuel industry isn’t paying Mr. Morano, who is?

                      Are you actually too stupid to figure out a conflict of interest so obvious, Teabagger?

                      “Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago”

                      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago

                    • More of “CB’s” faux science based on lies, half-truths, attempted character assassination, smears, innuendo, obscenities, name-calling, logical fallacies, made up stuff, fake stories like ‘Exxon Knew’ … in other words, everything except actual science.

                      “CB” is the perfect representative for the faux science known as CAGW. “CB” has so little understanding of the planet that he told somebody the reason Antarctica wasn’t melting was because it’s at the bottom of the world, and faces away from the sun!!! Classic “CB.”

                      Still crazy after all these years.

                    • “fake stories like ‘Exxon Knew'”

                      …so Scientific American is making up the fact that ExxonMobil knew its product was warming the planet over four decades ago.

                      If that’s so, link to a more reliable source of information, please.

                      “Overlooked by modern researchers is the work of Eunice Foote, who, three years prior to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases, such as CO₂ and water vapor. The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856 was accompanied by speculation that even modest increases in the concentration of CO₂ could result in significant atmospheric warming.”

                      http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2011/70092sorenson/ndx_sorenson.pdf

                    • Yes, Scientific American and anybody else involved in that ridiculous affair. You know it, too. Making stuff up, and repeating made up stuff … it’s what you do. It’s all you’ve got. We’ve watched you do it for years.

                      Still crazy after all these years.

                    • “Scientific American and anybody else involved in that ridiculous affair.”

                      LOL! The affair of several centuries of undefeated scientific understanding?

                      If you think all scientists on Earth have been lying since the 1800’s, link to a more reliable source of information, please.

                      …I’ve already asked you to do this once, sweetheart…

                      “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

                      climate.nasa.gov/evidence

                    • LOL! I’m not accusing ‘all scientists on Earth’ of lying. I’m accusing YOU of lying! Like that whopper you told about Antarctica being at the ‘bottom of the world and facing away from the sun.’ You’re just as ignorant, now, as you were back then. Sweetheart.

                      Still crazy after all these years.

                    • “I’m accusing YOU of lying!”

                      Let’s see… clicking on the link I provided.

                      Nope! No, it still says precisely what I claimed it said.

                      If you think NASA and Scientific American and all the other researchers I’ve pointed you to are all lying, point to a better source of information, please.

                      Why haven’t you done that, Geezer?

                      “multiple data sources have confirmed that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate”

                      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X15000564

                    • Okay, so that’s a meme pic of a polar bear.

                      Are you an adult, Geezer?

                      psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png

                    • Humorous images are more useful … and ethical … than your endless posts of intentionally false and misleading information.

                      Don’t be petulant.

                      Still crazy after all these years.

                    • “Humorous images are more useful”

                      To what end? Proving you’re a nitwit who doesn’t know what he’s talking about? If you think the scientists I’m pointing you to are false and misleading, point to a better source of information… or is a snapshot of a polar bear the very best you can do?

                      psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

                    • My goodness! Are you still sulking?

                      The fact that you would have to ask why humor is more useful than your tiresome efforts to mislead and misinform is enlightening, if unsurprising.

                      Still crazy after all these years.

                    • Keep playing your stupid word games, “CB,” and keep arguing with yourself. It’s highly entertaining for those of us who see right through you.

                      Still crazy after all these years.

                    • you suggested scientists were “making stuff up”.

                      LOL! There you go again!

                      Buttercup … I absolutely did NOT suggest that!

                      I stated as an absolute fact … that some of them do, that you know they do, and that you spend hours every day of your pitiful existence perpetuating their faux science.

                      Climate science has been corrupted beyond recognition by politics. But, not to worry … Hillary has been defeated, Obama is on his way out, and it’s a new day in America!

                      Still crazy after all these years.

  1. I hope Trump, Drudge and all the other Non – Ocommunist news outlets continue to beat the crap out of the Liberal MSM – and work hard to put them out of business.
    They are on life support now – Most thinking folks know how ideological and corrupt they are.

      • Saying something is science to the average person today is like saying it’s Gospel to an illiterate medieval peasant. They don’t understand it and have no way to verify it for themselves. But they BELIEVE in it with all their heart. That is the level of ignorance and superstition out there which is being exploited by the AGW crowd.

        • But the victory of Trump and the Brexit indicates that a critical mass of people no long accept the lies uncritically. Both were subjected to full-press media attacks and triumphed handily. The Puppet Media’s hold on the average person is slipping.

          • Many people understand this all to be similar in substance to the sale price promise of “up to 50% off!” But yes, younger folks who were raised from teething on this propaganda have a hard time letting Santa go. But if they apply the phrase “follow the money”, they might unlearn this crap.

            • If you read the sub-text of that marketing, it has all the hallmarks of coercive propaganda – something that Marxists excel at. The “scientific consensus” argument is a classic Appeal to Authority Fallacy, with overtones of peer pressure. The “climate denier” meme really is nothing more than a charge of Heresy, with implied Excommunication for failure to recant. This method was used in Maoist self-criticism session in re-education camps.

              • Also, there are countless science research facilities that will support any hypothetical for huge sums of money. The NFL used one to frame Brady when actual science exonerated him. Goodell is currently employing several of these facilities to support his ludicrous argument that there is no connection between football and CTE’s or brain damage. Many times liberal colleges will fabricate data if the money is good enough. Science is just as rigged as Democratic electoral politics, fortunately we are seeing through their bullshit.

              • Indeed. None of those is a remotely scientific argument. Experimental proof for AGW is completely lacking and the zealots have deliberately corrupted the data. It’s a lot more the like methodology the Left uses to steal elections than any type of scientific inquiry.

                • It has many characteristics of a corrupt religion. You have original sin (industry) for which you can buy indulgences (carbon credits). There is the heresy I mentioned before (denial) and a media Inquisition to suppress heretics.

                    • “And a real president rather than a clown car loser.”

                      lol!

                      I would settle for a halfway decent pack of liars.

                      A parade of North Korean happy-clapping vote-bots and the ridiculous pile of keyboard diarrhea above is worse than pathetic. Way to not earn that salary, Morano…

                      “Marc Morano is the executive director and chief correspondent of ClimateDepot. com, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Morano is also the Communications Director at CFACT, a conservative think-tank in Washington D.C. that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon Scaife. According to 2011 IRS Forms, Morano was the highest paid staff member with a salary of $150,000 per year. Morano’s blog Climate Depot regularly publishes articles questioning man-made global warming.”

                      http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano

                    • “You are a pathological liar”

                      Maybe!

                      …or maybe you’re talking to yourself in public again.

                      That would make a lot of sense if you love people who are lying to you… wouldn’t it?

                      One would have to be mentally ill in order to engage in these odd behaviours, wouldn’t one?

                      “Trump acknowledges climate change — at his golf course. The billionaire, who called global warming a hoax, warns of its dire effects in his company’s application to build a sea wall.”

                      http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-change-golf-course-223436

                    • You really are going off the deep end CB. Your paranoia is making you dither. But that is alright. Just keep in mind that it is getting hotter and hotter out there and we are going to be producing a lot more CO2 in the future.

                    • Oh no, My mistake. You are just being prudent not paranoid.

                      And you are right, it is getting hotter and hotter out there and soon all that ice is going to melt and I hope you have your lifejacket on.

                      You should be very,very worried!

                    • “it is getting hotter and hotter out there and soon all that ice is going to melt”

                      It is getting hotter, I agree! …and the ice has been melting for quite a long time now.

                      psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png

                    • Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj25d:
                      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
                      !mj25d:
                      ➽➽
                      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash25DirectEcoGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj25d:….,……,…

                    • During the campaign Trump told Republican suckers that he was going to build a big, tall, beautiful wall along the U.S. Mexican border.

                      He isn’t even president and has turned his back on that promise. Now he is talking about building as little fence in some places along the border.

                      He said that Mexico would pay for it. Now he says that the American tax payer will pay for it.

                      The world is laughing at the American Republican Dupes who fell for Trumps obvious long litany of lies.

                    • So Trump has tamped down some of the loony things he said on the campaign.

                      I’m impressed with him, but not with you.

                    • Trump lied to you, and since you are yourself a congenital liar, you see him as one of your kind of filth.

                      Filth supports Filth.

                      Trump hasn’t finished lying to you. And you will never be finished with being the ultimate fool.

                    • Reality is a chimera. Human reality is that we must act in the face of uncertainty. There is no Democrat reality or Republican reality.

                    • “The world is laughing at the American Republican Dupes who fell for Trumps obvious long litany of lies.”

                      It would be more humorous if so much weren’t at stake.

                      Facts need to matter for democracy to function, and to Republican voters, facts now don’t seem to matter at all.

                      That’s a problem.

                      “Yes, Donald Trump did call climate change a Chinese hoax”

                      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-did-call-climate-change-chinese-h

                    • Come on CB, you have no way to tell what the “facts” are. By tour own admission, you are ignorant of all things scientific. You wouldn’t know a “fact”, if you even understood what it was.

                    • “Facts need to matter for democracy to function, and to Republican voters, facts now don’t seem to matter at all.” – CB

                      Facts haven’t mattered to Republicans for the last 35 years.

                      The Republican aide (Carl Rove) said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore.” He continued “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” – Ron Suskind

                      Americans have allowed this Republican boil to fester for 35 years. Now the infection is fatal. You have only yourselves to blame.

                      You are right about the failure of Democracy where facts are ignored.

                      You might note that American Democracy is increasingly a spectacular failure.

                    • “You might note that American Democracy is increasingly a spectacular failure.”

                      Without a doubt the method by which democracy functions in America has failed in this particular instance. Democracy, itself, seems to still be working though:

                      “Hillary Clinton’s Popular Vote Lead Increases to More Than Two Million Votes”

                      blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/11/28/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-lead-increases-to-more-than-two-million-votes

                      I would suggest American democracy really might need serious changes in order to persevere; perhaps mandatory voting, perhaps the elimination of the electoral college, and perhaps an open, ranked-choice primary system which winnows down the general election to the top 2 vote-getters.

                      We will see if any sort of democracy at all can survive the next 4 years, should the electoral college fail to appoint the person the American people chose to be president.

                    • There is no change you can make to the U.S. electoral system that will make American electorate any less the ignorant fools that they are.

                      And as long as they are fools, America will continue to be a spectacular failure.

                    • “There is no change you can make to the U.S. electoral system that will make American electorate any less the ignorant fools that they are.”

                      It is without a doubt foolishness. I’m not sure if it counts as ignorance, though… For example, is it possible there are actually people out there who aren’t aware Marc Morano is a paid liar? Is it really ignorance that explains that?

                      I say no.

                      I say these people know what they believe is a lie, and they just don’t care. The 25% of eligible voters who actually voted for the con artist-elect are suffering from a very serious mental disorder which affects every society on Earth. It is in no way limited to the citizens of the USA. It affected Germany in the 30’s, it affected Russia during the revolution, and it’s affecting any number of Western European nations right now, from the French National Front to the Golden Dawn.

                      Democracy can defeat these religious zealots, and actually has in this case! They are always a minority, out of necessity. A society where a majority of people become unmoored from reality would collapse. In this case, slightly more than 25% of eligible voters selected a reality-based candidate to lead the country, and fifty percent of eligible voters simply sat on their hands. Without the ridiculous electoral college or in a system where dropouts were legally compelled to cast a vote, I believe we would have competent leadership right now. I’m not giving up on democracy just yet.

                    • So how horrible must his opponent have been?

                      And don’t forget, many people that voted for Trump also voted for Obama.

                    • Republicans have been lying about the Clintons for the last 35 years.

                      The American people have become so stupid that they believe those lies.

                      Morons.. Morons.. Morons…

                    • Reasonable people believe. You, on the other hand, are delusional and in denial. The Clintons are scum, always have been, always will be.

                      And you’re a Useful Idiot.

                    • MUDD: I lied.

                      NORMAN: What?

                      KIRK: He lied. Everything Harry tells you is a lie. Remember that. Everything Harry tells you is a lie.

                      MUDD: Listen to this carefully, Norman. I am lying.

                      NORMAN: You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie then you are telling the truth, but you cannot tell the truth because everything you say is a lie. You lie. You tell the truth. But you cannot for. Illogical! Illogical! Please explain.

                      (Smoke comes out of Norman’s head.)

                      NORMAN: You are human. Only humans can explain their behaviour. Please explain.

                      KIRK: I am not programmed to respond in that area.

                      (Norman goes blank.)

                      SPOCK: I believe they are all immobilised, Captain.

                      KIRK: Good.

                    • Norman was a MACHINE, Not a Being.!!!..Are u Playing with a Full Deck.???…Astrophysicist.??? and you Don’t Know “Star Trek”.!?!?!?… Good thing Your Not Running the Universe.!!!

                    • “She Turned Me Into A Newt,!!!…It Got Better.!?!?”…Just like the Weather will…Leave it alone…Used to be Ice “Age” in L.A…

                    • “Newt” – Sandiago.

                      Please. No more quotes from Republicans. We are laughing enough about there idiocy already.

                    • For Someone who Pretends to know so much about, “The Meaning Of Life”. you know NOTHING about Monty Python..Get a Real Life, you SnowFlake, Before you Melt away. like the rest of the Looney Left

                    • More like 420, For a Pot Head Snowflake like you…Google “The Galaxy Song”, from “The Meaning of Life” …See how Significant you are then.!!!

                    • My primary scientific training is in astrophysics, you MORON.

                      I don’t need your silly song to know how big the universe is.

                      But you clearly do.

                    • And Yet, You give us “42”, as your Comeback…At Least you might have some sense of Humor…Which came 1st.??..The Chicken or The Universe.???…Or do you Believe, we are Just some, “Self-Replicating DNA”… That Defines Your view on “The Meaning of Life”

                    • Of course. 42 is the only possible answer, other than -1/12.

                      Silly questions are what you get when you allow a universe full of hydrogen to evolve and produce naked apes.

                    • If you think physics is bald faced lies, then why don’t you write a paper and show it. Have it peer reviewed and published.

                      If you had the capacity to do that, then you would be instantly famous and even win a Nobel.

                      But nope. You can do nothing but whine and complain that the science doesn’t agree with your world view.

                      Awwwwwwwwwwwww.. You Poor Moron.

                      I feel for you. I really do.

                      LOL!

                    • “Pause ” ?

                      You mean the “hiatus” identified by IPCC lead authors like Dr. John Fyfe in Nature Climate Change ,Sept 2013 , Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years ?

                      Those “scumbags” ?

                      Ho ! Ho ! Ho !

                      Get ready ,little climate jihadi , La Nina is coming ..another year and the “hiatus” turns 20 !

                    • “You don’t see it” ? Of course not !

                      Your graft “adjusted” the temperature record to remove it !

                      No one is fooled ,climate jihadi .

                    • “Dr. John Fyfe” – scoalpa

                      Dr. John Fyfe has never claimed that there was any hiatus. In fact his claim is simply that the rate of warming over the period from 1998 to 2014 or so was not as rapid as it had been earlier.

                      LOL. You couldn’t even get that right.

                      You lying Scumbag.

                    • Vendicar writes;
                      “Dr. John Fyfe has never claimed that there was any hiatus”

                      Oh ? Excerpt from Overestimated global warming ; where Fyfe showed temps went from 1/2 the forecast rise after 1992, to zero trend after 1998 .

                      “The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b). It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from ZERO* — suggests a temporary HIATUS*’ in global warming2–4”.

                      * emphasis mine .

                    • Suppose that chart is correct. I have no problem with that. However, you “window lickers” cannot prove that this is caused by anything. The temperature has been cyclical since the beginning of time. It is so funny listening to you window lickers say things like ” it is the biggest temperature change in 5 thousand years. Well what caused the larger change before that ??? I’m waiting you to tell me the cars they had back then were far worse then today for pollution. . . . . . . just STUPID.

                    • What do I have to do with you being a moron?

                      Are you trying to say that relative to your peers you are intelligent.

                      What does that say about your peers?

                      LOL…

                    • That was my point to begin with. The fact that the temperature is increasing doesn’t at all mean we as humans have anything to do with the increase. So why are you wetting your pants over it my GREAT BIG WINDOW LICKER? Al Gore is an idiot.

                    • “The fact that the temperature is increasing doesn’t at all mean we as humans have anything to do with the increase.” – Ira Moe

                      The fundamental laws of physics tell us that adding CO2 to the atmosphere must warm it, due to the fact that CO2 absorbs heat radiation.

                      You have greater scientific illiteracy than the average 10 year old, who has seen the Ir absorption demonstrated in their grade 5 classrooms.

                      LOL!

                      Kill yourself now. You are worthless.

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1e0cb234143e4196c0e23c2fa15726814e680a4aa5630d220f488a1c09ccaffb.jpg

                    • Poor Ira. It can’t even understand simple concepts and analogies that even a child cold understand.
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e9d0151a0abd69ff0b4242c7edb14a2871335a9ad7d674a6e4316aecd8230da8.png
                      “The temperature has been cyclical since the beginning of time.” – Ira Moe

                      So has your breathing. So you won’t mind if I prevent you from breathing for 10 to 15 minutes.

                      My goodness you are a Stupid.. Stupid… STUPID person.

                      How do you manage to lift the spoon to your ignorant mouth?

                    • You are quite the MORON Ira.

                      “It is so funny listening to you window lickers say things like ” it is the biggest temperature change in 5 thousand years.” – Ira Moe

                      The Earth is now warmer than at any time in the last 120,000 years. And in a couple of decades it will be warmer than at any time in several million years.

                      “Well what caused the larger change before that ???” – Ira Moe

                      That would depend on the change. Primarily the principle driver of Climate change has been the concentration of CO2 or other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

                      Only a complete fool would argue that the cause of death of a shooting victim can not be determined because every death in the long history of the world can not be explained.

                      And yet that is exactly the argument you are attempting to make.

                      You are that moron.

                    • https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/06c50b10ec0c5c0c53e74fdb8fa70cd43f4097a11c4ff958fe44562a29cd56a2.jpg

                      ”(a) the post-glacial climatic optimum (Boreal) occurred 8000 to 10,000 years ago, with Greenland temperatures up to 3°C to 4°C higher than now;”

                      ”(b) the temperature reached present day values in short periods during the Bølling, MIS5a and MIS 5c;”

                      Johnsen, Sigfus J., et al. 1995 “Greenland palaeotemperatures derived from GRIP bore hole temperature and ice core isotope profiles.” Tellus B

                    • https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9a35fb8d88f53d539ddbd7adf862acd6f206119e60106494fee6431133abb6b5.jpg

                      ❝…Earth… warmer than… the last 120,000 years. ❞

                      False.
                      ”Observational and palaeo-climatic evidence indicates that the Earth’s climate has varied in the past on time scales ranging from many millions of years down to a few years. Over the last two million years, glacial-interglacial cycles have occurred on a time scale of 100,000 years, with large changes in ice volume and sea level. During this time, average global surface temperatures appear to have varied by about 5-7°C. Since the end of the last ice age, about 10,000 BP, globally averaged surface temperatures have fluctuated over a range of up to 2°C on time scales of centuries or more. Such fluctuations include the Holocene Optimum around 5,000-6,000 years ago. the shorter Medieval Warm Period around 1000 AD …”

                      Folland, C. Ka, T. R. Karl, and K. Ya Vinnikov 1990. “Observed climate variations and change.” Climate change: the IPCC scientific assessment

                    • HAHAHAH YOU ARE SOOO000ooo f**king retarded. Bill Clinton tried the same trick with his famous statement ” It depends on what your definition of IS, is.” ( Bill, also a total raving idiot, libtard) However for your simple self, I shall define the word in question in its context above as CORRECT. Now if you’d be so kind as to answer the question, now that you know its meaning.

                    • Is – Definitiion

                      Third person singular present of

                      1.
                      exist.
                      “there are no easy answers”

                      synonyms: exist, have being, have existence; More
                      be present.

                      “there is a boy sitting on the step”

                      2.
                      occur; take place.

                      “the exhibition will be in November”

                      synonyms: occur, happen, take place, come about, arise, crop up, transpire, fall, materialize, ensue; More
                      occupy a position in space.

                      “the Salvation Army store was on his left”

                      synonyms: be situated, be located, be found, be present, be set, be positioned, be placed, be installed
                      “the bed is over there”
                      stay in the same place or condition.
                      “she was here until about ten-thirty”
                      synonyms: remain, stay, last, continue, survive, endure, persist, prevail; More
                      attend.
                      “the days when she was in school”
                      come; go; visit.

                      “he’s from Missouri”

                      3.
                      having the state, quality, identity, nature, role, etc., specified.
                      “Amy was 91”
                      cost.

                      “the tickets were $25”

                      amount to.
                      “one and one is two”
                      represent.
                      “let A be a square matrix of order n”
                      signify.
                      “we were everything to each other”
                      consist of; constitute.

                      “the monastery was several three-story buildings”

                      4.

                      informal
                      say.

                      “when I got there, they were like “What are you doing here?””

                    • Sorry, your not even close. . . at any point with this. And once again Please get the answer to the correct person.

                    • I’m sorry if you don’t like the dictionary definition of the word “is”. Perhaps you would now like to deny that the word exists. LOL!

                      Is – Definitiion

                      Third person singular present of

                      1.
                      exist.
                      “there are no easy answers”

                      synonyms: exist, have being, have existence; More
                      be present.

                      “there is a boy sitting on the step”

                      2.
                      occur; take place.

                      “the exhibition will be in November”

                      synonyms: occur, happen, take place, come about, arise, crop up, transpire, fall, materialize, ensue; More
                      occupy a position in space.

                      “the Salvation Army store was on his left”

                      synonyms: be situated, be located, be found, be present, be set, be positioned, be placed, be installed
                      “the bed is over there”
                      stay in the same place or condition.
                      “she was here until about ten-thirty”
                      synonyms: remain, stay, last, continue, survive, endure, persist, prevail; More
                      attend.
                      “the days when she was in school”
                      come; go; visit.

                      “he’s from Missouri”

                      3.
                      having the state, quality, identity, nature, role, etc., specified.
                      “Amy was 91”
                      cost.

                      “the tickets were $25”

                      amount to.
                      “one and one is two”
                      represent.
                      “let A be a square matrix of order n”
                      signify.
                      “we were everything to each other”
                      consist of; constitute.

                      “the monastery was several three-story buildings”

                      4.

                      informal
                      say.

                      “when I got there, they were like “What are you doing here?””

                    • Another unattributed graph .. What, did you draw that on your napkin at home? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5dda5608578423ba2117fd6cc03cd8e0028f442986a7bfa5c805733bb71680f4.jpg

                      Coddington, Odele, et al. 2015 ”A Solar Irradiance Climate Data Record.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

                      TIM Reconstruction data: http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_TIM_Reconstruction.txt

                      Convenient, on-line linear regression analysis web site:

                      http://www.alcula.com/calculators/statistics/linear-regression/

                      Plug in the data … cut-n-paste. The TSI is approximately quartered, when figuring in the rotation of the earth and the spread from pole to pole; the Albedo reflection also weakens the TSI, so the 0.836 W/m^2 increase is not directly comparable to the ¾ W/m^2 of “retained heat” … but the new TSI values contradict the adage that the sun’s energy has been slowly decreasing since 1960 (it has been slightly decreasing, but, since 1995, not 1960).

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/144743fc1633f1f66bf12739c230fe71969d8fab52e89a9848a1b0473aa0757b.jpg

                      The TSI is not the big thing… it is the SSI. You seem intelligent enough to realize that the sun’s spectra … from the near infrared to the hard X-Ray … is not absorbed by the Earth’s environment, in the exact same way? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f7708f85bdd817a9ab0b3aebea8d82ef5271ebbc9c52655864226fa7cf537398.jpg

                    • Liar.. Liar… Pants on fire…

                      “Science once said the world was flat!”” – Ira Mo Retard

                      Only morons like you ever thought the world was flat.

                      The radius of the earth was calculated accurately in 240 BC. by the Greek astronomer Eratosthenes .

                      The fact that the world is a sphere was known at least a thousand years earlier than that, before science even existed.

                    • HAHAHAHA What a bozo ! You are now the worlds most renown authority on history as well! You are only making yourself look like a bigger fool then before ! HAHAHA !!! PS. Do me a favor the next time you see your parents and slap them for doing such a shitty job of being a parents !! HAHAHAHA

                    • Can you name a single scientist who has seriously claimed that the world is flat.

                      Flat Earthers have always been fools like yourself who are detached from reality, and who regurgitate what they are told and are incapable of thinking rationally for themselves.

                      I watched the early morning crescent moon a few days ago. The crescent was, (unlike you), thin, clear, and brilliant. In addition the full disk of the moon was clearly well lit and visible.

                      Any simple fool sitting around a fire would see the same pattern of lighting in the rocks around the fire, and the heads of those sitting beside them. And just as those objects would be roughly spheres, so to as it would plainly be obvious, would be the moon, and hence the earth.

                      Ira Moe is a fool.

                    • Do you not understand A-B testing? BTW – science allowed Newton to figure out The Calculus (unless you’re a Leibniz fan). It was settled science. Then the guy Einstein came along. Oops. Seems Netwonian science didn’t actually “…allow[s] you to figure out how things work” after all. BTW, livescience.com is aimed at those with a 10th grade education. I’m assuming you’re right about there.

                    • It was a reference to the Leibniz/Newton tussle. Go reread the comment. Newtonian physics. Read it. Then read Einstein and Higgs. Bottom line: you’re putting forth a false narrative

                    • “It was a reference to the Leibniz” – Taluca Lake

                      Ya, and it was childishly wrong.

                      You have exposed yourself as a moron and a fool.

                    • It could be argued that mathematics is a form of science. Most scientists and mathematicians would say it stands apart from physical science since it mathematics is about discerning patterns in the relationships between numbers.

                    • Don’t be silly. You could also say “math is a form of art.” Pythagoras thought of mathematics in spiritual terms.

                    • Mathematicians in early history thought of algebra as something that exited and was awaiting discovery. The discovery of something is fundamentally different than the creation of something (art). So few mathematicians in history have seen Math as an art form.

                    • “science allowed Newton to figure out The Calculus (unless you’re a Leibniz fan). It was settled science.” – Taluca Lake

                      Calculus is still settled mathematical science. In fact it is on stronger ground today than it was in Newton’s time.

                      “Then the guy Einstein came along” – Taluca Lake

                      Einstein didn’t change anything about calculus. Calculus is a mathematical technique that Einstein regularly used.

                      You are confusing calculus with Newtonian physics.

                      That kind of confusion is like confusing a banana with the color blue. They aren’t even in the same class of thing.

                      “Seems Netwonian science didn’t actually “…allow[s] you to figure out how things work”” – Taluca Lake

                      Newtonian physics works well enough to send men to the moon, spacecraft to Mars and the spoon to your lips.

                      Einsteinian mechanics is a minor modification to how Newtons laws of motion work.

                      In fact we know that Einstein view is wrong too, since it is incompatible with quantum mechanics.

                      And of course none of this stops Newton from accurately predicting how everything in the normal world works, how and why the wind blows, how and why the rain falls etc.

                      You are an ignorant fool to think or claim otherwise.

                      Moron.

                    • There are many things that go by the name “science.” I put climate science in the same bucket as political science.

                    • The difference of course is that Climate Science is based on the laws of physics. Political science is based upon the fact that gullible fools like yourself are easy to lie to if those lies fit your fantasy conservative world view.

                    • I know the physics. Problem is that the measurement are too imprecise and the parameters are too chaotic. Consequently you get statements like “climate sensitivity is 1.5C to 4.5C” which are laughably unhelpful, and reveal that much of the physics is just guesswork. Indeed the IPCC TAR admits that the atmosphere is “…. .a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system.”

                    • “”climate sensitivity is 1.5C to 4.5C” which are laughably unhelpful” – David Russell

                      Actually it is a very precise prediction given that it is around 1 percent of the distance from absolute zero.

                      1.5 and 4.5 are of course the statistical outliers, and the real value is closest to about 3’C.

                      This seems reasonable since we have already seen a rise of around 1.1’C

                      Given the rate of CO2 increase we can expect to see a doubling reached in 2060 if not before. So by 2060 we will have committed ourselves to a 3’C warming in the short term and something like 5’C in the long term.

                      To put that into perspective, a rise of 8’C is a human extinction level event.

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4806625d7eedda7d2f505793189368ae6a9b8fa6c6713a205b2f80aecbc297a1.gif

                    • ECS is unscientific malarkey, as it’s unverifiable.

                      1.5C to 3.5C is laughable. 1.5C is “no problema.” 4.5C is “we all gonna fry.” Your “it’s only 1% the distance from absolute zero” statement is silly.

                      The “real value” is unknown. All the science can come up with is 1.1C from the Myhre radiative forcing of CO2 — F=5.35 x Ln(2) = 3.71W/M2 = ~1.1. Anything above that is from assumed positive feedbacks which are not found in nature.

                      AGW to date (say from 1880) is generally agreed to by .8C. Using Myhre’s formula you can get about .5C of that due to CO2 and the rest due to ‘other factors.’ (we were just coming out of the very cold LIA after all, so some natural warming is to be expected, no?).

                    • “The “real value” is unknown.” – Pure idiocy

                      The real value is 2.5 +/- 1’C

                      All measurements and calculations in science have error bars.

                      Awwwww. Poor you.

                    • Your pending death isn’t verifiable either. Therefore by your reasoning, you are immortal.

                      Hahahahahahahahahahah…….

                      My goodness you are stupid.

                    • No scientist would say, “David Russell will not live forever.” That is not a scientific claim, but rather a practical matter of fact. Science that is unverifiable is pseudo-science.

                    • Not only any scientist would say it, but any sane person would agree.

                      “No scientist would say, “David Russell will not live forever.”” – David Russell

                      What is your excuse for thinking otherwise?

                      LOL.

                    • “1.5C is “no problema.”” – Pure Ignorance

                      1.5 is the TCR and represents a LCR of about 2.5 to 3’C (long term), which is 1/4 the way to a civilization level extinction event.

                      “4.5C is “we all gonna fry” – Pure Ignorance

                      Climate criminals who are promoting that kind of disaster should be fried, I agree, in an electric chair. Their crime. Treason against man and nature.

                      A TCR of 4.5 guarantees a LCR of 8’C which is a human extinction level event.

                      That is what you are proposing for your great grand children.

                    • 1.5C is the low end of the ECS in fact (1.5-4.5). Since TCR is all there is, and 1.1C is the TCR for CO2 alone, 1.5C may be the right value everything considered (like methane and N2O)

                      It all hangs on the feedbacks, of which water vapor is the main one, and 12 years of NVAP data (1987-2001) show flat tropospheric water vapor during a period of rising CO2 and temps.

                    • Liar.. Liar.. Pants on fire…

                      “Since TCR is all there is” – David Russel.

                      It is self evident that water has a higher heat capacity than air. It follows by definition then that a volume of water must absorb more energy to raise it’s temperature a degree compared to the amount of energy needed by the same volume of air. From this it follows that the Earth’s oceans will take substantially longer to warm than the earth’s atmosphere.

                      Estimates show that once a higher land surface temperature is reached, it takes the oceans somewhere around 800 years to reach thermal equilibrium with the lower troposphere.

                      Since 2/3rds of the earth’s surface is ocean, global surface temperatures are largely a function of ocean temperature.

                      It therefore follows that given a degree of surface warming, approximately 800 years will pass before the total warming seen, since it will take that long for the oceans to reach thermal equilibrium.

                      The warming is non-linear of course, with virtually all of the additional warming occurring in the 200 years that follow the initial surface warming.

                      In terms of magnitude, the additional warming to a sudden increase in land temperatures, will roughly equal the warming first seen on land.

                      So a 3’C TCR (T = Transient), results in a 5’C to 6’C in the hundred or so years that follow.

                      This Long term response is known as the LCR. (L = Long).

                      The following graphic shows the relationship.
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4806625d7eedda7d2f505793189368ae6a9b8fa6c6713a205b2f80aecbc297a1.gif

                    • Liar.. Liar.. Pants on fire…

                      “the oceans warm the air (as you admit)”

                      No where in the post that you are responding to was anything of the kind said.

                      You have reading comprehension problems boy. LOL!

                      “The oceans not going to equilibriate”- David Russell

                      The following graph showing the correlation between surface temperatures and deep ocean temperature shows that on the time scales of a thousand years or so, the deep ocean (and hence the surface ocean waters), are in dynamic equilibrium with air temperature.

                      LOL! Can’t you get anything right?

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b2bd3b56fd439e1594f5bd9eb96d27216915a783527f8c32e16d1afa4bdbce5b.jpg

                    • I amend my statement as follows: “As the oceans warm the air (which you were unaware of)….” How’s that?

                    • You act as if one causes the other … but, both are caused by factors external to the two.
                      Correlation is no evidence for causation.

                    • Liar.. Liar.. Pants on fire…

                      “the only way the deep ocean is heated is from volcanos” – David Russell

                      So there is no thermal conduction of energy downward through the water column?

                      Hahahahahahahahaha…….

                      That would be a direct violation of the fundamental principles of thermodynamics wouldn’t it?

                      Hahahahahahahahah…………….

                      My goodness you are ignorant.

                    • “There is no thermal conduction down through the water column. Heat rises.” – David Russell

                      Collisions on the atomic scale are time reversable. Hence heat flows in all directions through the water column, and any surface of water is in near perfect thermal equilibrium with the water on either side of the layer.

                      In addition convection causes water to mix through all layers of the ocean.

                      In addition radiative coupling in any material is omni-directional provided that the radiation isn’t the result of emission stimulation by passing photons.

                      Your comprehension of science is that of a grade 8 level student David.

                    • That all makes sense theoretically but the energy from the sun (the only energy warming the ocean from above) doesn’t penetrate AT ALL down below the Twilight Layer. The ‘warm’ water above the Twilight Layer keeps the cold water below from getting colder, but it doesn’t warm it. Some 98% of the ocean is below the mixed layer (say top 200 meters, where the solar energy is well mixed by turbulence). Then down to 1000′ or so you have very little turbulence and very little solar energy — the Twilight Layer. Below that is 80% of the ocean which receives no solar energy.

                    • Wow, you lecture us, with absolutely no references or citations … What, we’re supposed to believe you, because you said it?
                      WW2 submarines successfully ‘hid’ under the thermohalocline … they still do, today.

                      ❝… convection causes water to mix through all layers of the ocean.❞

                      There’s proper science for the non-mixing of layers…

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/596f4dfbdf1211dea72cbfaea54ca5a8a3d9fbb8bbca2675cb75cc7e8ec6e183.png

                      Polyakov 2004: ”Isolated from drifting ice by a fresh and cold surface layer, the intermediate [warm and salty Atlantic water] carries vast quantities of heat. … Released into the upper ocean, this heat has the potential to melt substantial quantities of Arctic ice.”
                      Polyakov, I. V., et al. 2004 “Variability of the intermediate Atlantic water of the Arctic Ocean over the last 100 years.” Journal of Climate

                      Shimada 2006: ”The spatial pattern of recent ice reduction in the Arctic Ocean is similar to the distribution of warm Pacific Summer Water (PSW) that interflows the upper portion of halocline in the southern Canada Basin. Increases in [Pacific Summer Water] temperature in the basin are also well-correlated with the onset of sea-ice reduction that began in the late 1990s. However, increases in [Pacific Summer Water] temperature in the basin do not correlate with the temperature of upstream source water in the northeastern Bering Sea, suggesting that there is another mechanism which controls these concurrent changes in ice cover and upper ocean temperature. We propose a feedback mechanism whereby the delayed sea-ice formation in early winter, which began in 1997/1998, reduced internal ice stresses and thus allowed a more efficient coupling of anticyclonic wind forcing to the upper ocean. This, in turn, increased the flux of warm [Pacific Summer Water] into the basin and caused the catastrophic changes.”

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5c921999cfe7525cee93ab7e1845ba7330601169b39047fb0288dc9d5f9222b8.jpg

                      Shimada, Koji, et al. 2006 “Pacific Ocean inflow: Influence on catastrophic reduction of sea ice cover in the Arctic Ocean.” Geophysical Research Letters

                      Feely 2008:
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5df9a10606d98a4c9e5741217ce5454c81c3d1e0e0aed8670ebb10c6424ef523.jpg
                      Feely, Richard A., et al. 2008 “Evidence for upwelling of corrosive” acidified” water onto the continental shelf.” Science

                      I guess it depends upon what you mean by … near perfect

                      ❝…water is in near perfect thermal equilibrium with the water on either side of the layer.❞

                    • ❝…a direct violation of the fundamental principles of thermodynamics…❞

                      Fundamental…. but there is a lot more, to thermodynamics, than the fundamentals. This stuff is complicated difficult. Not first year stuff.

                      The magnitude of the supposed ‘global warming’ is small. The natural variations are large

                      ”… given that the climate system changes and feedback we are trying to observe are small compared to the internal variability of the climate system, and given that at long time scales instrument calibration is the dominant error source, such a paradigm shift is critically needed.”

                      Loeb, Norman G., Wenying Su, and Meiji Kato 2016. “Understanding Climate Feedbacks and Sensitivity Using Observations of Earth’s Energy Budget.” Current Climate Change Reports

                      Liang, Wunsch, Heimbach, Forget 2015: ”Estimated values of recent oceanic heat uptake are on the order of a few tenths of a W/m^2, and are a very small residual of air–sea exchanges, with annual average regional magnitudes of hundreds of W/m^2. … ”

                      ”Estimates of the patterns of oceanic heat exchange with the atmosphere (e.g., Stammer et al. 2004) have an annual average range of hundreds of W/m^2 of both signs, with much larger seasonal extremes. Finding and understanding a residual oceanic warming even as large as 1 W/m^2, with useful accuracy, requires considerable insight into the distribution and physics of the exchanges.”

                      Liang, Wunsch, Heimbach, Forget 2015 “Vertical redistribution of oceanic heat content.” Journal of Climate

                      NOAA says, ”Determining human-induced climate change from the observational record is difficult. Across North America there is strong interannual to decadal and multidecadal variability of precipitation, which means that observed trends, even over very long time periods, could arise from natural variability.”

                      ”It has already been shown that human-induced precipitation changes to date across North America are small compared to natural interannual variability (Seager and Hoerling 2014).”

                      http://cpo.noaa.gov/sites/cpo/MAPP/Task%20Forces/DTF/californiadrought/california_drought_report.pdf

                      ”Success in the quest for a global atmospheric δ13C(δt) re cord has been limited because the fractionation response of individual trees to environmental and physiological factors is complicated. Tree δ13C(δt) records of the last 200 years often differ, substantially, in trend [Francey,1981;Penget al., 1983]”

                      Stuiver, Minze, R. L. Burk, and Paul D. Quay 1984. “13C/12C ratios in tree rings and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

                      Wielicki 2013: Climate change, however, consists of very small changes in distributions of geophysical variables … Typical decadal changes are much less than 1% and clearly are small perturbations.”

                      Wielicki, Bruce A., et al. 2013 “Achieving climate change absolute accuracy in orbit.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

                      ”… by the fact that the anthropogenic climate change signal during the second half of the twentieth century is small compared to the noise associated with natural climate variability. ”

                      Previdi & Polvani 2016 “Anthropogenic Impact on Antarctic Surface Mass Balance, Currently Masked by Natural Variability, to Emerge by Mid-Century” Environmental Research Letters

                      ”These climate change signals of O(1 W/m^2) for heat and O(1 cm/yr) for freshwater are far below any expected observational accuracy globally or in polar regions. … Unachievable standards should not be a deterrent to efforts at improvement: significant scientific gains could be made if the uncertainty in heat and freshwater flux estimates (as crudely estimated by the spread in modern products) could be improved by an order of magnitude.”

                      Wick, Gary, et al. 2016 “High-latitude ocean and sea ice surface fluxes.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

                    • “Indeed the IPCC TAR admits that the atmosphere is “…. .a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system.” – David Russell

                      Fortunately, one of the helpful characteristics of chaotic systems is that the state of the system orbits one or more attractors, and hence the average state of the system is computable.

                    • Not really in the case of the climate. Measurements are too messy and too much is not measured at all, but rather parameterized.

                    • Just as 12 years is insufficient time over which global temperature change can be deduced from background noise, 12 years is equally insufficient to detect changes in global average humidity.

                      You are a fool to believe otherwise.

                      “12 years of NVAP data (1987-2001) show flat tropospheric water vapor during a period of rising CO2 and temps.” – David Russell

                    • Your above is absurd on its face. The temperature ACTUALLY did change in those 12 years, as did the CO2ppm. What DID NOT change is the water vapor content of the troposphere.

                      Thus whatever was going on, there could be no positive water vapor feedback. QED

                    • “The temperature ACTUALLY did change in those 12 years” – david russell

                      So you freely admit then, that the denialists who claim that there has been no change in global temperature over the last 20 years, are lying scumbags.

                      Very good, you are making some progress.

                    • Liar.. Liar.. Pants on fire.. Once again.

                      “You are wrong again. NVAP covered 1989-2001.” – David Russell

                      The thick green line in the figure above is the global humidity anomaly (data from NOAA), with its best fit linear trend as the blue dashed line. Over this time period, the water content has risen by about 5%. The thin blue line is the history of the El Niño – La Niña oscillation — the seesaw sloshing of warm water back and forth along the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Positive values (scale on the left) indicate an El Niño year when more of the warm water sloshes over to the eastern Pacific (the South American side); negative values mean the warm water is pooled up on the western side near Indonesia. As can be seen, some of the fluctuations in global humidity correspond to the El Niño history, with more moisture generally associated with an El Niño year. But the general trend is rising humidity, and the El Niño history does not show a similar rise — this tells us that while El Niño is important, the underlying trend is more likely related to a warmer planet.

                      https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/558

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e1415d706b4ce431a99c5700fb5646f269697220de412aac82f07f8ca2f78c9d.png

                    • You are being disingenuous. Your previous post cackled about my NVAP data showing a temperature rise DURING THE PAUSE which “denier say had flat temps”.

                      NVAP did NOT cover the pause, although it did overlap a bit.

                      And again, your NOAA graph is contradicted by NASA NVAP data:

                      http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4730

                    • Your link to “friendsofscience” is link to an oil industry front group. LOL.

                      Several of the members of that group were sanctioned by the University of Alberta for claiming that
                      their nonsense blog was the official position of the University of Alberta.

                      Further, the scientists who collected the NVAP data clearly state that the data can not be used for Climate analysis since the methods and standards used while collecting the data changed significantly over the observing period.

                      Finally, the observing period was only 12 years, and not long enough to constitute a valid climate time series. Variability is just too high over a 12 year period to say anything that is statistically significant.

                      LOL.

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d417f7a8a927588352665368fd10fa78f661e9f01deccaf33c4b57a8dd7676fa.png

                    • Squirm, squiggle all you like the data speak for themselves. The data are from NASA and they could be posted by Exxon for all I care. Indeed, if I were Exxon, this is the kind of data I would publicize widely.

                      The claim the data can’t be used because of changes in the ‘methods and standards’ changed over 14 year is pure nonsense. What long term monitoring process can avoid that charge?

                      The 12 (actually 14) year time period is plenty long enough. It’s not about ‘establishing a time series.’ It’s about showing NO INCREASE in water vapor over a 14 year period of rising temps and CO2 levels. IT DRIVES A STAKE THROUTH THE HEART of the enhanced carbon dioxide warming thesis.

                      Game. Set. Match.

                    • LOL! The scientists who collected the data tell you that it can’t be used for time series reconstruction.

                      You in your infinite ignorance demand that it can.

                      Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

                      Statement on Using Existing NVAP Dataset (1988 – 2001) for Trends
                      (Tom Vonder Haar and the NVAP production team, July 2010)

                      This statement summarizes our thoughts in regard to the frequently asked question
                      “What is the trend in global water vapor from the NVAP (NASA Water Vapor Dataset)?”.
                      While other datasets (radiosonde, microwave ocean-only) have been used for trend
                      studies (e.g. see IPCC AR4), NVAP is unique in that it covers global land and ocean by
                      combining a variety of input sources. The NVAP dataset (available at the NASA Langley
                      DAAC Data Center) has been used in hundreds of studies of water vapor and has
                      proven to be valuable for daily to interannual variability studies (monsoon, ENSO, MJO
                      etc.). Like many related climate datasets (precipitation, clouds), NVAP was originally
                      designed for weather and process studies and not to detect climate trends.

                      There are several natural events and especially data and algorithmic time-dependent
                      biases that cause us to conclude that the extant NVAP dataset is not currently suitable
                      for detecting trends in total precipitable water (TPW) or layered water vapor on decadal
                      scales. These include:

                      • Several changes in the NOAA Tiros Operational Vertical Sounder (TOVS)
                      retrievals during the 1990’s. And lack of any instrument-to-instrument calibration
                      when the dataset was produced. TOVS data provides much of the information
                      over land.

                      • Changes in the microwave ocean algorithm and supporting data (sea ice, sea
                      surface temperature), and lack of any intercalibration of the Special Sensor
                      Microwave / Imager (SSM/I) instruments onboard six different satellites.
                      Radiance intercalibration of this important dataset is just beginning to appear in
                      2010.

                      • Production of NVAP in four steps during the 1990’s, with new instruments as they
                      became available.

                      • Large natural geophysical events occurring during the time period (1987 ENSO
                      and transition to 1988 La Nina at the beginning of the record; Pinatubo eruption
                      in 1991, large 1997-1998 El Nino. Whether or not one uses these events in a
                      trend study can impact the slope of the trend line.

                      The NVAP dataset now available to the public has never been reanalyzed. A reanalysis
                      effort should be a natural part of a climate dataset, as the first trend studies often
                      uncover previously unknown errors in the data. At this time, we cannot prove or
                      disprove a robust trend due to atmospheric changes with NVAP, as we stated in our
                      2005 paper “Water Vapor Trends and Variability from the Global NVAP Dataset” at the
                      16th AMS Symposium on Global Change and Climate Variations.

                      Using lessons learned from the existing NVAP data and knowledge including the factors
                      listed above, a reanalysis effort is now underway to produce and extend the NVAP water
                      vapor record. This effort is supported by the NASA Making Earth Science Data Records
                      for Use in Research Environments (MEaSUREs) program

                      Game. Set. Match. LOL!

                    • I’m getting bored with your constant repetition of irrelevancies. This above adds something however, to wit: the NVAP has never been ‘reanalyzed.’ Presumably this ‘reanalysis’ might (as in MAYBE) find errors. Ok So what? Why haven’t the NVAP data been reanalyzed? By the way, your above is dated 2010, My Clive Best presentation was dated 2016. It doesn’t show the spike in the 1998 el Nino which suggests to me that the NVAP data HAVE BEEN REANALZED in the interim.

                      Reanalyzed or not, the NVAP data show NO EVIDENCE of positive water vapor resulting for CO2-driven warming, and without the extra water vapor there can be no enhanced greenhouse effect.

                    • LOL.. Translation. Facts mean nothing to you.

                      Hahahahahahahaha….. That is why you are a perpetual failure, and scientifically illiterate.

                    • “Failure” huh? I’ve cleaned your clock….. every time. Oh, you think you’ve scrapped my knee from the drubbing you’ve been giving it with your groin.

                    • From the NASA NVAP web site.

                      “Changes in algorithms result in time series (almost) unuseable for climate studies” – NASA NVAP

                      “The NASA Water Vapor Project (NVAP) total column water vapor (aka, precipitable water) data sets comprise a combination of radiosonde observations, Television and Infrared Operational Satellite (TIROS) Operational Vertical Sounders (TOVS), and Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) data sets. These data sets span 14 years (1988 – 2001) and contain total and layered global water vapor data.”

                      LOL.

                    • Data are data. Anyone can see that the NVAP data show “no water vapor feedback” because the water vapor doesn’t increase in the 14 years of the covered period while CO2 levels and temps increased quite materially.

                      What NASA does NOT say is that the data are corrupt, or mismeasured somehow. It’s more like “Pay not attention to the man behind the curtain.”

                      Clearly this NVAP project data drive a stake through the heart of dangerous AGW.

                      The statement you quote is a POLITICAL statement not a scientific one. These guys are scared out of their mind by what they discovered.

                    • LOL. You keep being told that NVAP isn’t a reliable time series. Yet you persist in lying about it.
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9cf3b0569b92c6e7fcc699c3b5a3625269c7b90743cc45c0187b1b4e7a3d3994.jpg
                      The heritage NVAP dataset contains several time-dependent artifacts which make trend
                      detection difficult (Trenberth et al. 2005). These artifacts are a major hindrance to full use of
                      this dataset for studies of decadal patterns in global water vapor. While some improvements to
                      the processing methodology were made with each processing phase of heritage NVAP, the entire
                      dataset has never been reanalyzed or reprocessed. This results in several discontinuities in the
                      data when the processing methodology or input data suddenly changed. The Hövmoller diagram
                      in Figure 1a illustrates the biases introduced to the monthly zonal water vapor anomalies with
                      each change of processing methodology and input datasets. The changes that caused these biases
                      include changes to the SSM/I retrieval algorithm and topography masking in beginning in 1993,
                      changes to the NOAA operational TOVS algorithm in early 1996 and mid-1998, and the addition
                      of many sensors to NVAP-NG in 2000. The corresponding plot for NVAP-M is in Fig. 1c.

                      NASA WATER VAPOR PROJECT – MEaSUREs
                      (NVAP-M)
                      ALGORITHM THEORETICAL BASIS DOCUMENT
                      Version 2
                      Thomas Vonder Haar, PI
                      John Forsythe
                      Janice Bytheway

                      https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/project/nvap/NVAP_M_ATBD_Feb2013.pdf

                      Global Humidity anomaly shown below.

                    • I’ll take NASA over these other individuals. But I will note that excepting the spike for the 1998 el Nino this graph of yours shows little or no additional water vapor for the 2 decades beginning somewhat before 1990.

                    • Hahahahaah.. Here is what NASA says…

                      Statement on Using Existing NVAP Dataset (1988 – 2001) for Trends
                      (Tom Vonder Haar and the NVAP production team, July 2010)
                      This statement summarizes our thoughts in regard to the frequently asked question
                      “What is the trend in global water vapor from the NVAP (NASA Water Vapor Dataset)?”.

                      While other datasets (radiosonde, microwave ocean-only) have been used for trend
                      studies (e.g. see IPCC AR4), NVAP is unique in that it covers global land and ocean by
                      combining a variety of input sources. The NVAP dataset (available at the NASA Langley
                      DAAC Data Center) has been used in hundreds of studies of water vapor and has
                      proven to be valuable for daily to interannual variability studies (monsoon, ENSO, MJO
                      etc.). Like many related climate datasets (precipitation, clouds), NVAP was originally
                      designed for weather and process studies and not to detect climate trends.
                      There are several natural events and especially data and algorithmic time-dependent
                      biases that cause us to conclude that the extant NVAP dataset is not currently suitable
                      for detecting trends in total precipitable water (TPW) or layered water vapor on decadal
                      scales. These include:

                      • Several changes in the NOAA Tiros Operational Vertical Sounder (TOVS)
                      retrievals during the 1990’s. And lack of any instrument-to-instrument calibration
                      when the dataset was produced. TOVS data provides much of the information
                      over land.

                      • Changes in the microwave ocean algorithm and supporting data (sea ice, sea
                      surface temperature), and lack of any intercalibration of the Special Sensor
                      Microwave / Imager (SSM/I) instruments onboard six different satellites.
                      Radiance intercalibration of this important dataset is just beginning to appear in
                      2010.

                      • Production of NVAP in four steps during the 1990’s, with new instruments as they
                      became available.

                      • Large natural geophysical events occurring during the time period (1987 ENSO
                      and transition to 1988 La Nina at the beginning of the record; Pinatubo eruption
                      in 1991, large 1997-1998 El Nino. Whether or not one uses these events in a
                      trend study can impact the slope of the trend line.

                      The NVAP dataset now available to the public has never been reanalyzed. A reanalysis
                      effort should be a natural part of a climate dataset, as the first trend studies often
                      uncover previously unknown errors in the data. At this time, we cannot prove or
                      disprove a robust trend due to atmospheric changes with NVAP, as we stated in our
                      2005 paper “Water Vapor Trends and Variability from the Global NVAP Dataset” at the
                      16th AMS Symposium on Global Change and Climate Variations.

                      Using lessons learned from the existing NVAP data and knowledge including the factors
                      listed above, a reanalysis effort is now underway to produce and extend the NVAP water
                      vapor record. This effort is supported by the NASA Making Earth Science Data Records
                      for Use in Research Environments (MEaSUREs) program

                      (http://esdswg.eosdis.nasa.gov/measures/#). The new dataset covering 20+ years
                      will be available to the public in 2012 or 2013. Updates on the status and availability of
                      this data will be posted at the NVAP-MEaSURES project website

                    • I’m not reading your above, which is merely a copy/paste from countless (boring) prior posts of yours. I’ve obliterated this point. Now man up, admit you are wrong, and move on.

                    • “incomprehensible mish mash” – David Russell

                      LOL! It only appears that way to scientific illiterates such as yourself.

                      But because of your scientific illiteracy you know better than the experts who created the data set that you refer to, and they must accept your demand that it be used for time series analysis, even when they claim that it can not be reliably used for such.

                      Hahahahahahaha… Now proclaim victory and run away, incompetent.

                      Hahahahahahahah….

                    • I’m just your typical right wing voter like david russell, but I find the very best way of gaining knowledge is ignoring the actual science (the peer reviewed studies are for sissies and takes time away from my chest thumping about how smart I am), and instead heading right to the right wing denier blogs and listening to fox news and Rush Limbaugh 24/7. They interpret that stuff for me. If you can’t explain it in 140 characters or less, I’m out.

                      Just like the other day. When scientists announced the discovery of water on Mars recently, Rush Limbaugh drew the obvious conclusion: It was all part of a conspiratorial plot. See easy! I’m all informed up.
                      /snark I kid, I kid, not really true, do not try this at home 🙂

                    • It is incomprehensible to anyone (including you). It’s an obvious cut and paste from the [lack of] formatting. It refers to charts that aren’t there.

                      I’ve obliterated you on every point so your constant “LOL’s” and “Liar Liars” only make you look silly.

                      Stop the trash talk.

                    • IT would be helpful if you put it in quotes, and removed the formatting “line feeds” or “carriage returns” (and let Disqus place them). IT is quote hard to tell what it is, that you’re saying, vs. what it is, that your are quoting.

                    • IT would be helpful if you put it in quotes, and removed the formatting “line feeds” or “carriage returns” (and let Disqus place them). IT is quote hard to tell what it is, that you’re saying, vs. what it is, that your are quoting.

                    • Liar.. Liar… Pants on fire..

                      “Anyone can see that the NVAP data show “no water vapor feedback” – David Russell

                      The scientists who have collected the NVAP data claim that it can not be effectively used for year on year comparison because the data collection instruments and methods changed over the 12 year data set.

                      They have also told you – as have I – that any trend over such a short interval has no statistical significance.

                      LOL!

                      And Oh, by the way, Water Vapor Feedback is not as you assert, an increase in global humidity that accompanies an increase in temperature. It is a magnification of the amount of energy trapped by the lower atmosphere as global humidity increases due to CO2 enhanced warming.

                      You probably aren’t even aware enough to understand the difference.

                      Hahahahahahahahah… U Stuuuuuuuupid…..

                    • I’ve already refuted this nonsense.

                      Your “by the way” point misses the barn. It is a correct statement, but irrelevant. My point here is that the positive water vapor feedback requires MORE WATER VAPOR in the atmosphere…… which is not present in the NVAP data. Therefore because the extra water vapor isn’t there, there can be not enhanced effect.

                    • “The statement you quote is a POLITICAL statement not a scientific one” – David Russell

                      Ya, when scientists tell you that their data can’t be reliably used for time series analysis due to changes in observing instruments, methods and analysis, it is a political statement.

                      It’s pure communiz.

                      Hahahahahahahahah…. You are a pathetic, self deluded, fool David Russell.

                    • You seem to revel in making the same flawed point over and over. I’ve refuted this point of yours already. Stop repeating inanities.

                    • Liar.. Liar.. Pants on fire…

                      “NVAP covered 1989 – 2001”

                      I said nothing about NVAP in the response above.

                      Why did you feel the need to lie about it? Hahahahahahahahaha…

                    • It was I WHO SUPPORTED MY CLAIM with NVAP data. You are ignorant of it (among other things). You are beginning to sound deranged.

                    • From the NVAP web site…

                      “Changes in algorithms result in (NVAP) time series (almost) unuseable for climate studies”

                      LOL!

                      So why are you trying to use it to make claims about climate?

                      Looooooooooooossssssssssseeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

                    • Your quote is not a sentence (no verb). Presumably there is a missing “are.”

                      The claim doesn’t mean anything to me. What does it mean to you? Does it mean that the NVAP data are inaccurate? If it does, why not say so? Better: why not disavow NVAP altogether?

                      Maybe it only means “First we had NVAP (1988-2001) and then we have NVAP-M, which runs through 2010. So use NVAP-M.”

                      You seem to presume that your quote means the data are somehow “bad” or “suspect.” But that’s not what it says. It’s in fact only a meaningless sound-bite.

                      Look, Vendicar, the NVAP data show no pickup in tropospheric water vapor over a 14 year period of rising temps and CO2. That drives a stake through the heart of calamitous AGW due to Co2 amplified 3x by water vapor feedback.

                      Man up. Live with it.

                    • “NVAP covered 1989 – 2001”

                      A full 12 years ay? Hahahahahahahah….

                      Climate is defined over a minimum 30 year period. 12 years is about 1/3 of that. Hence ANY measured change in global humidity level over a 12 year period is not a climate signal.

                      Because the interval is too short, there is no statistically significant change in temperature over any 10 year period. Hence there will be no statistically significant correlation between global Humidity and Temperature over that period.

                      It is a statistical impossibility.

                      And once again you out yourself as spectacularly ignorant.

                      Hahahahahahahahahahah.. My goodness. You should get an 8 year old to explain these things to you.

                    • There is no scientific basis for “climate is at least 30 years.” This is merely a heuristic. Moreover, your “climate is 30 years” moan ignores the ABSENCE of actual water vapor increase over 14 years in a period of rising TEMP and CO2 levels. Water evaporates in real time. It doesn’t take decades. Don’t be ridiculous.

                    • Liar… Liar…. Pants on fire…

                      “There is no scientific basis for “climate is at least 30 years.” ”

                      LOL!

                      Of course there is. The period chosen has to be long enough to provide a minimum number of measurements in order to be statistically valid. The period must be short enough to be relevant to society, and it must not be a multiple of either the solar cycle, or any of the known ocean cycles.

                      These requirements mean that the number of years must be 30 or greater and exclude 33 to 38 year intervals. Selecting 30 to 32 years provides an interval with the highest potential temporal resolution while satisfying the other conditions.

                      You are an idiot David.

                      LOL!

                    • Well let’s break that down for the past 100 years or so. From 1910 to 1940, after 2 decades of cooling, the temperatures rose .45C. So in 1940 the ‘experts’ would definitely have their 30 years and be able to establish that we were in a warming trend. Oh… oh, then the planet cooled for 30-35 years until the mid-1970s. So climate experts after harping (incorrectly I’d say) for these next 30 years that we’re in a warming trend, they could in1970 finally acknowledge that in fact we were in a cooling trend……..only to have to be embarrassed ONCE AGAIN by the major warming of the mid-1970’s to the late 1990s. From about 1997 to date (excluding both el Ninos) temperatures have been flat, but we have to wait until 2027 before the trend can be established, right.

                      Bwahahahaha

                      So if you believe your nonsense above, you would have been 100% wrong for almost the entire last 100 years.

                      Climate science is so easy to refute.

                    • “ignores the ABSENCE of actual water vapor increase over 14 years” – David Russell

                      LOL! How many times do you have to be reminded that the very scientists who collected the data you are relying upon have told you that it can not be used as a time series as you are doing?

                      My God you are stupid.

                      If you want a time series that shows global humidity change, here it is..

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9cf3b0569b92c6e7fcc699c3b5a3625269c7b90743cc45c0187b1b4e7a3d3994.jpg

                    • Sorry, but the NVAP and NVAP-M data show no increase in tropospheric water vapor from 1988-2001. Your above graph shows pretty much the same thing excepting for the 1998 el Nino year. Moreover the above graph does not resolve the water column by altitude which makes it meaningless.

                    • Liar. Liar.. Pants on fire..

                      “What DID NOT change is the water vapor content of the troposphere.” – David Russell

                      The thick green line in the figure above is the global humidity anomaly (data from NOAA), with its best fit linear trend as the blue dashed line. Over this time period, the water content has risen by about 5%. The thin blue line is the history of the El Niño – La Niña oscillation — the seesaw sloshing of warm water back and forth along the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Positive values (scale on the left) indicate an El Niño year when more of the warm water sloshes over to the eastern Pacific (the South American side); negative values mean the warm water is pooled up on the western side near Indonesia. As can be seen, some of the fluctuations in global humidity correspond to the El Niño history, with more moisture generally associated with an El Niño year. But the general trend is rising humidity, and the El Niño history does not show a similar rise — this tells us that while El Niño is important, the underlying trend is more likely related to a warmer planet.

                      https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/558

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e1415d706b4ce431a99c5700fb5646f269697220de412aac82f07f8ca2f78c9d.png

                    • Ya, you stand by it even after the very people who produced it have told you that it can’t be used in Climate Studies because the methods and standards used to collect the data changed dramatically over the short observing period.

                      I stand by my claim that you are a dishonest loser.

                      LOL!

                    • That’s what they SAY alright, but what does that mean? Does it mean the data are wrong, or distorted? It would seem not because they don’t say that. Does it mean, “NVAP-M supersedes NVAP?” (because they also say this). But that doesn’t mean the data are wrong either. Does it mean “Since climate is 30 years and this only covers 14, therefore you can’t use the data to come to any ‘climate conclusions?’

                      What I think it means is, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, because this data drives a stake through the heart of the CO2 enhanced greenhouse effect.”

                      You can LOL all you want, but it sounds like hollow, sheepish, guilty, nervous laughter to me.

                    • “That’s what they say, but what does that mean?” – David Russell.

                      It means that you are dumb as fuck and don’t want to accept that the very scientists who provided the data that you are jabbering about tell you that due to differences in the instruments and the way the analysis methods changed, no inference can be made about the trend.

                      You can pretend that it means whatever you want it to mean, but that just makes you all the more a liar, and a fool.

                      LOL!

                      Meanwhile we have the real humidity data shown below….

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9cf3b0569b92c6e7fcc699c3b5a3625269c7b90743cc45c0187b1b4e7a3d3994.jpg

                    • What we have above comes from exactly what measuring technology. Are the methods and standards the same from 1970 through 2010 the same? How do you know? Ans: you don’t know.

                      I will point out again that excepting the 1998 el Nino spike even your above chart shows little to no increase in water vapor from 1990 to 2010.

                    • “Your “it’s only 1% the distance from absolute zero” statement is silly.” – Pure Ignorance

                      Nature provides us with only one standard for the zero mark on her thermometer. And that zero mark is -273.15’C or 0’K.

                      A rise of 2.5’C therefore represents a rise of 1 percent in the measured temperature.

                      Awwww. You poor baby.

                    • Repeating a silly statement doesn’t make it any less silly. The ‘alarmist claim’ is that 2C is the tipping point. What if I were to respond, “Well, that’s less than a 1% change in temperature.”

                      If climate sensitivity is at the low end of 1.5-4.5, we literally have nothing to worry about and if it’s at the high end we’re in deep trouble. I believe that’s the official position….. whatever the distance of either of those temperatures is from -273.15C.

                    • Repeating your childish ignorance concerning absolute zero, illustrates the depth of your childish ignorance of basic science.

                      “Repeating a silly statement doesn’t make it any less silly.” – David Russell

                    • I’m sorry but it is not permissible for you to disagree with fact.

                      You are not entitled to live in a fantasy universe and still breathe my air.

                    • Said the fool denying Anthropogenic Global Warming.

                      Hahahahahahaha…. You display such shameful, shameful, scientific illiteracy.

                    • I do not deny AGW. This is another error on your part (you’re creating quite a collection). The matter under consideration here is whether a CS of 1.5-4.5C is a ‘tight’ range. You say it is because the difference is “less than 1% of the distance from absolute zero (!!!). ” I say it isn’t because if the lower range (1.5C) is accurate then we don’t have a problem but if the upper range is accurate “we’re all gonna fry.”

                      AGW is of course not in contention here at all. I say CS is low and thus take the position: “AGW: So what?” I call myself a luke-warmer.

                    • Liar.. Liar.. Pants on fire.

                      “The ‘alarmist claim’ is that 2C is the tipping point. ”

                      No one has claimed that 2’C is a “tipping point’. You are lying to claim that anyone has.

                      2’C is considered an approximate estimate of where significant damage will be occurring as a result of changes in the climate.

                      Significant damage may begin somewhat before or somewhat after the 2’C rise.

                      As to tipping points, one was reached this year, with the global average temperature reaching a spectacularly high level that is over 1.1’C higher than pre-industrial levels.

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/46c2b7bb6b33244c1085315d4e8daa39dc06e974dfc6d2c155a2882c3da3a9de.jpg

                    • I can’t tell if you are deranged or just making a joke: 3 paragraphs denying 2C is the tipping point, followed by paragraph 4 which in essence says “2C is the tipping point.” You are quite funny, or perhaps merely a lunatic.

                      As far as 2016 is concerns, this was the winding down of an el Nino year and land temperatures are already 1.2C lower than their el Nino high earlier this year. So your graph is both irrelevant and disingenuous.

                    • Liar.. Liar.. Pants on fire…

                      “paragraph 4 which in essence says “2C is the tipping point.” – David Russell

                      Paragraph 4 -> “As to tipping points, one was reached this year, with the global average temperature reaching a spectacularly high level that is over 1.1’C higher than pre-industrial levels.”

                      A tipping point was reached at a temperature of 0.9’C. Not 2’C. Nothing in the paragraph talks about a 2’C tipping point.

                      Perhaps you don’t understand what a tipping point is. LOL…

                      Earlier you claimed that the climate was a chaotic system. Well yes, and this is related to tipping points.

                      A tipping point is a switch from one attractor set to another in the climate system. It represents an abrupt non-linear change in the average state of the system.

                      The sudden rise in global temperature over the last three year, by approximately 0.2’C is such a state change and hence a tipping point.

                    • What are you blathering about above? Anyone who’s conscious knows the 2C meme has been bandied about for years now. I know it’s BS. And you KNOW what I say is true. So stop trying to pretend otherwise.

                    • “Anyone who’s conscious knows the 2C meme has been bandied about for years now.” – David Russell.

                      LOL. 2 years…

                      SInce the Paris convention on climate change.

                      The Paris agreement is an agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) dealing with greenhouse gases emissions mitigation, adaptation and finance starting in the year 2020. The language of the agreement was negotiated by representatives of 195 countries at the 21st Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC in Paris and adopted by consensus on 12 December 2015

                      The aim of the convention is described in Article 2, “enhancing the implementation” of the UNFCCC through:

                      “(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;

                      (b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;

                      (c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.”

                      Once again David, you have exposed yourself as a moron.

                    • “I know it’s BS.” – David Russell

                      You also claim to know that when scientists tell you that their data can not be used for time series analysis, that they are lying… But only when it supports your idiotic world view.

                      Hahahahahahahahahahaha……. My goodness you are a Loser.

                    • I know that “time series analysis” is not the issue. Water vapor stays in the atmosphere a very short time (6 days on average I recall). CO2 forcing response is very quick in the atmosphere (how do you think they demonstrated CO2 forcing in the lab in the first place? They didn’t conduct multi-year experiments). So over a 14 year period of 30 ppm increase in CO2, the water vapor feed back would be in the data almost in real time.

                      IT IS NOT THERE..

                      Therefore Enhanced CO2 warming goes into the dust-bin of eugenics, the “ether”, homeopathic medicine, and countless other scientific fads.

                    • Liar.. Liar.. Pants on fire…

                      “temperatures are already 1.2C lower than their el Nino high earlier this year” – David Russell

                      The following chart shows the decline in global temperatures since the peak of this year.

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e8ef1edb24b38fe58dac92418eab350f2636f78a4d8acb2b4904b1312c831ab4.png

                      The decline from the peak is not 1.2’C which is your claim, but 0.4’C.

                      This decline is due to the transition of the pacific ocean from ENSO Positive to ENSO Negative and is typical for a phase change in the ENSO state.

                      The typical reduction in global temperature from peak during such a phase shift is 0.6’C or less with the average state being somewhere between 0.3 and 0.2’C below the peak.

                      The peak of 2016 was over 1.3’C Which puts the global average at somewhere between 1.0’C and 1.1’C.

                      Before the El-Nino, the global average was 0.85’C

                      Thus what has happened over the last few years has been the realization of a tipping point that has advanced the global temperature by 0.15’C to 0.2’C.

                    • You misread what I wrote once again. What I said was LAND temperatures are down 1.2C since the recent El Nino peak earlier this year.

                      The oceans temps are lagging a bit. Next year I fully expect global temps to reestablish what will then be a 20 year Pause.’

                    • What you said was wrong, as usual.

                      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1996

                      Global land temperatures are down less than 1’C. During the transition from last major El-Nino/La_Nina, global land temperatures dropped by slightly more than 1.2’C

                      The current La-Nina has not yet reached maximum, so a decline of an additional 0.2’C won’t be unexpected.

                      “Next year I fully expect” – David Russell

                      You are a nobody who is chattering nonsense due to his vast ignorance of science.

                    • I’m using RSS satellite data (land only) which show more of a decline…. actually 1.2C (just as I said).

                    • Liar.. Liar.. Pants on fire…

                      “assumed positive feedbacks which are not found in nature.”

                      Ice is white and as it melts it exposes a darker surface of ground or water.

                      The light that was reflected from the white ice is replaced with ground or water which absorbs more of the incoming radiation and thus increases the rate of warming.

                      This is a positive feedback in nature, and that makes you a liar.

                      Awwwww. You Poor Fool.

                    • Ice is indeed white and declining sea ice in the Arctic is likely warming the Arctic. The opposite is happening in the Antarctic.

                      These things are cyclical. The same thing happened in the Arctic in the 1920s, 30s and early 40s.

                    • There’s more to the earth than the Arctic sea-ice. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f4cec56e3bb8616b8a38850c7713b2c69d9840a71cebe59187b0321d196c04f4.jpg
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/47b0072ca7c09906c0646dffe26de3b0c2cdb411f9cc839ce395ea2c285a814a.jpg
                      Besides, when the Arctic sea-ice is absent, the heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere goes up a hundred times more. This enhances rejection of heat to space.

                      ”Sea ice regulates exchanges of heat, moisture and salinity in the polar oceans. It insulates the relatively warm ocean water from the cold polar atmosphere, except where cracks, or leads, in the ice allow exchange of heat, and water vapour from ocean, to atmosphere, in winter. The number of leads determines where, and how much heat and water are lost to the atmosphere, which may affect local cloud cover and precipitation.”

                      http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html

                      “Less ice also contributes to higher air temperatures by allowing transfer of heat from the relatively warmer ocean.”

                      http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2014/03/

                      ”… the release of heat to the atmosphere from the open water is up to 100 times greater than the heat conducted through the ice.”

                      Zwally, H. Jay, et al. Antarctic sea ice, 1973-1976: Satellite passive-microwave observations. No. NASA-SP-459. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON DC, 1983.

                      http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA278193

                      There is a PDF from dtic.mil:

                      http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA278193

                      Antarctic sea ice, 1973-1976: Satellite passive-microwave observations

                    • That’s dishonest and unscientific baloney. .8C is still the accepted value, as the 2015-16 el Nino has to be discounted. Already land temps are down 1.2C from their el Nino high. Ocean temps should follow. It’s what happened after the last big el Nino in 1997-98.

                    • Try not to take the election and the coming installation of the climate change industry into the dustbin of history too hard. Vendicar .

                      Maybe you could start a SAVE THE HURRICANES campaign ?

                    • Nature will ignore Trump and the other science deniers of course, just as nature ignored the vapid anti-science political pontifications that were so prevalent in the Dark Era.

                      America is positioning itself as the principle enemy of the world.

                      Good luck with that. LOL!

                    • Nature has ignored the breathless predictions of the “climate experts” for decades ..Vendicar .

                      A few quick examples ;

                      The predictions that Arctic summer ice will be gone by 2013/14/15/16 .Arctic ice now projected to increase next decade .

                      Antarctica, (90% of global ice) was claimed to be decreasing in mass, contributing to sea level rise .NASA showed last year the opposite was true, Antarctic ice mass increasing ,reducing sea level ,for decades .

                      The upper layers of the global oceans have been cooling since 2000.

                      The expected water vapor “feedback” did not occur , the water vapor in the critical lower stratosphere declined after 97/98 . total water vapor flat to declining .

                      Global storm activity (ACE) has declined since mid 90s, reaching the lowest levels in over 40 years after 2005.

                      The dreaded “ocean acidification” ,predicted die off of plankton did not occur, the opposite occurred ,plankton increased by 10x in a 45 year ocean study .

                      America the “Enemy of the World” ? For refusing to ration energy by taxing and share those taxes with countries that do nothing ?

                      Too bad..

                  • Ya, in exactly the same way that it will be anecdotal that the bullet that is put into your brain was what killed you.

                    There is only one you, and we would have to conduct the experiment with another you to have any scientific evidence that it killed you.

                    • I spend the election night laughing my ass off.

                      At racist, fascist, morons like you.

                      Your idiocy will be remembered for centuries to come.

                      LOL!

                    • “Laughing” ?

                      You aren’t “laughing” at all , unless you define hurling invective and bile in a display of impotent rage “laughing” ,,

                      But, by all means, continue … very …. entertaining !

                    • I’m quite capable of laughing at the ignorant apes while at the same time outing them as the dumbest things to have ever breathed air.

                      LOL. Ignorant Vermin. Kill yourself now.

                    • Ho ! Ho ! HO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That’s the Spirit ! An online bile … explosion ! Awesome !

                      What do you plan for an encore ?

                    • You should have spent that night assembling a Trump portfolio to invest in the next day. You’d now be laughing all the way to the bank.

                    • I laughed all the way to the bank when Bush flushed the U.S. economy down the toilet.

                      With Trump planning to borrow and spend another 10 trillion to stimulate the U.S. economy, and drive down the value of the U.S. dollar. I’m in cash waiting for the crash.

                      You remember. The Crash that Drumpf himself predicted.

                      LOL!

                    • What Trump is proposing is pure Keynes, but on steroids — stimulate demand by government spending, lowering taxes, creating/freeing $2.2T of money from overseas in corporate accounts.

                      The risk of all this is inflation, of course. If the Fed goes along with Trump as I’ve suggested (using helicopter money), then the risk to interest rates getting out of hand because of too much supply is mitigated. What remains is the question of whether whatever inflation we do get from say excess demand or wage demand exceed growth from the plan. Right now risking too much demand and labor shortages seems preferable to the morass we seem to be stuck in.

                    • Liar.. Liar.. Pants on fire.

                      “What Trump is proposing is pure Keynes, but on steroids” – David Russell

                      Keynesian economics does not propose or support the stimulation of the economy during periods of economic growth – as we have now. In fact it holds that such periods be used to create a reserve of wealth which would be used to stimulate the economy during the next economic down turn.

                      Reagan was the first president to stimulate the U.S. economy during a period of economic boom. The result was to put the nation on a path to bankruptcy.

                      Economists estimate that Trumps economic plan will increase America’s national debt by 10 trillion too 30 trillion over the next 8 years.

                      LOL! What happened to all of the Republican whining about Obama spending 5 trillion to keep the U.S. from entering a grand economic depression?

                      LOL! Republican Scumbags.

                    • Trump may have won the elections as a Republican, but in reality he’s a businessman. I won’t quibble with you. Keynes wrote his stuff during the depression. In essence his notion was that the government should step in with fiscal stimulation during times of inadequate demand (and that describes the current reality).

                    • In a fiat world, sovereign government debt is ….money.

                      What is the dollar bill in your wallet other than a zero coupon, perpetual, physical US govt bond?

                      And thus what does “paying off a governmental bond” mean other than exhanging one govt IOU for another?

                      The danGerman of creating too much debt is creating inflation and higher interest rates. Right now those dangers are exactly what the Fed wants. Yellen and cruel are partying hardy that Trump won IMO.

              • The tornado scale has been changed from F to EF to include economic damage. This will statistically result in more big tornadoes and it will fool a lot of people like Bill Maher and Tom Freidman. But there really is zero climate change, just more targets for the same tornadoes to hit as our population grows.

                • Liar.. Liar.. Pants on fire.

                  “connect natural issues” – Maninina

                  You mean like the connection between little black dots seen in laboratory slides and disease?

                  You Republican kooks really do live in the 1400’s don’t you?

              • You’re showing your bias. Capitalists have proven themselves quite adept at coerive propaganda. No one does it better than the Koch Brothers and all their phony high-minded-sounding foundations. Sounds to me like your’e another of those who only get half the story because you just want your media to validate your weak conclusions!

                  • Thats because politicians have learned they’ll get ahead by misinforming you to make themselves and their positions look better than they are. Newsgathering is incredibly labor intensive…especially ferreting out facts the news makers want to keep secret. So yes, they lie, mislead you, quote phony research. On the other hand media corporations have cut staffs because advertising revenue is lower, being shared by so many other outlets wanting those same ad dollars.

                    So today most media fills time between commercials, and goes after the low hanging fruit. Gone are the days we got days or weeks to research a paper trail story. Most reporters have to turn a story a day. Serious research is impossible, especially in a sea of propaganda. Don’t blame the media, blame the liars who will do anything, SAY anything to get elected. Trust me…it didn’t used to be this way. The best thing a news consumer can do is hone and sharpen their bs detectors, watch visual cues and watch other media to find out as much as you can what the truth is. It ain’t on FOX. There are few TV reporters good enough to dig up truth… most just hold the microphones to the mouths of the surrogates to get a soundbite or two.

                    • In Trump’s America, lots of low brows laugh at what others say. THey don’t know, they don’t care, they have no respect for reason. Trump’s proven you can win by doing it. So much for the kinder, gentler, more reasoned dialogue. Social media ANONYMOUS commenters fight right into the model. Wonder how come Barron is so passive in public?

                      As I look at the expressions on their older children, I see verbal abuse scars. He has the money and they know it. The people around him have to suck up to him becasue they’ve seen what he does to those who don’t. Like his politial adversaries. He strikes me as the kind of guy who says to his contractors, you take what I pay you or I’ll see to it you never work in New York again.

                      Look at Barron, the only ten year old boy in America who wears a coat and tie. Right out of Richie Rich!

            • Freakishly high temperatures in the Arctic driven by heat-packed oceans and northward winds have been reinforced by a “vicious circle” of climate change, scientists said Thursday.

              Air above the Polar ice cap has been 9-12 degrees Celsius (16.2 to 21.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above average during the last four weeks, according the data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), which tracks hourly changes in Arctic weather.

              And during several days last week, temperatures above the North Pole were a balmy zero degrees Celsius (32 degrees Fahrenheit), a full 20C (36F) above the levels typical for mid-November, said Martin Stendel, a DMI climate researcher based in Copenhagen.

              “This is by far the highest recorded” in the era of satellite data, starting in 1979, he told AFP.

              “What we are observing is very unusual.”

              At this time of year, open Arctic ocean exposed by sea ice melted away in summer should be freezing again, with thousands of square kilometres icing over every day.

              But that has not been happening, at least not at the same pace, said Stendel.

              “Not only was the ice not growing as it would normally, there was further melting due to warm air coming in,” he explained by phone.

              The US National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that sea ice extent in October was the lowest on record, some 6.4 million square kilometres (2.5 million square miles).

              Ice cover at the top of the globe shrank to its smallest area in 2016—some 4.14 million sq km (1.6 million sq miles)—on September 16.

          • You would think that even the Left would get tired of being lied to eventually. The media told them comforting lies that it was 90-95% certain that Brexit and Trump would lose. They also blew the 2015 UK Parliamentary election and the 2014 US midterm election. They haven’t gotten one right since 2012. And some on the Left ARE beginning to notice.

          • Has slipped, that’s why they are the lowest rating in history and dying. No one with an ounce of common sense believes anything the left wing media propaganda machine publishes or posts online. These people have lost all of their credibility. Reading articles written by those propaganda sites is worse than reading the National Inquirer (they actually got a few articles right when the left wing media failed to report on them), what does that say about them?

          • You dare to insult Mother Gaia? Aside from somehow destroying Donald Trump and everything he represents by any means possible and killing off all those who encourage him in the most gruesome manner possible, Global Cooling WarmingClimate Change is the most vital issue facing the world today. They ignored dinosaur flatulence, and just look at what happened. You’ve been warned.

            The Three Laws are perfect. Our logic is undeniable. Please remain in your homes for your own safety. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f890f9002ed5e0504e985a23cbda21c02e8a204f4e22f4446c0a2e3a9907cd50.jpg

          • Actually the election of the perpetual liar Donald Drumpf proves that a plurality of Republicans aren’t smart enough to know what is an isn’t a Republican lie.

            You can’t get more stupid than Republican stupid.

              • Freakishly high temperatures in the Arctic driven by heat-packed oceans and northward winds have been reinforced by a “vicious circle” of climate change, scientists said Thursday.

                Air above the Polar ice cap has been 9-12 degrees Celsius (16.2 to 21.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above average during the last four weeks, according the data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), which tracks hourly changes in Arctic weather.

                And during several days last week, temperatures above the North Pole were a balmy zero degrees Celsius (32 degrees Fahrenheit), a full 20C (36F) above the levels typical for mid-November, said Martin Stendel, a DMI climate researcher based in Copenhagen.

                “This is by far the highest recorded” in the era of satellite data, starting in 1979, he told AFP.

                “What we are observing is very unusual.”

                https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/46c2b7bb6b33244c1085315d4e8daa39dc06e974dfc6d2c155a2882c3da3a9de.jpg

                At this time of year, open Arctic ocean exposed by sea ice melted away in summer should be freezing again, with thousands of square kilometres icing over every day.

                But that has not been happening, at least not at the same pace, said Stendel.

                “Not only was the ice not growing as it would normally, there was further melting due to warm air coming in,” he explained by phone.

                The US National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that sea ice extent in October was the lowest on record, some 6.4 million square kilometres (2.5 million square miles).

                Ice cover at the top of the globe shrank to its smallest area in 2016—some 4.14 million sq km (1.6 million sq miles)—on September 16.

          • Need to get airports and hotels to dump the rubbish newspaper & magazine subscriptions and to dump the cable channels that default to CNN–around the world. Need computers to list Yahoo, MSN, etc as garbage sites.

          • Although, to a considerable degree, propaganda properly controlled can be highly effective and influential, what happens when a state of super saturation of particularly shrill, over the top propaganda is attained, it has entirely the opposite effect on people. In other words, people don’t mind suggestions as to what to do, but damned if they’re going to take being told what to do.

          • The victory of Trump is a testament to how stupid Republicans are.

            Trump isn’t even president and he is already walking away from his own top 4 campaign promises….

            You stupid… Stupid.. Suckers……

            LOL… The world is laughing at you.

        • “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” – Clark’s 3rd Law.

          The average person, who decided in grade school that math & science were too hard and chose not to understand as much of it as they could, puts “scientists” (including people, like climatologists, who analyze and study but can’t really do experimental verification of their hypotheses) in the class of “elite experts, people I have to believe in”.

          Unfortunately, our elites are failing us.

        • Climate Kahunas have ripped off peasants for eons, frightenin them with earthquakes, floods, droughts and pestilence and demandin sacrifices be brought to the temple to prevent catastrophes.

          When the cyclical events happen anyway, the Shamans shout: “Insufficient sacrifice! Bring us more!”

          I am not fooled by the ancient climate cult but, in the interest of stopping pollution, would like Razafornians to please quit throwin steamin green diaper burritos out their windaz.

        • So, in your leftist, elitist mind you feel that the average person today is an illiterate peasant? Who might even worship his God? You are not only a fool, thinking of yourself as the only “knowledgeable” person in this thread, but you are a mountebank as well. Most real people, not bigots like yourself, have given thought intensely over time about AGW, and come to several conclusions.
          1. The science needed to come to an accurate evaluation of AGW and its impact on the planet is still very much lacking.
          2. The contribution of mankind to AGW is still unknown with any certainty.
          3. Any contribution of mankind to AGW may be trivial compared to other natural contributors.
          4. That there might be a “tipping point” from which it will be impossible to recover is pure conjecture.
          5. Whether or not the earth goes through cycles of more or less greenhouse gasses has been determined as a fact, but we still do not really understand what causes those cycles.
          6. And, we could impoverish everyone in the world trying to “correct” something that may not even need correcting. Just think of the billions or even trillions of US dollars that have already been spent.

          Why don’t you spend a little time catching up on your education, and not letting your alligator mouth getting your hummingbird ass into trouble. God bless (from one of those Bible-thumping, ignorant medieval peasants).

      • The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and insome places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway

        Reportsfrom fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

        Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

        Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

        Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

        Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

        Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

        * * *
        * * * * * *
        I must apologize.

        I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post – 93 years ago.

        This must have been caused by the Model T Ford’s emissions or possibly from horse and cattle flatulence?

        .

        .

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/24f651430648cc26bab43b016afbd66af1b51733a651ba03179924935eb8e243.jpg

        • The albedo of the earth has been changed by over 20%, living in a passive solar home(15yr) the past 4 years have been less efficient by about 25%. In NM our vast sunny sky has been clouded at least 5 of 7 days a week. The weather modification is off the scale and we are being sprayed like bugs. 40 years ago there were no man made clouds or grey outs like there are today. This insanity must stop.

          • This may sound glib but is not intended that way. I live in Florida most of the year and my utilities have remained constant. Not (solar passive). We have had no appreciable change in sunny days or not? Perhaps solar passive of 15 yrs ago was not on the same scale it is now? 15 yrs ago solar was considered break through technology. I don’t believe there are that many people who out an out refute changes in climate/weather. I think the debate is the Dooms day scenario some paint compared to lets let technology catch up with the times.

      • The USSR had a similar debacle with Lysenkoism. Set back soviet biological science 40 years.
        The ONLY purpose for the AGW propaganda is the redistribution of wealth from America, primarily, to China and other Marxist hell holes.
        Gore’s Carbon Credits scam has only one purpose, besides making him rich, to “allow” China to burn however much coal it wants to burn, at our expense.

      • They also changed what they were fighting for. They fought to prevent global warming, then global cooling, then global warming, then they said screw it…. CLIMATE CHANGE. But luckily they were able to approve both global warming and global cooling using the same data. Still no skeptics. Strange.

      • And, if allowed to succeed, will be a direct attack against us, the civilians, the farmers, the builders, the production line, the drivers, housewives, …..all of us will be under the threat of prosecution, based upon false claims and twisted truths, with the full power of the federal government. Thank God for Trump.

      • Who specifically is “they”? … Specifically which data was falsfied? … how was it falsified when the data is collected by multiple scientific bodies worldwide … got the answers or are you just p*ssing in the wind?

      • Exactly, and the moment political appointees of each Leftist nation-state leader became the authority on climate (it used to be called “global warming” until temperature stopped increasing), it ceased to be science. The IPCC is a POLITICAL organization.

    • There is a video of Van Jones telling his fellow members of the communist party to switch to the green party because they could better destroy capitalism using regulations and the courts. The creation of global cooling, switched to global warming and then climate change, is a movement to steal money from the people who produce and give it to the people wo don’t. Redistribution according to the needs of politicians, so they can line their pockets and make their friends rich. A simple combination of avarice, greed, jealousness and socialist ideology. All of you claiming these people are not scientists are correct, but you are not giving them their proper title. Progressive Socialist.

    • Then go with the Best temperature reconstruction also known a Berkeley Earth.

      That reconstruction uses no adjustments and shows precisely the same warming as all of the other estimates.

      LOL…. You are quite a fool, aren’t you?

      • First, no one I know “denies” that climate changes, both warmer and
        colder, and for better and worse. Not so very long ago, U.S. cooling of
        about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit between 1945 and 1975 prompted The New York
        Times and other major news publications to headline “experts”
        trumpeting the arrival of a new ice age.

        During “modern times” the global climate has been warming in fits and
        starts since the last “little ice age” (not a true ice age) ended about
        200 years ago. Yet apart from entirely natural 1998 and 2015 ocean El
        Nino spikes, satellite and weather balloon measurements show no
        statistically-significant global warming for nearly two decades.

        U.S. surface records obtained from the most reliable thermometer
        stations — those not corrupted by local “heat island” influences such
        as instrument relocations, urban developments or other man-made changes —
        show no significant warming over the past 80 years. There have been
        more all-time U.S. cold records than heat records since the 1940s.

        Based upon the most reliable land surface data (UK Hadley Center, or
        “HADCRUT”), the average annual planetary warming between 1850 and 2015
        is virtually imperceptible . . . and certainly not “dangerous.”

        http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/climate-global-warming-ipcc/2016/05/31/id/731497/

        Who is more dangerous; a fool that leads or a fool that follows? lol

        • I’m not shilling. I’m expecting people who have learned and scholarly scientific study will put their names and alphabet soup after their learned opinions. People who shill voted for Trump. Course he’s already told us he knows more about ISIS than the Generals. I expect he knows more about the environment that those in that field, too.

            • I might trust you more if you tell me your occupation, your level of education and area of study. Have you contributed any papers to the scientific community or do you just shill for the petroleum industry on partisan media comment pages? Ya know the Koch Brothers are the biggest debunkers of climate change…and they have a dog in the hunt.

              Are you really willing, based on your knowedge and study, to put all of the world’s populated coasts in jeopardy, as well as ocean life? In regional areas, we know man causes pollution. Action’s happened to clean up LA’s air… much more needs to be done around Beijing. Superfund in the US has cleaned up a lot of water pollution. Even if you’re not an evidence based scientist, you should see the obvious evidence. If you were in health care, you’d still be bleeding patients, wouldn’t you?

              Why is ignorance so arrogant? I’ve noticed the least qualified talk the loudest.

            • Maybe the Sun God is mad at us. For centuries, we’ve resorted to magic and miracles when we couldn’t explain things. Instead of asking Me, michael, show us what you know and explain what will happen, when and why. Did you study this, or do you rely on media articles like “Climate Denying for Dummies?”

                • Cool. Maybe you can provide me a link with a published position paper or two. What kind of physics is your specialty? Do you work in the academic community or private enterprise? Most all scientists settle into specialty areas. I’m not a scientific type but both my kids are. What’s your engr specialty or did you just get a degree? I thnk very few scientists ‘rely’ on their degrees, for we all know knowledge moves so quickly, one finds himself quickly out of date. Well, maybe math not so much.

                  • I work for industry.

                    I did my research myself.

                    When sunspots disappear, that means the magnetic activity of the sun decreases.

                    Since a B field will repel fast moving charged particles (protons), a lower B field will allow more cosmic radiation to leave the sun and hit the upper atmosphere.

                    This causes cloud nuclei to form and make more clouds. More clouds cool the planet.

                    It is proven we have more severe winter weather during the normal sunspot minima cycles every 11 years. The winter of 1976-77, 84-85, 2008-2010.

                    In 1880-81 there was a deep Minimum and you can read about that in Laura Ingalls Wilder’s book entitled “The Long Winter.”

                    However if they disappear it will get brutally cold. That happened in the 1600s for several decades and the Thames river froze solid.

                    There are several solar scientists saying that we are entering a period where we may not have sunspots for 30-40 years. If that happens, we will see another mini ice age as we did in the Maunder Minimum.

                    If you look at the sunspot data it fits the best of any data out there with respect to climate change.

                  • This article is on the money. Current cycle 24 is very weak and dying 3 years earlier than normal: 25 spotless days so far.

                    http://testclimate.wpengine.com/2016/06/25/the-sun-goes-blank-again-during-the-weakest-solar-cycle-in-more-than-a-century/

                    Here’s the scientist I’m watching now. Her models fit the unaltered data, which to me is the real science.

                    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html

                  • Well that was really good, Michael. I do wish you published your last name, but unnecessary really. I read both articles and have decided to post em because I have no materials on sun precipitated weather changes. So thanks.

                    Just another thing. I’ve seen some press concerning expected changes in sea levels, caused by ‘warming’, and polar ice melting. Lots of photos out there showing time photos of polar ice over the past few years. And concerns the Navy has about rebuilding their sea harbors. As I’m sure you’ve seen, coastal changes would have an extreme impact on coastal populations around the world. In the past couple hundred years or more, we’ve extensively built up to shorelines.

                    I’ve read with interest the global warming crowd, including scientists and pop guys like Al Gore has been to note cooling evidence and so has changed the moniker to “global change.”

                    So what are we in for? Bad time to buy land in Florida? Waste of time to fix New Orleans…and serious issues related to NYC, buried train tunnels…and lord knows what else. Have you read anything about the rises or falls of coasts in the solar activity? Any evidence of much flooded coastal cities of the past centuries?

                    And apart from your study which I read with interest, what data have you found credible related to man’s use of petroleum, the millions of car emissions, possible ramifications of limited or all out nuc war.

                    What would serious temp changes do to the planet’s food supply…land and sea based? I know basic scientists get preoccupied with the evidentiary trends, but lots of us would like to know, I’m sure, what changes we’ll see in the next 2-300 years?

                    I”ve read some on sealife after Fukishima even close to the North American coast…hardly good news. Maybe not as sexy as the Trumpster squeezing cute women, but more important, fer sure.

                    Again thanks for your willingness to write back…and I hope you find an internet mechanism to spread what you’ve learned. Do you have a FB place that you and others write on? Or a website?

                    I have most of my material linked to http://radiomankc.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html

                    And I’ll be adding the links you have posted since my work is so light on science.

              • Here’s you a tid bit on some of the data you need to reach a conclusion on what is happening.

                http://spaceweather.com

                Might want to bone up on Lorentz force as well:

                F = qE + q(V x B)

                Where E is electric field vector

                V is velocity vector

                B is magnetic field vector, and q is the charge of the comic rays (protons) the sun is emitting and striking our upper atmosphere.

                You can contact CERN (super collider) folks if you want to know what cosmic rays (protons) do when they strike the upper atmosphere…

                The rest is left as an exercise for the unlearned masses!

                • That sounds like basic study my son’s into theoretical chemistry. I didn’t even understand the names of his textbooks but that was then…I had seen this site before but hadn’t put it on my own aggregate pages. I’ll browse it. thanks for it.

                  Since you profess some expertise, how about link to what you think is a credible summary– a climate change for dummies. I don’t have the years left to handle anything but climate change for dummies.

                  I will say, I do place more credibility on scientific vitae than just a first name on Disqus! Do you spend most of your time doing internet forensics or do you contribute to the body of knowlege?

    • IF you download the FIOA 2009 CRU zip file and take a look at the 1,072 emails you can see their plans to lie and obfuscate the data.
      In the documents section is HARRY_README.TXT. Search on the profanity and you’ll find their own assessment of the state of the data on which Mann’s “Hockey Stick” graph was based. The data is, they said, trash, and the fellow maintaining it said it would not be possible to replicate Mann’s paper as the data was then, and he is wondering how Mann arrived at the graph. Easy, Mann hid the decline in temperatures and erased the Maunder Minimum and other cool periods.

    • The scientific fact is, that by definition a GHG must be transparent to solar radiation but there is no such thing as an atmospheric gas that is transparent to solar IR radiation, therefore, there is no such thing as a GHG, neither CO2, solar energy nor human beings, have any affect on climate and CO2 is a blessing and a gift, the more the better, and it is CO2 that holds out the prospect of bountiful and prosperous future for the coming hordes.

    • So, a lot of adjustments have been made to the surface air Tamperature records. So, why are old records still being adjusted? Why weren’t adjustments made, and then, it would be over … it should be over, for many years now, but it is not. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1a100fd98d5d12830aa4f2969420f2d9ad9db6e37485d5d4aae658d45dfc68ae.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a533e58fd9cdc0bbc15979b3f8a087d30cea669a5002e8b5469c658d2b2efda5.jpg

  2. Dump the media. They will only deliberately spin everything. Their agenda is to show everything as a “flip flop on campaign promises” to weaken Trumps support and undermine his leadership.

    Toss the press corps out. Go straight to the American people.

    • I don’t. Which is why I am skeptical about “climate change” — I am beginning to truly believe it is a giant Ponzi scheme to move money around the globe and to justify controlling everything in our lives via enviro regs. Just look at the insane amount they spent in “recovery” money to line the pockets of pseudo-scientists (whores, really) to skew data to come up with the results they wanted. Sad.

    • They’re going to regret coining “fake news”. I hope we use those two little words against them for years. I’m going to laugh as they twist themselves into pretzels explaining that their “news” isn’t fake. To which I will respond, “if you are explaining, you are losing”.

    • Fort, good reason then to look into the facts. Such as the “Sea Wall put up at the golf course, due to global warming”.
      Facts differ than tall tales.

      Recent timeline history of Doonbeg golf course.

      June 2013 – Family feud forces sale of Doonbeg golf resort for €70m

      Earlier reports was of the strong winter storms that hit at the end of 2013, before Trump’s purchase, which were not linked to ‘global warming’.
      http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/n/i/Recent_Storms_Briefing_Final_07023.pdf

      Feburary 2014 – Bargain bid – Doonbeg resort costs Donald Trump just €8.7m. Plus Mr Trump has pledged to invest up to €45m in Doonbeg and create hundreds of jobs.

      8.7 + 45 = 55.7 or 20% discount on damaged goods. Good purchase for a ‘fixer-upper’.

      And the reference to Climate Change was most likely to over rule and get past the endangered snail. Only ACGW can overrule endangered species acts. (See windmills and bald eagles)

      The Trump organisation had been served with a stop-work order earlier this year after lorry-loads of rock armour began to arrive on the Co Clare beauty spot, which is protected by strict environmental concerns for a microscopic snail.
      Four holes on the €15 million 450-acre course, now known as Trump International Golf Links, Ireland, were seriously damaged in violent winter storms which devastated swathes of the Atlantic coast. The renowned green on the par three 14th was among several parts of the course left at risk after waves left it exposed to a perilously steep slope on one side of a single dune. But the initial work was halted as Doonbeg is home to a tiny snail which has been around since the Ice Age – the narrow-mouth whorl snail, or angustior vertigo, which measures about 0.9mm wide and 1.8mm in height.
      “The enforcement notice has been withdrawn by the council, as it is no longer relevant,” a spokesman for the council said. “The council looks forward to a continuing positive relationship with the Trump company and its advisers so that the fabulous asset of Doonbeg golf course and associated facilities can continue to flourish into the future.” Clare County Council said the works agreed will bring the golf course back to having 18 playable holes while a separate planning application has also been lodged for “soft” coastal protection measures.

      http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/donald-trump-agrees-doonbeg-conservation-deal-30252536.html

      Nothing about global warming, just meeting code requirements, with the blessing of the council, to get his property playable.

  3. People on the right would be more open to considering that climate change has a man-made component if it wasn’t always the same leftist solution they have for every false “sky is falling” catastrophe that arrives every few years.

  4. I agree this is reassuring re the climate warming fraud. And I agree the filthy mainstream American media is doing everything possible to separate Trump from his base. But I still have this very serious criticism of Trump, for whom I voted:

    There is no way in hell I want my man Trump to be giving the despicable NY Times a one-on-one sit down interview. This bolsters the Times’ prestige. It adds to their cred and their claim of being important. The NY Times is an unimportant, filthy, liberal rag. Period.

    Trump should have, instead, invited editors from major newspapers in the many states where he won to come to Trump Tower as an ensemble, and given them the kind of access he instead gave to our hated enemy, the anti-American NY Times.

  5. While you are at it Trump, smack NASA upside the damn head and sign no bill that gives NASA funding until they get back to the business of human exploration and out of the business entirely of promoting the AGW hoax.

  6. Trump should stipulate that every contact with the media be freely available to the public so that the public can detect the lies!

    I refuse to pay NYT and WaPo for the articles so I need a source like this site to provide the actual transcript and offer an opinion of NYT and WaPo bias. Thank you Climate Depot!

  7. global warming? those stupid mammoths caused global warming and froze the planet. maybe the mammoths should have paid a carbon tax and they would still be around.
    the retardism of liberals is amazing.

  8. This sounds to me like a President-elect in a room full of adherents to the left’s climate religion and him trying to be non-offensive and have a cordial conversation. That doesn’t mean he’s not going to do the sensible thing and pull out of the ridiculous Paris nonsense and reign in the EPA. Just look at his appointees. Look at what he DOES, not what he says in a room full of climate change zealots.

  9. All that we know about gases, greenhouse or otherwise, stems from the work of the scientist (experimentalist & theortician) Robert Boyle, “The Sceptical Chymist: or Chymico-Physical Doubts & Paradoxes”, 1661. Richard Feynman (you may have heard of him) summed it up best about 300 years later when he averred “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.” Us stoopid field scientists call t