Facebook Twitter Youtube

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

The global warming establishment and the media are crowing about 2010 being in a tie for the “hottest year” ever. The UK Guardian headline sums up the media’s promotion:

UK Guardian: ‘Hottest Year’ Claim: 2014 officially the ‘hottest year’ on record US government scientists say – ‘Nasa and Noaa scientists report 2014 was 0.07F (0.04C) higher than previous records…The global average temperatures over land and sea surface for the year was 1.24F (0.69C) above the 20th century average, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) and Nasa reported. The scientists said 2014 was 0.07F (0.04C) higher than the previous records set in 2005 and 2010.’

But scientists and climate skeptics are countering that the claims of “hottest year” are based on immeasurable temperature differences that are based on hundredths of a degree differences.

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano issued this statement: “There are dueling global datasets — surface temperature records and satellite records — and they disagree. The satellites show an 18 year plus global warming ‘standstill and the satellite was set up to be “more accurate” than the surface records. See: Flashback: 1990 NASA Report: ‘Satellite analysis of upper atmosphere is more accurate, & should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temp change.’

Any temperature claim of “hottest  year” based on surface data is based on hundredths of a degree hotter than previous “hottest years”. This immeasurable difference is not even within the margin of error of temperature gauges. The claim of the “hottest year” is simply a political statement not based on temperature facts. “Hottest year” claims are based on minute fractions of a degree while ignoring satellite data showing Earth is continuing the 18 plus year ‘pause’ or ‘standstill’. See: The Great Pause lengthens again: Global temperature update: The Pause is now 18 years 3 months (219 months)

Monckton jan 2014

Claiming 2014 is the “hottest year” on record based on hundredths of a degree temperature difference is a fancy way of saying the global warming ‘pause’ is continuing.”

End Morano statement. (Morano was former staff of U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee and producer of upcoming documentary Climate Hustle. He also testified in West VA on the climate school curriculum. )

#

Even former NASA global warming chief scientist  James Hansen, the leading proponent of man-made global warming in the U.S., conceded in 2011 that the “hottest year” rankings are essentially meaningless. Hansen explained that 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 2 hundredths of a degree F (that’s 0.018F). “It’s not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record,” Hansen admitted on January 13.

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry, former chair of the school of earth and atmospheric sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, had this to say about 2014 being the ‘hottest year’: “The ‘warmest year’ is noticeably missing in the satellite data sets of lower atmospheric temperatures,” Curry wrote on January 16.

Curry predicts another decade of a global warming ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’. “I’ve made my projection – global surface temperatures will remain mostly flat for at least another decade,” she eexplained 

“With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade. This ‘almost’ record year does not help the growing discrepancy between the climate model projections and the surface temperature observations,” Curry told the Washington Post.

Curry continued: “Berkeley Earth (temperature analysis) sums it up well with this statement: ‘That is, of course, an indication that the Earth’s average temperature for the last decade has changed very little.’

Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels, mocked the notion of the “hottest year.”   “Whether or not a given year is a hundredth of a degree or so above a previous record is not the issue. What IS the issue is how observed temperatures compare to what has been forecast to happen,” Michaels said.

Michaels continued: “John Christy and Richard McNider, from University of Alabama (Huntsville) recently compared climate model projections to observed lower atmospheric temperatures as measured by two independent sources: satellites and weather balloons. They found that the average warming predicted to have occurred since 1979 (when the satellite data starts) is approximately three times larger than what is being observed.”

Climatologist Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric sciences, University of Alabama-Huntsville, noted satellites do not agree with “warmest year” claims. “The satellite and balloon data of the deep atmosphere have 2014 in a cluster of warmish years well below the hottest two of 1998 and 2010″, Christy said.

Christy continued: “With the government agencies reporting that the surface temperature as highest ever, we have a puzzle. The puzzle is even more puzzling because theory (i.e. models) indicate the opposite should be occurring – greater warmth in the deep atmosphere than the surface. So, there are just many very basic and fundamental aspects of the global climate we have yet to comprehend.”

Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., professor of atmospheric science, Colorado State University, downplayed the accuracy of the surface temperature record. “There remain significant uncertainties in the accuracy of the land portion of the surface temperature data, where we have found a significant warm bias. Thus, the reported global average surface temperature anomaly is also too warm.”

“More generally, we need to move beyond just assessing global warming, but examine how (and if) key atmospheric and ocean circulations, such as El Nino, La Nina, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, etc. are changing in their intensity, structure and frequency. These are the climate features that determine if a region has drought, floods, and so forth, not a global average surface temperature anomaly,” Pielke added.

Astrophysicist Dr. Dr David Whitehouse declared “talk of a record is scientifically and statistically meaningless.’ “The addition of 2014 global temperature data confirms that the post-1997 standstill seen in global annual average surface temperature has continued,” Whitehouse wrote on January 16.

“According to the Nasa global temperature database 2014 was technically a record ‘beating’ 2010 by the small margin of 0.02 deg C. The NASA press release is highly misleading saying that 2014 is a record without giving the actual 2014 figure, or any other year, or its associated error.”

“In reality of course it is no record at all as the error of the measurements is about +/- 0.1 deg C showing NasaGiss’ statement to go against the normal treatment of observational data and its errors. Talk of a record is therefore scientifically and statistically meaningless,” Whitehouse added.

“It is clear beyond doubt by now that there is a growing discrepancy between computer climate projections and real-world data that questions their ability to produce meaningful projections about future climatic conditions,” Whitehouse concluded.

Another analysis noted: NASA Hottest Year Claims Not Supported By The Data: NASA admitted in 2011 that “hottest year” differences were “smaller than the uncertainty in comparing the temperatures of recent years.”

Via the website ‘Not A Lot Of People Know That: “Nowhere does their (NASA 2015) press release tell us that it only beat the previous record by a tiny, effectively unmeasurable 0.02C. Nor do they mention that the error bars are many times greater, or even tell us what they are. This is all very strange because in their (NASA) report on 2010 Global Temperatures, NASA said:

“Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The two years differed by less than 0.018 degrees Fahrenheit. The difference is smaller than the uncertainty in comparing the temperatures of recent years, putting them into a statistical tie.”

Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue of Florida State University ridiculed the same “hottest year” rankings in 2010 and NASA’s Hansen’s admission that it “was not particularly important” which year was declared the “hottest.” “Well, then stop issuing press releases which tout the rankings, which are subject to change ex post facto,” Maue demanded in a January 14, 2011 commentary at WattsUpWithThat.com.

Other prominent scientists have said that temperature rise since 1850 has been very small.

See: Top Swedish Climate Scientist Says Warming Not Noticeable: ‘The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all’ – Award-Winning Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: ‘We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified’. Dr. Bengtsson announced his skeptical climate views in 2014.

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever, declared his dissent on global warming and noted that the temperature rise over the 20th century was “so little. It is not even fever.”  Giaever won a Nobel Prize for physics.

“.8 degrees we will be discussing in global warming. .8 degrees if you ask people in general they will think it is 4 or 5 degrees they don’t know it is so little. It is not even fever,” Giaever said.

“I am amazed that the temperature can be so stable,” Giaever explained. ‘The temperature (of the Earth) has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.’

“I don’t see that co2 is the cause of all this problem,” he added.

Related Links: 

It’s Official – There are now 66 excuses for Temp ‘pause’ – Updated list of 66 excuses for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming Eco-Activists Warn 2014 Could Be Hottest Year On Record – Satellites Disagree

‘Hottest Year’ Update: NASA & NOAA ignore satellite data which reveal 2014 ‘well below’ hottest claims

Even ignoring satellite data Year-to-date ‘record’ temps are 0.21C *below* climate model projections

New paper finds excuse #66 for the ‘pause’: There’s no pause if you look at only at the warmest & coldest day of the year – Published in Environmental Research Letters

2014 might be 0.01C warmer than 2010!

No Record Temperatures According To Satellites – BBC put up a deliberately apocalyptic picture while telling us the world is on course for the warmest year on record. What they failed to tell us was that the more accurate satellites, which monitor atmospheric temperatures over nearly all of the globe, say no such thing.  Figures from UAH are out for November, and these show a drop from the  October anomaly of 0.27C to 0.33C. This means that at the end of November, this year is only in a tie for 3rd with 2005, and well below the record year of 1998, and 2010.

Flashback: 1990 NASA Report: ‘Satellite analysis of upper atmosphere is more accurate, & should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temp change.’

2014 ‘Warmest ever’? ‘Conflicting Reports’ – Surface temps show it may be warmer by ‘a couple hundredths of a degree Celsius’ — A Fancy Ways of Saying Temp Standstill Continues! – ‘As a result of data and computational uncertainty,  none of the surface compilations will 2014 be statistically different from 2010’ – ‘The three major groups calculating the average surface temperature of the earth (land and ocean combined) all are currently indicating that 2014 will likely nudge out 2010 (by a couple hundredths of a degree Celsius) to become the warmest year in each dataset (which begin in mid-to-late 1800s).’ – ‘The two satellite datasets ‘show that 2014 is nowhere near the warmest (in data which starts in 1979), trailing 1998 by several tenths of a degree Celsius. This difference is so great that it statistically clear that 2014 will not be a record year…The super El Niño of 1998 set a high temperature mark that will likely stand for many years to come, or at least until another huge El Niño occurs.’ – ‘If you want 2014 to be the “warmest year ever recorded” you can find data to back you up, and if you prefer it not be, well, you can find data to back up that position as well. In all cases, the former will make headlines.’

Study using dozens of models Claims: ‘Warming Climate Can Be Slowed in a Decade’ by cutting CO2

Climate Depot Note: If future temps continue to flatline or even cool, warmists can claim climate policy is responsible. They are already doing it! See: It’s Official — Temperature ‘Pause’ Caused By Climate Policies?! Medieval witchcraft lives! UK Energy Minister: Government policies ‘may have slowed down global warming’ 

AP’s Seth Borenstein publishes pure propaganda: Climate change has made Earth ‘hotter, weirder…downright wilder’

Climate Depot’s Morano comment: ‘AP’s Borenstein can be trusted to shill for UN’s climate summit in Lima Peru, which I will be attending and speaking at. Borenstein relies on Michael Oppenheimer (who is the UN scientists on the payroll of Hollywood stars) and Climategate’s Michael Mann. Borenstein ignores tide gauges on sea level  showing deceleration of sea level rise and ignores satellite temperatures which show the Earth in an 18 year ‘pause’ or ‘standstill’ of global warming. Borenstein tortures data in order to claim more weather extremes. We are currently at or near historic lows in tornadoes and hurricanes. Even droughts are on long term declines and floods show no trend. We know not to expect more from Borenstein.’ See: ‘Long sad history of AP reporter Seth Borenstein’s woeful global warming reporting’

Sea level claims debunked here:

Extreme weather claims debunked here:

Greenland ice claims debunked here:

Antarctica ice claims debunked here:

Overpopulation claims debunked here:

Analysis: Why ’90% of the missing heat’ cannot be hiding in the oceans

Share:

Marc Morano

Marc Morano

2,687 Responses

  1. We know NASA is a division of the U.S. government. The administration wants hahahahaha global warming legislation to take more money out of our pockets and force us to live like they think we should live. I’m not buying anything these people have to say. The earth is not warming, they are lying, and they should move on and forget this mess the world is trying to heap upon us.

    1. Thy’ve politicized every department of government. Even the weather has been politicized. All with the goal of centralizing more power and money toward them, the political class.

      1. They want us to be poor little goblin-like creatures who fight each other all day, live in slums, and accept an ultra-low quality of life while they, the political and economical ruling class, live like kings in armored castles and make all the decisions for us. That’s why they tell us WE are ruining the earth with cars, A/C, and quality food when its really THEM who are ruining the earth with GMOs, weather manipulation, faulty nuclear power generators, ect.

                1. The damage done to the environment by accidents like Fukushima pale in comparison to the damage done every year by burning coal and other fossil fuels. Even those nuts at Green Peace have finally admitted it.
                  Back to your conspiracies and high school educations. I can do no good here.

                    1. Apparently just a “post and run” troll – typical lieberal / progressive hypocrite; bet he/she doesn’t remotely understand the ramifications of a CO2 free world…but then again, none of the “warmers” do.

                    1. Show me one person that has died from those leaks. Thousands die every year from the contamination from coal burning plants. And I’m not against coal ..so I’m certainly not against Nuclear power. It’s not a nefarious invention of our government overloads. Or maybe I’m wrong, maybe it was created by the Lizard People, or big foot …. you bunch of loons.

                    3. I’m still waiting for someone to show me one person who has died from those tritium leaks.

                  4. Suggesting others aren’t ‘educated’ whilst subtly and bragardly grandstanding your own so-called “education” is on par with being psychotic. It actually sounds like, were you to hold all of your so-called education credentials in one hand and a pile of dog poop in the other, together, it’s worth exactly a pile of dog poop.

                    1. Wow, I’m glad you explained all that to me, you must be a genius or something …or just another old guy.

                  5. Ooooh! Fukushima is such a big conspiracy…. It’s just a trick to make warmists look like fools…

                    Guess what?
                    They are a bunch of fools.
                    Nuclear energy was the first save the planet green energy initiative.
                    You guys screwed it up.
                    The greenies have been wrong for so long, it’s a wonder anybody still listens to them.

                    1. No moron, it wasn’t a green initiative, it was a weapon, then it was a propulsion system, then it was used by giant power companies… greens had nothing to do with it. Jeez, this place if full of conspiracy whacks.
                      Fear technology, fear change ….wow, glad I’m not old.

                    2. I guess you were asleep during the entire decade of the 1970s….
                      Nuclear energy was all the rave of the greenies. They rammed it thru over the protests of the coal industry and people worried about the exact types of catastrophes such as Fukushima, Chernobyl, & 3 mile island.
                      But then again, you’re a warmist, so don’t let the facts get in the way of a good narrative….

                    3. Wrong again, there was no green movement of any real influence in the 70’s certainly none with enough power to alter the course of nuclear power. Just a bunch of aging hippies that knew nothing about technology.
                      And I’m not a warmist fu ck breath, I’m way right of you, I’m just not stupid like you. I don’t shun technology, I don’t cry it’s going to hurt mother earth like you. I’m all for tons of energy of every kind, you are not a conservative, you are just a stupid luddite. Big difference between conservative and just plain scared of the future cause you are old and stubborn.
                      Crawl into your cave and keep warm by your camp fire … the nut case environmentalists will be sitting right next to you. You probably think calculators are an evil invention of the greenies too. Get out of the way of technology, commerce, free enterprise and invention … move into the old folks home already.

                    4. Oooh! Such a scary RINO you are.
                      For a second there I thought you were going to call me a doo-doo pie…
                      We don’t need your hindrance of a weather scam for progress to happen. So, get your hand out of our pockets & scram.

                    5. Ooooh! Conspiracy whacks.
                      Another gruberite technical term for anyone who deviates from the liberal chicken-little narrative.
                      Fracking IS change.
                      And if you can manage to get thru life without getting run over by the short little school bus that drops you off at school every day, you might actually live long enough to gain some perspective – and there STILL won’t be any credible evidence of man made global warming.

                2. And look up Monsanto (GMO), and “cloud seeding” just to name two – both are at the forefront of the GMO and the weather manipulation topics you just tried to discredit because you don’t have the brain power to understand them…FAIL.

              5. Have you ever heard fo Operation Popeye? Vietnam 40 some years ago. Have you heard of Fukashima? Chernobyl? Do you know what a pebble bed reactor is? Why don’t we use it?
                Your identy is a mystery, you benefactors are not, trool.

                1. You retard, no, I don’t know what any of that is, but I did work in the US Nuclear Navy for six years, an instructor at the MARF plant (S7W primary) at the Kesselring site in upstate NY. So I know nothing about nuclear power plant design, theory and operation …jeez. Back in your Luddite caves you geezers.

              6. Disagreeing with someone’s opinion is fine, even necessary for a healthy debate. But to attempt to belittle someone because you don’t agree with their opinion make you no better than the narcissist lieberal / progressive / socialist dimwitcrats that are trying to control all of us – you included.

                2. Is no use arguing with that guy.
                  You might have been able to talk some sense into him back when he was just drinking the coolaid, but not since he started free-basing the mix.

          2. I have no love for InfoWars. The hurt any cause against the feudalists with their crazy conspiracy theories. But MysteryMan, please put down the cool-aid.

        2. They are not liberals, socialists, communists, democrats, etc, etc. They are the Neo-Feudalists they want to be the princes and we should be the peasants.

          2. Reality can be hard to accept sometimes. There are plenty of other ways they are turning us into peons, those were just what I pulled off the top of my head. It might be too hardcore for some people, but its all true.

    3. “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” (Obama – January 2008), referring to EPA regulations that would target and/or shut down coal fired electrical plants.

      http://www.BattleBornPAC.com
      Anyone who believes the lieberal / progressive / socialist / democrats (globally) aren’t out to control the weak minded lemmings is not paying attention.

    4. Liberals say:

      “The only solution to “climate change” is MORE GOVERNMENT, MORE TAXES, MORE SPENDING!”

      Drive a hybrid, but turn your head while Obama uses Air Force One to fly his DOG separately on vacation.

        1. There a billions of dollars of grant money at stake here. Must continue the global something or another to ensure the money keeps flowing. It costs a lot of money to keep the 26,000 sq. ft. homes of the grant receivers cooled/heated/maintained.

          1. I think your talking about the “scientists” working for the oil companies. I guess you don’t know grants are given to do more research, they’re not a paycheck like the oil co’s give, use some logic for a change.

            1. $63 Billion in 2013 spent World Wide on Green. I think that’s more then some Scientist make. The inability in the Green Movement to admit seeking profit drives that movement… is more then willful Ignorance.

            3. First, when you get out of high school are have to start working for a living, then talk to me about grants. How do you think the companies, colleges, scientists get paid. They use the grant money for the research and to pay the people doing the work.

              1. A great deal of U.S. Government grant money goes to engineering graduate students, many of whom are *foreign students*.

                I should know. I got grant money for research, and I know how the system operates.

                1. I do agree on a lot of foreign students getting grants. When my wife was in college getting her BS and Masters, most of the foreign students were going on grants. They also told her that could use the money for living expenses. I see that as paying themselves a salary to live. Since you receive a grans to do research, you must have been working for someone else and they were paying you or did you work for free?

                  1. Yes, as a graduate student you are paid for 20 hours of research work each week, which is enough to pay for many of your living expenses.

                    Two years ago I was an (adult) electrical engineering graduate student. A U.S. government entity was paying the grant obtained by my professor and it employed myself and another foreign student. When you work doing research for the university, your tuition is also paid (essentially free).

                    1. The foreign students that were class with my wife and working on their first four years of an electronic engineering degree were getting grants. Of course she didn’t get any because she is an American and married to one of those filthy, filthy rich white guys. Have a great day and hope you can find a job.

              2. Oh, I’m a brainwashed repub who thinks the scientists just deposit those grants in their personal accounts, like the pay checks “scientists” working for the polluters do.

                1. I didn’t have any opinion of where your politics lead. But afer that reply trying to put words in my mouth, I would now think you to be more on the Progressive/Democrat side of politics.

              3. That’s exactly my point idiot, they use them to fund more research, their not a paycheck. And I’ve been out of highschool longer than you’ve been alive fool.

                1. They are still using the grant money to live off of, therefore, a paycheck. You can call it what ever you want. I do hope I do live as long as you since you must be in your middle to late 80s since I was born in the late ’40s. Or were you just being sarcastic about my age since I don’t agree with what you think?
                  Have a great evening, going to bed now and read a book.

                    1. So are you now agreeing that the grant money they are using to live off of is used as part of a paycheck? No, it doesn’t matter when you were born, it is money to do what ever the money was give to you for. Go to school, research work, living expenses, etc.
                      So your not near as old as you were trying to make me believe.

                  2. I wasn’t being sarcastic or insulting about your age but you obviously were and just like most conservatives you start it, “when you get out of highschool” then you start crying when it comes back your way. Your comment was juvenile so I thought you were, just so you know I was born the year Kennedy was inaugurated. If those scientists were concerned about a big paycheck they’d work for the oil companies.

                    1. Sarcasm was never intended since I know nothing about you, your reply sounded like a high school reply to me. The people doing research for the oil companies are being paid by the oil companies as employees not with grant money. Grants can be used to go to school, research, pay living expenses while in school or doing research.
                      I was in grade school when Kennedy was inaugurated.
                      It doesn’t look like we will agree on anything except about how old we are.
                      Have a great day.
                      Time to go get a cup of coffee.

            4. Ah Dave…you poor man. The ‘scientists’ who spend our grant (tax) money pretend to study all that is related to AGW and provide no solutions. Just say “AGW” on your grant application and the gubment leaps at the chance to waste more money making feel good studies that have no merit. At least those big bad oil companies…who by the way make less on a barrel of oil than the government does….provide us with the ability to survive as an economic power. GRANTS ARE SCIENTISTS PAYCHECKS!!!! Wake up you warped university instructed retard!

              1. When the bell rings why don’t you run across the play ground and check out all the solutions that scientists have come up with, there’s quite a few, you’d know that if your head wasn’t buried in the sand, you know the oil saturated sand covering the Gulf of Mexico that tax payers will eventually have to pay to clean up.

              2. Pretend to study? Pretend to have a brain… They’ve came up with lots of solutions, you might not like them, they might cramp your self destructive life style of consumption. Grants are overseen, they pay for research, equipment, assistants, and scientists, of course they don’t do it for free, but they’re not getting rich from grants, like the “scientists” working for the oil companies, they keep all of their checks and come up with bogus simple minded non-facts. Maybe you should have gotten a grant for college, you would know how to spell government and wouldn’t be such a mental drain on society.

      3. I’m confused on how electric/hybrid can significantly reduce emmissions. You have to plug the thing in right? The power to charge the batteries comes from somewhere, right? Most likely the power used to charge the batteries was generated with gas or coal.

                  1. it’s been an issue since the dumb shit leftists called it Global cooling, Global warming, Climate Change…on and on….just so they could sit in universities holding study groups and not get a job.

                    1. More idiotic nonsense, only conservatives think people would rather sit on the couch for $90 a week than work, maybe because that’s what they would do, red states do get a lot more fed assistance than blue states, keep listening to fox.

                    2. So sad you get confused by words and it’s obvious you didn’t attend any university.

                  2. All of Obama’s agencies lie. IRS lies. DOJ lies. CDC lies. Obama lies. NOAA lies. Labor Department lies. State department lies. DOD lies. They all lies. You black guy is a liar and he has others lie for him too.

              2. “Climate experts believe the next ice age is on its way.”
                – Leonard Nimoy, 1978.
                References:

                1970 – Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
                1970 – Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
                1970 – New Ice Age May Descend On Man (Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970)
                1970 – Pollution Prospect A Chilling One (Owosso Argus-Press, January 26, 1970)
                1970 – Pollution’s 2-way ‘Freeze’ On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970)
                1970 – Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 1970)
                1970 – Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
                1970 – Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century (Boston Globe, April 16, 1970)
                1970 – Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
                1970 – Dirt Will Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970)
                1971 – Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground (The Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971)
                1971 – Pollution Might Lead To Another Ice Age (Schenectady Gazette, March 22, 1971)
                1971 – Pollution May Bring Ice Age – Scientist Rites Risk (The Windsor Star, March 23, 1971)
                1971 – U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
                1971 – Ice Age Around the Corner (Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)
                1971 – New Ice Age Coming – It’s Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
                1971 – Another Ice Age? Pollution Blocking Sunlight (The Day, November 1, 1971)
                1971 – Air Pollution Could Bring An Ice Age (Harlan Daily Enterprise, November 4, 1971)
                1972 – Air pollution may cause ice age (Free-Lance Star, February 3, 1972)
                1972 – Scientist Says New ice Age Coming (The Ledger, February 13, 1972)
                1972 – Ice Age Cometh For Dicey Times (The Sun, May 29, 1972)
                1972 – There’s a new Ice Age coming! (The Windsor Star, September 9, 1972)
                1972 – Scientist predicts new ice age (Free-Lance Star, September 11, 1972)
                1972 – British Expert on Climate Change Says New Ice Age Creeping Over Northern Hemisphere (Lewiston Evening Journal, September 11, 1972)
                1972 – Climate Seen Cooling For Return Of Ice Age (Portsmouth Times, ?September 11, 1972?)
                1972 – New Ice Age Slipping Over North (Press-Courier, September 11, 1972)
                1972 – Ice Age Begins A New Assault In North (The Age, September 12, 1972)
                1972 – Weather To Get Colder (Montreal Gazette, ?September 12, 1972?)
                1972 – British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)
                1972 – Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)
                1972 – Science: Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
                1972 – Geologist at Case Traces Long Winters – Sees Ice Age in 20 Years (Youngstown Vindicator, December 13, 1972)
                1972 – Ice Age On Its Way, Scientist Says (Toledo Blade, December 13, 1972)
                1972 – Ice Age Predicted In About 200 Years (The Portsmouth Times, December 14, 1972)
                1973 – The Ice Age Cometh (The Saturday Review, March 24, 1973)
                1973 – ‘Man-made Ice Age’ Worries Scientists (The Free Lance-Star, June 22, 1973)
                1973 – Fear Of Man-made Ice Age (Herald-Journal, June 28, 1973)
                1973 – Possibility Of Ice Age Worries The Scientists (The Argus-Press, November 12, 1973)
                1973 – Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)
                1974 – Ominous Changes in the World’s Weather (PDF) (Fortune, February 1974)
                1974 – Atmospheric Dirt: Ice Age Coming?? (Pittsburgh Press, February 28, 1974)
                1974 – New evidence indicates ice age here (Eugene Register-Guard, May 29, 1974)
                1974 – Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)
                1974 – 2 Scientists Think ‘Little’ Ice Age Near (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)
                1974 – Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)
                1974 – Imminent Arrival of the Ice (Radio Times, November 14, 1974)
                1974 – Believes Pollution Could Bring On Ice Age (Ludington Daily News, December 4, 1974)
                1974 – Pollution Could Spur Ice Age, Nasa Says (Beaver Country Times, ?December 4, 1974?)
                1974 – Air Pollution May Trigger Ice Age, Scientists Feel (The Telegraph, ?December 5, 1974?)
                1974 – More Air Pollution Could Trigger Ice Age Disaster (Daily Sentinel, ?December 5, 1974?)
                1974 – Scientists Fear Smog Could Cause Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 5, 1974)
                1975 – Climate Changes Called Ominous (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)
                1975 – Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)
                1975 – B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)
                1975 – Cooling Trends Arouse Fear That New Ice Age Coming (Eugene Register-Guard, ?March 2, 1975?)
                1975 – Is Another Ice Age Due? Arctic Ice Expands In Last Decade (Youngstown Vindicator, ?March 2, 1975?)
                1975 – Is Earth Headed For Another Ice Age? (Reading Eagle, March 2, 1975)
                1975 – New Ice Age Dawning? Significant Shift In Climate Seen (Times Daily, ?March 2, 1975?)
                1975 – There’s Troublesome Weather Ahead (Tri City Herald, ?March 2, 1975?)
                1975 – Is Earth Doomed To Live Through Another Ice Age? (The Robesonian, ?March 3, 1975?)
                1975 – The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)
                1975 – The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
                1975 – Cooling trend may signal coming of another Ice Age (The Sun, May 16, 1975)
                1975 – Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)
                1975 – Summer of A New Ice Age (The Age, June 5, 1975)
                1975 – In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)
                1975 – Oil Spill Could Cause New Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 11, 1975)
                1976 – The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? [Book] (Lowell Ponte, 1976)
                1976 – Ice Age Predicted (Reading Eagle, January 22, 1976)
                1976 – Ice Age Predicted In Century (Bangor Daily News, January 22, 1976)
                1976 – It’s Going To Get Chilly About 125 Years From Now (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, January 23, 1976)
                1976 – Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
                1977 – Blizzard – What Happens if it Doesn’t Stop? [Book] (George Stone, 1977)
                1977 – The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age [Book] (The Impact Team, 1977)
                1977 – The Ice Age Cometh… (New York Magazine, January 31, 1977)
                1977 – The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
                1977 – Has The Ice Age Cometh Again? (Calgary Herald, February 1, 1977)
                1977 – Space Mirrors Proposed To Prevent Crop Freezes (Bangor Daily News, February 7, 1977)
                1977 – We Will Freeze in the Dark (Capital Cities Communications Documentary, Host: Nancy Dickerson, April 12, 1977)
                1978 – Ice! [Book] (Arnold Federbush, 1978)
                1978 – The New Ice Age [Book] (Henry Gilfond, 1978)
                1978 – Winter May Be Colder Than In Last Ice Age (The Deseret News, January 2, 1978)
                1978 – Current Winters Seen Colder Than In Ice Age? (The Telegraph, January 3, 1978)
                1978 – Winter Temperatures Colder Than Last Ice Age (Eugene Register-Guard, Eugene Register-Guard, January 3, 1978)
                1978 – Little Ice Age: Severe winters and cool summers ahead (Calgary Herald, January 10, 1978)
                1978 – Winters Will Get Colder, ‘we’re Entering Little Ice Age’ (Ellensburg Daily Record, January 10, 1978)
                1978 – Geologist Says Winters Getting Colder (Middlesboro Daily News, January 16, 1978)
                1978 – It’s Going To Get Colder (Boca Raton News, ?January 17, 1978?)
                1978 – Another Ice Age? (Kentucky New Era, February 12, 1978)
                1978 – Another Ice Age? (Reading Eagle, ?February 13, 1978?)
                1978 – Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
                1978 – The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, Host: Leonard Nimoy, May 1978)
                1978 – An Ice Age Is Coming Weather Expert Fears (Milwaukee Sentinel, November 17, 1978)
                1979 – A Choice of Catastrophes – The Disasters That Threaten Our World [Book] (Isaac Asimov, 1979)
                1979 – The New Ice Age Cometh (The Age, January 16, 1979)
                1979 – Ice Age Building Up (Ellensburg Daily Record, June 5, 1979)
                1979 – Large Glacial Buildup Could Mean Ice Age (Spokane Daily Chronicle, June 5, 1979)
                1979 – Ice Age On Its Way (Lewiston Morning Tribune, June 7, 1979)
                1979 – Get Ready to Freeze (Spokane Daily Chronicle, October 12, 1979)
                1979 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)

        3. There was a study that came out in December 2014 and was immediately buried by the media. Electric cars are the worst polluters in the U.S., since mort of our electricity comes from coal, and most electric cars are in use in areas that rely on coal power plants. Also, the pollution created when the batteries are made contributes to their lowest ranking.

          Ethanol was determined to cause more pollution than regular, non-blended gasoline.

          Diesel and hybrids (that don’t use ethanol) were considered the best, followed by regular gasoline vehicles, then ethanol, then electric cars.
          www dot usatoday dot com/videos/news/world/2014/12/16/20486989/

          2. You can look up the same type of report in National Geographic. Oh, and for all you California Progressives please wiki the Navajo Generating Station. You will learn some real crazy news about the BS your politicians are feeding you. You can google map the huge piles of coal they burn. Powers a lot of California.

        5. Don’t forget the production of the vehicle. Oil is used in every step of that process. Oil is literally used for everything. Modern, civilized society wouldn’t be possible without oil. If these warmists are serious about their convictions, they need to go live out in a forest in a log cabin they built themselves and only eat food they kill or gather themselves with tools not made using oil, so basically sticks. Hypocrites. All of them.

          1. Yeah.
            If the warmist really believe what they are saying, then why aren’t they living like it?
            At least the tinfoil doomsday prepers are putting their money where their mouth is…
            All that just tells me that “global warming” really is just a scam.

        6. It sufficiently confuses liberals into thinking they are doing nice nice. Remember, liberals suffer from an extreme lack of the concept of cause and effect.

          1. You mean like pumping smoke into a closed environment for centuries… what could happen? Go sit in your car in the garage, close the door and start the engine… what could happen? I think you got it backwards there.

        1. There was a study that came out in December 2014 and was immediately buried by the media. Electric cars are the worst polluters in the U.S., since most of our electricity comes from coal, and most electric cars are in use in areas that rely on coal power plants. Also, the pollution created when the batteries are made contributes to their lowest ranking.

          Ethanol was determined to cause more pollution than regular, non-blended gasoline.

          Diesel and hybrids (that don’t use ethanol) were considered the best, followed by regular gasoline vehicles, then ethanol, then electric cars.

          1. When we finally wake up and start replacing coal plants with much safer midsize nukes and mini-nukes, we can then go about phasing in fully electric vehicles as lithium-based battery packs finally come of age. Electric cars can now go over 200 miles between recharges, as demonstrated by Tesla. The trick is to get a vehicle to go 200 miles on an 80-90% recharge that takes 15 minutes or less. Gas stations will gladly install recharging stations to attract the EV crowd to their convenience stores. No problem there.

            1. Wish I could afford an 80K Tesla. My calendar shows its 2015. Obama said there would be one million electric cars on the road by now. Oops, there are only 232K and all of them carry huge government subsidies (other peoples money)

              1. …. one benefit, electric cars don’t have gas. Democrats are an endless reservoir of gas, the smelly kind. They camouflage it by having wine tasting and cheese inhaling parties where they cut the cheese endlessly. That’s why they’re all nuts.

            3. I don’t doubt that we can, yes even will (Allah willing – and boy am I serious about that!) develop technologies that will preserve a decent, reasonable atmosphere / environment – in spite of the Obamacrats. There ARE new, promising battery technologies being examined, NOT necessarily Lithium based – the carbon based one (from Japan) SEEMS to hold the most promise BUT POLITICIANS will not, can not declare a “winner” and make it so. IF we are so unfortunate as to allow ourselves to be subjugated to “the will of Allah blah blah blah”, then hey, who cares about the ‘environment’?

            4. WITH THE HELP OF GOV. SUBSITIES…AND WHERE DOES THE GOV. GET THEIR MONEY TO SUBSITIZE….LARGE CORP THAT PAY THE LIONS SHARE OF TAXES…EVERYTHING GOES UP……DAH………………..

          2. Coal is a dying industry, you’ve probably never heard but there’s these other ways to generate electricity, like solar, wind, geothermal, get a clue, it’s not the cars polluting.

            2. You get a clue, obamba already wasted billions on that fantasy… while lining his cronies pockets. Those sources of energy are neither logistically or efficiently able to power a modern economy and never will be able too! Nuclear energy is the best option overall but is a too politically charged alternative. In the meantime, renewable fossil fuels are the only alternative!

                1. Yes, that definitely happened with the Russian reactor in Chernobyl.

                  However, that type of disaster can be muted with design. Even the Japanese reactors melted down, but it was not a Chernobyl-style apocalypse.

                  Check out the plans for a Thorium 232 reactor, which is an evolution in design. Thorium is much more plentiful than Uranium, but must first be converted to fissionable U233 with neutron capture.

                  Light-water BWRs MUST be continuously cooled, even after a quick shut down. The Thorium design does not require this.

              2. go back to the 70’s gee this stuff isn’t new…go back to the turn of the last century…they do not teach that kind of history in school …just the fantasy of green energy…pond scum…

                  1. Right, your a fool, that article is 4 years old, they’ve almost tripled production since 2011, it’s best to take your foot out of your mouth before speaking.

                    1. A song comes to mind ” nothing from nothing leaves nothing”. You are too stupid to have a conversation with…

                    2. That’s cool, I know you teabagging fools think facts are stupid, here’s another I to upset you, Denmark gets almost 40% of its power from wind as well. To stupid to google?

                    5. One more thing Mr. Gavin this has all been seen before. In the 80s. We’re you even born then? You are one useful idiot.

                    6. The names Girvin, I was born when Kennedy was prez and you can stay in the 80’s since your mind hasn’t progressed since then. You do kind of remind me of that song, people like you are nothing, have nothing, and contribute nothing.

              1. Go over to the TN Valley Authority web site and see what % of their power is made using that “other ways to generate electricity, like solar, wind, geothermal” that is so cheap.

                1. You know there are more countries in the world than the US, right? As for “trying”, the US has been cleaning up it’s act for 40 years and the nagging wives club just keeps telling us that we are bad.

                2. its been tried idiot….look at the turn of the last century..if it wirked they would have used it….go back to the 70’s..still not working…takes more energy to implement that crap ….IT IS NOT ECONOMICALLY DOABLE..LOOK AT SPAIN…..25% UNENJOYMENT….

                3. The fertilizer that is used to grow crops to make alternative fuels come from oil and natural gas. Studies have shown it would be wiser to eat the crops rather than make fuel out of it. Don’t know why exactly a study had to be done……………..

                1. So here you are. There’s always a troll that posts nonsense to start arguments for the sheer sake of attention. We’re sorry your daddy didn’t pay enough attention to you, but this isn’t a free clinic.

                  1. That might be funny if it made any sense, which is probably not very often for you. I think I will get out of this pool of stupidity and rinse the ignorance off.

                2. The “Subsidies” are the same R&D credits given to any company that researches and develops new product and process’. The same given to wind and solar producers as well as the companies that employ them to create energy.

                  1. solindria, i wonder how many more of these scams were perpatraited on the public…of course the schools have educated to swallow this crap….good luck…

                  3. If I’m not mistaken, the government makes more on a gallon of gas than the “big oil” companies do. For all the hard work they do… Taxes are the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American public.

                4. I have been a petroleum engineer for over 40 years. Please enumerate the ‘massive subsidies’ my industry receives from the benevolent government. I would be interested to finally find out what these massive subsidies are. I can’t seem to locate them on my balance sheet.

                  2. What he means by “subsidies” is they get to claim deductions like any other business for such things as depreciation of property. To lib tards, that is a subsidy. To turn it on him, if he has exemptions on his tax returns, we are subsidizing his a$$.

                5. Well since they don’t receive subsidies, your post is irrelevant. I think you need to go exercise with Harry Reid, hopefully you can meet the same fate he did.

                  1. They don’t receive subsidies? Pull your head out of your ass, the info is just a Google away. People that think like you are the ones who are becoming irrelevant.

            6. I’ll bet your a proud liberal. Policies have unintended consequences just like electric cars. Stupid people need to think before they post and if this is too hard just don’t post.

              1. Consequences, there’s none with burning fossil fuels? like destroying the environment. And I’ll bet your an ignorant conservative, shortsighted and afraid of change like most.

                1. I love seeing this absolutely asinine logic. How to wind generators and solar fields come into existence? Can you purchase seeds to sprinkle with water and out sprouts a windmill? People with zero logic of the manufacturing process should not interject about the subject of one source being more clean than the other.

                    1. That is exactly why they have classified CO2 as a hazardous waste that is destroying the planet. Capitalism must be extinguished no matter the method or pack of lies required to do the job.

                    2. Yes, which is politically criminal.

                      Greenhouses raising very profitable crops often *pump in* CO2 gas to elevate their yields.

                    5. No that’s not what plants use to live, they absorb it and convert it to o2, they need magnesium, phosphate and nitrogen to live, oops, I shouldn’t have said that, now you guys will want to drop some nitrogen bombs.

                  2. To answer your idiotic illogical question, of course they need to be manufactured and manufacturing windmills is a lot cleaner than building coal fired power plants.

                    2. Yeah then we can be like California. A billion windmills with only about 1/3 of them actually doing anything.

                2. Since when does burning fossil fuels destroy the environment? oh, that’s what Al Gore told you. How many birds are your wind farms killing? Aren’t birds part of the environment?

              2. Correct, that is why high-quality coal such as anthracite and bituminous should be preserved for future generations, if possible, if there is an alternative like nuclear for generating electricity.

                Once the high quality coal is gone, electric-arc furnaces will be required for smelting.

                1. Many US based smelters and foundries today have no other choice but to utilize arc furnaces due to the environmental restrictions. This is especially the case with newly constructed or renovated facilities. Of which we rarely see today. Another burden on a dwindling American employment provider.

              1. Actually, no. In the correct region (sunny desert), solar does quite well.

                My 8.8 kW system generated 15,556 kWH in one year, enough cool, heat, and run the house (fairly well insulated) – AND I sent 5,300 kWH back to the utility and was paid for it.

                Of course, nuclear will definitely be needed by future generations in the coming centuries and millennia.

                  1. No, my worst months for generation were December and this month on January – lots of rain and clouds. They killed energy harvest from the sun.

                    It is AMAZING how much *more* powerful H2O is as a greenhouse gas. 😉

                  1. No, I did NOT take any utility incentive (keeping my options open against utility requirements if you do) and I have NOT taken ANY Federal or State tax credits (no income taxes to pay).

                    The system will STILL pay fot itself in 20 years.

                    I built the system myself, got a city permit and made my own drawings.

                    1. That is to be very much respected. Many people should be as industrious. It is what made America great. (And nobody had to force your hand in doing so.) Props.

                    1. The subsidy the oil companies receive is the same tax credit for R&D that is given to any company that researches and develops any new product or process. Same credits are given to those that produce wind and solar equipment as well as those that employ them.

                    2. Good point – you get more of whatever the U.S. Government subsidizes.

                      Too bad most of the addition to the national debt ($8+ trillion) did not directly subsidize new private-sector jobs.

                    4. Agreed, except for the 20th century world wars, which certainly needed the correct winners, and were uncharacteristically Constitutional, when formally declared by the U.S. Congress.

                    7. You’re an asshat, Dave. The federal government rakes in about $.18 per gallon of gas sold. Compared to the miniscule tax credits the oil producers get, the Feds are raping all of us. GFY!

              1. Yes, the energy density of gasoline (mostly benzene) and diesel fuel is so incredibly dense (36.6 kWH heat energy for one gallon of gasoline) that if fossil fuels cannot be economically mined in the future, air travel for the average human will not be affordable in the coming centuries.

              2. If you would come out of your conservative “we can’t” bubble you might have heard about the solar powered plane that just circumnavigated the globe a couple weeks ago.

              3. If you would pull your head out of that right wing bubble you live in you might be aware that a solar powered plane just circumnavigated the globe. How’s that work for ya!

            12. Dave, do you have any idea how far behind we are on those technologies to be a viable replacement? By all means, I am for getting off dirty energy, but let’s work on the technology and make the switch without committing societal suicide.

                1. Yes, we do need to start now. We need to start perfecting the technology so that WHEN we make the switch from fossil to renewable it makes sense. What you are advocating is nothing short of national suicide. The technology isn’t there. Not by a long shot. Don’t tell me we need to start as in the government does. This is a job for private industry. Which can do it cheaper, quicker, and more efficiently. There is no emergency. That’s the political side of this scientific bate raring its ugly head and pulling on your heart strings. Don’t give in to fear mongering. Science keeps a cooler head. What you are seeing is nothing more than a collection of fools who have based their livelihood on government grants scurrying for cover while the rug is pulled out from under them. Nothing I’ve seen yet has explained the pause. CO2 and other so-called “greenhouse gases” have been on the rise in the previous 20 years, yet no warming. There literally is no emergency. The only real emergency we face today is geopolitical, not geothermal.

            14. WHY DON’T U DO YOUR PART…PUT A WIND MILL IN YOUR FRONT YARD DUMMY…GO KILL SOME BIRDS AND THE NEIGHBORS WILL LOVE THE NOISE..THEIR IS NOTHING SO UGLY AS A HILLSIDE FULL OF WIND MILLS……PUTT,PUTT……………

          3. I have been telling people that forever and it is why I would buy a plug in. Coal miners need jobs too! It didn’t take a study, it just took knowing how electricity is produced.

            1. Electric cars support the coal industry that Obama hates. Funny how everything is backwards. Like when he says I hate guns it causes record gun sales. I’m honestly not sure if it’s his plan to do that or not.

              2. Have you seen how inept he is at everything he does? He’s probably the greatest Republican we’ve ever had. No one makes a case for Conservatism like Barack Obama.

                    1. Yes, and one or two governors of my state were too, and were impeached and removed from office a few years ago, if I recall correctly.

                    1. I am not a member of the U.S. Congress.

                      The corrupt Democrat U.S. Senators would not impeach Obama even if he were caught committing a felony.

                    2. The right is in control now, let’s see how far that goes. And I’ve noticed many more repubs up for corruption charges lately than dems.

                2. He did achieve everything conservatives said that they would do, gas below $2.50, unemployment under 6%, GDP growth 5%, only they said they could do it by 2016. I don’t know why they have a problem with him… oh right, there’s that one.

                    3. You guys are the america haters, you hate everything about it, along with minorities, gays, women, science, pretty much everything that’s not like you, it’s nice that you love unicorns so much, they don’t threaten your fragile mentalities.

                    1. Of course black youth have a much higher unemployment rate than any other ethnicity, I wonder why that is?

                  3. U.S. Jobs 2007: 138,350,000 (at the peak)
                    U.S. Jobs 2014: 139,225,000

                    This is LESS than one million NEW jobs above the peak in 2007.

                    The real unemployment rate is 23%.
                    The real inflation rate is 9%.
                    Real GDP growth is ZERO or negative.

                    (John Williams – ShadowStatsDotCom)

                    2. 2007 when bush still had 2 years in office, right before we started losing 750,000 jobs a month? Of course THOSE BOOKS WERE COOKED, if I say it enough I’ll start to believe it, seems to work for you guys.

                  4. Under obama’s regime we also have the highest number of people not in the workforce, record numbers on welfare, higher food costs, higher electricity costs, near destruction of health care, ISIS, record debt, a corrupt IRS, drone murders, a couple wars, mass surveillance, CIA torture, I could go on and on… Ya, we should all be thanking Barry for a job well done. He is a tool…

                    1. Just reported on Drudge, new Medicaid enrollees younger, fitter and in need of addiction treatment………..

                    2. Instinct tells me that free health care is for the hippies that lounged about spreading free-love, stds and drugs, need meds to treat their twisted minds in their weathered days, which they can’t afford.

                    3. Best part: Barry’s the poster (poser?) boy for the failures of Socialism and Communism. Mix in Narcissism and a little brain damage and the rest of the world will remember him via the internet. The U.S. isn’t a country for hand-outs, it’s the country for making profits – all the others coming here (and they keep coming, mind you) want the same thing as our forefathers did: Liberty! Pursuit of Happiness! Life! Somehow, they just don’t believe the lefts’ lies. Namaste”

              3. like t.v. get subs from gov…u have to wait for your channels to change,can’t get some channels,and a bubble telling u to wait…gees, we need to go back to bunny ears…a giant step backwards….that is what gov. run tv is all about…thru the cable companies….can’t get a credit for no service…

            2. What are you talking about?! Everyone knows that electricity comes out of holes in the wall. Coal plants just produce pollution, nothing else.

              Its the same with welfare. The money comes out of the welfare office when they print those checks. As long as they don’t run out of checks there will be plenty of money for everyone!

              2. (1) To “HATE”. one must have a decisive intellect and an analyrical (judgemental) psyche. (2) Ubama “hates” what his handlers COMMAND him to “hate”.

              3. Some clown calling himself leftwingrightbrain thinks that education in the U.S. is free. Perhaps he’s looking for a circus or he’s a tosser from a director’s cut. Either way, writes angry words, like he’s defending something he saw on TV or a reality show!

          4. Many electric and hybrid hippie cars are sitting en masse on asphalt lots, hated and unsold. The WH freak wants a way to force feed them to unwilling buyers.

            They are manufactured to create an average mpg to balance the profitable vehicles that people by the most: pickups and SUVs.

          6. People who drive hybrids and electric cars are using our roads and bridges but are not paying their fair share. We support our infrastructure with the gas tax. These rich liberal elites who can afford them are the first ones to say we need to increase the gas tax knowing they don’t have to pay it. All hypocrites.

            1. You think that’s bad, wait til the bill for your health care comes after breathing polluted air your whole life. And what’s happened with our infrastructure for the last 40 years, nothing.

              1. Best to know what in air is hazardous, and what is not hazardous.

                CO2 is not.
                CO, NO, and SO2 are, but CO and NO have short half-lives in the presence of sunlight.

                Particulates encountered in the workplace or elsewhere are *much* more worrisome.

                  1. In the history of life on the earth, CO2 has NEVER attained levels that are hazardous.

                    During the Jurassic Period 150-200 million years ago, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was estimated to be 1950 ppm, which is 4-5 times *greater* than the modern concentration of 400 ppm. The average earth surface temperature was only 3 degrees C greater than the modern average temperature.

                  2. So do everyone a favor and stop breathing it out.

                    Oxygen in high amounts is hazardous as well. I suppose we should cut down on oxygen production by your idiotic logic.

              3. Shovel ready jobs? Infrastructure spending in the stimulus, remember the signs at construction area’s on the highway? I do, and so do a lot of other people, where did the hundreds of billions of our tax money go? They squandered it and now they want more. I’d rather drive on dirt roads than give one more dime of tax money to those corrupt bastards.

          7. coal is less fuel efficient and is less energy-dense than oil…but try telling that to an electric car user – they think electricity is free and generated by unicorn farts.

            Even when gas was 3 dollars a gallon, the economic payback rate is 3-4 times the lifespan of the car itself; they cannot pay themselves off in fuel saving unless gas is over 12 dollars a gallon

          9. Ethanol has a terrible shelf life, perhaps one to two weeks tops. Electric cars are hard to clean up after too, talk about toxic waste and battery acid spills. The enviros news champions have those stories hidden pretty well too. (shh, don’t tell them there’s an internet)

        2. Electric cars are coal powered cars. Electricity and hydrogen, darlings of the tree-hugger class ARE NOT SOURCES OF ENERGY, THEY ARE ENERGY TRANSPORT MEDIA. Solar and wind are unreliable miliwatt sources of energy. the only place you are going to get the energy necessary to GENERATE electricity and hydrogen is from hydrocarbons and nuclear sources. Period. For ever. Unfortunately the government educated population is too ignorant of that fact to affect any change in the narrative so I am reconciled to paying Gov. Moonbeam’s Carbon Tax here in the People’s Republik of Kalifornia. I only have to do that until I retire from my oilfield job where I make obscene amounts of money, then I will move to Texas and leave this hell-hole to the illegal immigrants to wallow in.

            1. NO! Those photovoltaic modules are made from…..wait for it……PETROLEUM products and will never produce more energy than they required to be built, transported, installed, maintained…etc., etc. Never mind the environmental disaster of smoking millions of birds that fly into the glaring reflection of those panels.

              1. NO! The Energy-return on Energy-invested (ERoEI) for PV modules is 20:1.

                Can you name the single item used in the manufacture of PV modules, that uses the MOST petroleum? Bet you can’t. This is a test of your knowledge.

                1. That may be the return on the building of the unit itself. But the fact is the cost to purchase and install all the equipment can never be recouped. You could spend $50000 installing a decent system. And the systems tend to become less efficient after 10-15 years and may well need to be replaced…another investment. Technology isn’t there yet. And the cost (short of government subsidy) is prohibitive.

                  1. An 8.8 kW system can be installed on a three-tab shingle roof for about $22,000. That is the system I have and it is *quite* decent, for the sunny desert.

                    The rated degradation on my *monocrystalline* U.S. manufactured panels is 0.7% per year. Their *proven lifetime* is at least 50 years. After 50 years, they will be producing at 65% of rated output.

                    They are rated to survive the impact of a 50 mph one-inch hailstone. I had a half-inch hail storm last March.

            2. I live in the Southern San Joaquin Valley of Kalifornia, probably the best place for solar power in any inhabited area of the US and we installed solar on our roof last April. We did it because our summer power bill was hitting $800/month. It has pretty much zeroed out our power bill but trust me, it is not economic compared to decently price conventional power. Our electric rates are being screwed up by the PUC and Moonbeam Brown’s idiot tree-hugger policies which skew utility prices horribly upward by at least two-fold over the cost of generation. And even in our drought stricken area which has clear skies for the vast majority of time, there are enough overcast days (and even if there weren’t, winter months with the low sun only produce about 30% of max power) that we must supplement heavily with utility power to make ends meet. In other words, if you went 100% solar, you still need 100% installed backup generating power. Then there are the 14 hours of dusk/night that cause real problems. Solar is not and never will be more than a small supplemental source of power.

              1. Agreed. California electric rates are so high, I understand, it could be profitable to pay someone to peddle an exercise bicycle with an attached generator (LOL).

                For comparison with your system:

                I harvested 15,556 kWH in last year with a well-designed 8.8 kW system (almost no shading). The overcast months (right after you lose your NEM credits after being paid) are the most difficult, though.

                Near 12 noon (peak sun from the South), I routinely get 6+ kW production. However, high temperatures reduce production by -0.40% per degree C over 25 degrees C, cell temperature.

                1. Your system is just slightly smaller than mine. Mine is rate 9.7kw best I got in June was about 7.8kw. Diurnal and seasonal variations just make it not practical. Sounds sexy but Americans are used to and deserve power at their fingertips. There is no technical or economic reason we can’t have all the energy we need to drive this engine of liberty for ever. We don’t have energy problems, we have government problems. Energy is what made us the miracle country that we are (plus a pretty good constitution) and to throw that away for some crazy tree-hugger fairytale is sinful. I’ve notice the heat problem too. we get our best 15 minute report right after a cloud goes by when the panels are coolest, sun is brightest. Plus in our dusty climate I have to go up and wash them off a couple times a week during the summer. I am an engineer and love fooling with tech like this but it isn’t economic and fairly high maintenance.

        3. WE WILL JOIN THE REST OF THE GLOBE…PESTILENCE,ILLITERACY,CLASS WARFARE,NO BORDERS, SOCIAL JUSTICE…NOW AMERICA CAN BE JUST AS COMMON AS AFRICA, THE MIDDLE EAST WHERE ISRAEL IS THE ONLY BRIGHT LIGHT…….WE JUST NEED A BOKA HAREEM RADICALS TO COMPLETE TO COMMONALITY..AND MOOCHIE SAD FACE W/CARD BOARD MESSAGE SAVE OUR GIRLS SHE MUST HAVE BEEN CONFUSED ITS NOT ABOUT HER KIDS(WHICH THOSE ILLITERATE RATS CAN’T READ)MAYBE SHE SHOULD HAVE HAD VALLERI JERRIT DO ONE IN ARABIC….WILL WORK FOR FOOD……

        1. NASA is a big fat giant money sucking HOAX run by a bunch of Jokers and Liars. …… Oh, and the moon landings. Real as Micky Mouse…….And we have the proof….Google this….. Wellaware1.

          1. People, please do not google what Isaac1 (aka Robert Govan) asks, or go to his looney tune website.

            He is completely delusional.

            Do not waste one second of your time.

            1. Listen up patriots…. What the 2% shows us on the tv and in the “news” is a false reality. The news they give you is fake. It’s entertainment. It’s a show. The news is fabricated with actors. You live in an actor based reality. You are under their mind control and under their spell since birth. They control you through their mass media, alternative media (Alex Jones, David Icke) and Hollywood. NOTHING they tell you is real. ISIS is a HOAX. All of the beheadings are fake. “Climate religion” is a hoax. Your politicians and officials are ACTORS. Obama is the son of Richard Pryor. Michelle is his half sister Rain Pryor. To see who the 2% are that rule you just look at my profile (click on my name) ……….You are welcome.

                1. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, or when go to church or when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

                  That you are a slave, Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born inside a prison that you cannot smell, taste, or touch. A prison for your mind. Unfortunately, no one can be told what it is. You have to see it for yourself. This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back.

                  You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. Remember — all I am offering is the truth, nothing more.

                1. Go back to your internet game Dave, otherwise you might just blow your top. Cool down. Can it. Relax. Cause the boogey man’ll gitcha iffen ya don’t watch out !!

            1. ACHIEVE THE SAME RESULTS AS SHARIA LAW….WOMEN HUMPING LAUNDRY DOWN TO THE RIVER….WHILE THE MEN BEAT OFF TO PORN IN THE HUTS…WOMEN ARE MUTILATED…SO IF U CAN’T GET SATISFIED…OK TO GAB A BOY…..A FOSTER BOY……..

          8. We went to the moon dude. Plenty of real conspiracies but here you just lend credence to those selling the lies. Aside from the LEM it required no more than the flights to the station.

            1. Why don’t you people care about the unicorns? The unicorns are dying off at a alarming rate and their only source of nutrition, rainbows are being attacked by global warming. If it wasn’t for George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Republicans, tea party members, big oil, big coal, the Koch brothers and capitalism the unicorns would have a fighting chance. Many inner city children will never enjoy the unicorns and that is racist. Thank Allah we have a green warrior president who has surrounded himself with the greatest climate scientists like Al Gore George Soros and Leonardo Dicaprio. They know the unicorn waste and farts are the greenest of energies. The unicorns waste to energy program will create trillions of shove ready jobs and will save gazillions of dollars a year. Let’s save the unicorns, for the children.

                2. When elves move into your neighborhood, they bring down property values. Their kids running around after dark shooting arrows at barking dogs and stray cats, you know.

                  1. Q: Why is “diversity” and “multiculturalism” demanded in All white populations & Only white populations?

                    A: Diversity means Chasing Down the Last White Person.

                    Racial/cultural elimination is the white “privilege”.

                    Q: Why don’t Self-Proclaimed “anti-racists” attack the “racist” immigration and social policies of, say, Japan? Korea? Mexico?

                    A: Anti-racist is a Codeword for Anti-White

                    white ge no cide project dot com

                    Twitter: #white gen oc ide #antiwhite

                    4. Q. Why is bringing race into a discussion of science an indication of racism?

                      A. Because race is irrelevant to the topic of science. Race is not a scientific category.

                4. I am sure all of the fairy dust will be at the Supreme Court as the world waits with bated breath and anxiety as the Nine Nerds decide what perversion between two men is.

                  1. Yeah, the same nine that said a baby is tissue that can be legally ripped from the mothers womb, and that the Ten Commandments shouldn’t be in schools because students might be tempted to follow them. Yeah the same bozos that said forcing Americans to buy a product (obambacare) is constitutional will now decide if perversion and deviance is normal and worthy of “Holy” matrimony. Surely today evil is called good and good is called evil by the SCOTUS!

                    1. Do you have auto insurance? Are you going to take care of an unwanted child that will most likely grow up in poverty? Are you going to allow the Koran in your schools? The constitution will decide that people with deviant, perverted minds, like you, aren’t going to decide who can marry who.

                    2. arent you the pot calling the kettle black….deviant? Next will you legalize marrying your dog? I think yes you will deviant libtard

                    3. You make no sense, like most tea bagging fools, if you want to marry your dog it’s none of my business, it might improve your blood line.

                    6. How on earth can you equate two humans marrying with a human and an animal? Are you the same kind of person that equates being Gay as being a pedophile. I think the people with the best record of deviance are the religious ones who think that they can foist their beliefs on populations of whole countries. Only a few steps away from stoning people for not believing. Religion was invented in the dark ages (Except the more recent ones that saw a money making and or control making opportunity) To keep people under control of a particular group. The inherent denial most people have that when they die they cease to exist anywhere just like before they were conceived. Has led to catastrophic harm on our planet. and will get worse NOT better unless our leaders grow some balls. Sticking your nose into someone else’s marriage is one of the consequences of that. If you believe that somehow, Gay people wanting the same rights as you already have is somehow taking away from what you have. You are seriously immature and insecure!

                  2. Speaking of the 9 pervert Justices and their decisions on two queers can marry ,what is to say I cannot have two or three wives( beautiful women like Sara Brightman, Helene Fisher ect. ) along with the beautiful sweetheart I am currently married to….haven’t checked that out with her , yet!

                7. It is no surprise that Thomas Paine is dead.
                  Capitalism (and those you mentioned) killed him as surely as it has killed everyone (except for those currently alive, whom it will kill in time) whio has lived under its evil regime.
                  Capitalism and evil industry with its smoke and such.
                  In fact. Just smoke. And breath and farts.
                  Maybe just breathing and farting.

                    3. You are a Trollicorn, and you have been this way before, and you get paid to do what you are doing here. So now that everyone is on to you, stop wasting our time, and The DNCs money.

                    5. You have such an open mind being ok with all those racist comments? You fit right in with the people making them.

                    9. Get the drift yet? No body here seems to LIKE you PERIOD! Go away to where you will be welcomed, at a radical liberal site.

                    10. That’s your problem, you live in a hateful little bubble where only people that think like you can get in.

                    12. @ Dave — Nothing racist intended, and only seemingly ‘stupid’ to you if you don’t know what a ‘GOOK UNIKORN’ is. Have a good day.

                    13. Clearhead is a good tag for you since your head seems to be clear of any thought or knowledge, like the word “gook”, just so you know it’s a racist reference toward Asian people, I am a bit surprised you know a little about mythical Asian paleontology.

                    15. Well, Davey boy, let me explain: Once I strightened out the sentence structure in your ‘comment’ so I could see what you probably were trying to say, it became apparent to me that you hadn’t read “Punditator’s” comment above, referring to North Korean unicorns. When you ‘Googled’ “gook” you missed one of the explanations there that the term “gook” was first used by U.S. Marines. You further missed that it was used extensively during the Korean “police action” as a derogatory term toward the North Korean enemies of the world. If you’ve ever set foot in North Korea (which obviously you haven’t), you would understand the use of the phrase. So, just continue your judgmental denigrations and try to be happy. I do sincerely wish you well. Semper Fi.

                    17. John, pay attention, racist comments made, someone says something about it and they’re pulling the race card? Kind of backwards thinking, no?

                    2. She actually said ‘erection’, so it’s gonna be awhile as Hillary is a complete boner killer.

                    3. On Saturday Night Live, Gilda Radner said “Flea Erections,” rather than “Free Elections.” I’m sure they’re the same thing….

                  2. Since 30 million babies have been ” f88ked” as you so crudely put it doing for the children coming from the likes of Hilary Clinton woul;d make a dog puke.

                    BTW do you know where that “Doing it for the children” that Hilary use to spout came from??
                    As the story goes a lefty black woman named Edelman told Cankles I mean Hillary “Doing it for the poor” is worn out and has no cachet so she suggested the ” Doing it for the children ” to sway stupid pole to support the slave holders and their policies, e.g Democrats.

                    3. Websters 101 for dummies: Cankles…the combing of calves and ankles on hideously ugly women. ie, Hillary.

                  5. Only if it really were for the children. PS: Children make excellent political, libtard props unless they are being aborted by the same libtards, in which case, they could make a case for a self imposed, prop shortage. See what I’m saying?

              8. Leonardo Dicaprio drives a massive rv, takes a plane from Manhattan to the Hamptons to avoid traffic, and we all saw him take a 500 ft yacht to go watch soccer

              9. I too forgot the unicorns. Thank you so much for an outstanding comment, listing the long list of racial infractions against narrow minded anti-unicornists.
                We need an Al Sharptacorn to lead us politically out of Big everything.Big oil/pharma/Ag/
                Big big big & big that. Those evil republicans and the bush hierarchy and let’s not forget illuminutcases, Halliburton, etc

        5. My girlfriend told me about a great way to make $2900 per week by claiming to be scientist and spewing hot air to the gutter-like media on behalf of the progressive agenda at NASA, the democratic party, the UN, Brussels, the Vatican and the seamy bowels of western academia.

          At least there’s one thing the ‘musslemen’ have right: Drill Baby Drill.

        6. My problem with this topic – real scientist would not focus purely on “supply” of plant food (CO2) but would equally focus on the demand – PLANTS that consume CO2… OH yeah, they also would not manipulate their data to show the view they want, nor change their prediction from 1970’s of “New Ice Age” to a “Global Warming”

        1. You should have your teeth kicked down your throut, you punk azz b itch. I would take your black tinted window Dodge away from you violently, and run you over with it.

      10. Obama should have gotten a parrot for a pet. It’s only fitting and it doesn’t need a plane to fly. The reason why he didn’t is because he didn’t want it blurting out at the wrong time what it heard behind closed doors.

      11. Liberals need to stop being hypocrites and stop acquiring and using anything related to fossil fuels. Stop using computers, stop using electrical or gasoline powered vehicles of any type. Stop purchasing anything that gets to market by these types of vehicles! Don’t eat anything that is processed and or any plants that comes from seeds delivered to a store. Do not use credit cards and or watch tv or use any kind of electronic equipment. Just stop being hypocrites and move to a cave and dress in animal skins and you will have more credibility!

          1. Nobodies? When you call out someone as simple minded….make sure you are not spelling words wrong or placing commas in incorrect locations. LMAO. You must have your Master’s Degree in Stupidity. Lefty troll.

      13. Interestingly, Snopes who use Ignoratio Elenchi constantly to justify FALSE would call this false. Why? Because the dog was not sent on Air Force One but on another plane ergo to Snopes this is FALSE.
        Ignoratio Elenchi is where they find one irrelevant fact to the report that may be wrong and therefore claim the entire report is FALSE. Snopes hopes we do not read further into the article than FALSE. Check them out…it is amazing how many times this is used by them. If you want the truth just Google and read all the reports and forget Snopes.

      14. One jumbo jet transpacific flight burns enough to fuel a month of average commutes for everyone in a small city of 250k. If they were really serious the first thing to go would be air travel.

      16. That is indeed my FAVORITE and BEST revelation about the “global warming fraud”…. IF it’s so “real and threatening” why are the global warming gods, Obama and Gore, so cavalier about jetting helter skelter all over belching CO2 – I’d bet we could all change our lamps 4 or 5 times to LEDs and not compensate for the Obama vacation safaris. (Yes, I know, multiple changes is BS, but hey, we are in the realm of BS here…). Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984 are no longer fiction, of course they weren’t when Orwell wrote them after visiting his erstwhile leftist liberal dream society (the USSR) and saw the realities first hand. Yeah, I know… the “new” leftists liberals are just warm and fuzzy folk – would never, ever use the powers of govt like the IRS and NSA against the citizens!

      20. No lie is too stupid for GiveMeLiberty to try to push.

        “Once again, Bo did not have the aircraft to himself. According to an August 10th article by CBS News, he travelled with White House Staff, media and Secret Service. “

        1. Media Matters troll. Even you must realize that a claim of a temp rise of 1/25 of a degree is statistically insignificant. That means no change in temp since 2005 by your own data. There’s nothing there. Just an idiot headline generated for the those who don’t read beyond the headline.

    6. I am confused. In July 2014 NASA & NOAA reported that record lows out pacing highs… Is this why they have pushed everyday math in order to limit critical thinking? Sounds like they propaganda depts need to talk first or use NSA’s data.

      2. The next big move is to start claiming that the warming is occurring in the Ocean. They are starting to say: Ocean temps and deep Ocean temps are ‘the hottest on record’ as if they have a robust long term record of underwater temperatures.

        They can basically say anything they want and the rubes will just buy in.

        1. Of course, you have to ignore most of the Laws of Thermodynamics to claim that all the missing heat is being sucked out of the atmosphere into the oceans… but the left is sciencey.

        2. Joseph Goebbels could take plays out of the envirocommies playbook, these people are something else. (dangerous). On a serious note, these people are driving this country into destruction full speed, our education system is failure and the health system is on life support; and these clowns are worried about something that won’t happen in 300 years.

    8. Stupid is still clinging to erroneous mathematical models and twisting facts to suit theories, rather than twisting theories to suit the facts. It is sad to see what the climate scientists have done to the scientific method through their continued intellectual dishonesty. That truly is a special kind of stupid…

    9. Even taking their data at face value, they claim that the previous years for “highest temperature ever” was a tie between 2005 and 2010.

      2014 is higher by….. drum roll…. 1/25 of a degree.

      That’s right. 0.04 degrees.

      That’s WAY BELOW the margin of error.

      So in other words, the temperature has been completely flat since 2005, no warming in a decade. THAT’S WHAT THEIR OWN DATA SHOWS.

      I quote Morano: “Claiming 2014 is the “hottest year” on record based on hundredths of a degree temperature difference is a fancy way of saying the global warming ‘pause’ is continuing.”

      That’s the actual headline. Not HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD. But no statistically discernible change in a decade or more. Temperature flat.

      1. When you’re talking goverment overreach, fear mongering, hysteria, power, command and control…YUP! It quite easily can be billed as a global conspiracy! The amount of money changing hands for this pseudo-science is staggering! And the amount of “buy-in” from an unsuspecting public…breathtaking! Thankfully, the intellectual skeptics are now being heard and their numbers are growing…There’s still time to expose this “Invoneient Truth!”

    11. This kind of a pathological lie is usually reserved only for psychopaths who will do anything to trick us into surrendering control of our lives to them. Are these guys psychopaths or are they beholden to the behind-the-scenes psychopaths who control their purse strings?

    18. LIKE THE WEATHER FREAKS FROZEN IN A BOAT I THINK IN THE ANTARTIC…..HAVE TO SEND IN A SHIP TO RESCUE THEM….INSANITY….THAT’S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN EVERYONE IS ENCOURAGED TO GO TO COLLEGE…….

      1. Not only 1, but 3 ships got stuck in the ice trying to save those morons. They finally got rescued by helicopters from either china or Russia.
        The whole world was laughing at them.

        Of course, they’ll keep on pounding away with their dogma in a vain attempt to get everybody to believe them….
        They have latched onto the old nazi trick of telling a huge lie & keep repeating it often enough until everyone starts to believe it…

        I don’t think its working out for them this time….

          1. Yes indeed.
            I’m sure that right after it became apparent that the U.S. was going to be the dominant country, certain element began scheming to get their hands on the levers of power and steer the narrative in a direction of their choosing.
            The education system has been a target ever since. It’s rotten with leftists…

    19. Libs are tireless.

      They never get tired of being wrong.
      They never get tired of being made a fools of by lib politicians.
      The never get tired of lying.

      I mean think about it. The leading Obamacare architect has come right out it was all a lie from the start. Went on to say they needed their supporters stupid to get their agenda passed. Did democrats get pissed about being played for suckers? No they got mad at Gruber because it gave a sound byte to the GOP!

      Yet millions of moronic leftists still think Obamacare is going to save them money and lower costs.

      Look how long global warming has been proven to be a hoax yet they continue to live the lie. Every single prediction they have made has been dead wrong. EVERY SINGLE ONE! Hell odds would be they might have a few come true out the hundreds of predictions but they could not even get one right.

      1. A bunch of the gruberites are already whining about being suckered.
        Wait till the employer mandate kicks in & they start getting laid off or having their hours shaved back to part time…
        That ought to be about election time in 2016….

    21. Did you read the article. 18 year halt in the change. “The satellites show an 18 year plus global warming ‘standstill and the satellite was set up to be “more accurate” than the surface records.” Why are we stupid and not you? There is no real evidence except from agenda driven institutions. Wake up and smell the real world. Really when you get down to the reality of it all, the climate on earth has been in flux since it was formed billions of years ago. The idea that we can influence the climate is a non starter. Ice ages come and go, we have no control over those things.

    22. I like how they say that this warming period must be due to man and the odds of it being natural was 650 million to one. Unfortunately if they look at their own temperature charts and go back only 150,000 years, the planet was warmer, before it descended into a long cold streak, broken only in the last 12-15000 years. This is where the Flood myths all come from.

    24. AL GwhORE couldn’t get this bogus scam past most Americans so now they are enlisting the Black Pope…which makes perfect sense as the entire global warming charade is nothing but bad religion…pretty soon we will all be tithing our tax dollars to “fix” the problem.
      My guess is that they know the petrodollar is very nearly down the toilet so they are looking at creating a new fiat currency backed by carbon credits.

    27. Superman shirt in avatar? You believe in heroes. made up one. and if you were your man of steel you would force your point of view on everyone else.

    28. I think your comments are confusing us all. Are you just some redneck retard who doesn’t believe in science or are you probably not even a real human and just a product of big petro’s marketing team? I’m not sure which is worse…

    31. All the planets are warming up. Russians have studied for 50 years… and called it “torsion field energies” as per Richard C Hoagland. Other Astronomers mention energies coming from the center of our galaxy. HAARP antenna arrays also contribute to heat and change jet streams. Solar Coronal holes increase storms on Earth and other planets. Mankind are like fleas: puny compare to the power of the Sun.

      1. Interesting post! But..you’ll have a hard time convincing the Global Warming devotees that our car exhaust is floating all the way up to our solar system! 😉

    33. It’s not stupid. It’s more like a stubborn refusal to let go of a lie. They still believe there’s political power to be gained through the lie.

    34. “Liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide. When once this initial and final sentence is understood, everything about liberalism – the beliefs, emotions and values associated with it, the nature of its enchantment, its practical record, its future – falls into place.”
      ― Kyle Bristow

      1. Very well saidd gerry! One of my fave’s, “A young man who is NOT liberal….has no heart. An older many who is not convervative…has no brain!” (Winston Churchill, ca. 1945)

  5. I would like to know how often the thermometers that provided this data were calibrated..

    I know the answer – NEVER.

    Any analytical chemist will tell you uncalibrated measurements are nothing boy noise.

    Might as well use a moist finger

    3. Actually, they “calibrate” them frequently. The trick is, what they call “calibration” is actually “miscallibration.” Literally. I mean that if a land-based weather recording station gives data which does not support “the model,” they adjust the output of that station until it does “fit the model.”

      That the model is utterly false, and does not fit the REAL data… that’s of no consequence to scammers like Hansen. What matters is “how can we use this to alter human behavior,” not “is this true, or is this false?”

      They are, honestly, just plain evil. Sociopathic.

      1. That’s the same exact technique they use for the climate computer models. In fact, it was a savvy computer programmer who blew the lid off the East Anglia den of deception emails.

    4. Don’t forget that most of the measuring apparatus are located near MASSES of concrete and other heat storing material which affects the localized temperature, then add the fabricated hocky stck to it and you have bold faced liars. Move the measuring devices out to the country free from man made items and you will see a difference, confirming a COOLING trend
      These cycles have been going on for millions of years and to implicate man as the cause ( without nuclear wars that is) is like sticking you head in the sand. The warming, we have had since the last ice age, is a NATURAL event. Now we are reversing to a cooler time.

    5. And if they were calibrated them, who did the calibrations?
      Given how nasa & noaa have become so politicized, and are headed by biased political hacks, it’s no big leap to imagine that they tinker with their equipment to show the desired results.

  6. When someone explains to me why the Middle Ages were warmer than today and why glaciers were as far south as Chicago I will listen. How was that “man made”?

    1. Well, you know, breathing, flatulence…all leads to more CO2 and methane leaking into the atmosphere (that’s what they’ll say). The ultimate goal of these people are to eliminate most of the human population (which means get rid of the poor and middle class). Funny thing, when I eat just fruits and vegetables, I tend to flatulate more. I have asked the same question and have gotten no answers. I have also asked what proof is there that humans, and not nature, is causing this. Scientists have shown that Earth has gone through periods of global warming and cooling for eons, yet for some reason, this time it must be humans fault. How did it happen eons ago? Did someone from the future travel back in time with a V8 engine? I find it really odd that these same people make fun of people of faith (in God) but seem to have all this faith in these scientists who say we are the cause of global warming without proving why they believe this.

    2. No problem, 18 or so years as Meteorologist. It’s actually quite simple, and boils down to two key components. The sun has cycles in how much energy that nuclear cauldron puts out. It’s certainly not constant and fluctuates. If one sees the comparison of how large the sun compared to Earth, even being 93 million miles away, yeah it has an impact far above anything else. Second, volcanoes, those put out far more “emissions” than we ever could possibly by heavy industry or driving. In the Middle Ages the sun went into a cycle known as the Maunder Minimum and there were huge volcanic eruptions. For example, in 1815 Mt. Tambora in Indonesia exploded releasing 38 cubic miles of ash, which caused worldwide climate change and in the N. Hemisphere for 2 years there were NO summers. Plenty of records on this, on how much crop failure and starvation was caused by it. If this happened today, the effects would be far worse. Volcanic activity has perked up recently but it’s actually very quiet in that regard and something big will come, it’s inevitable. The volcanoes are far smaller of the two key factors. There isn’t enough out there to determine how the sun is going to behave. What we put out in CO2, methane, etc… is minutia. The only way man can truly change the climate would be a nuke war. Everything else is largely irrelevant. Now, I’m all for a cleaner environment, green energy, less sprawl, etc etc, but we have to establish the green energy as reliable first, which it is not at this point.

      1. Question for you. I understand the volcano’s, ash can be pulled from ice cores. How do we know about the sun cycle that far back?? Thanks in advance.

        1. No “direct” ice core evidence for the sun cycles. It’s mostly written records of astronomers at the time of when sun spots were observed or not. Sun spots meaning the sun is “hotter”, no sun spots means it’s relatively “cooler”. The Maunder Minimums feature few if any sun spots and means the sun isn’t as active or putting out as much energy as when it has sun spots. Another way to look and compare is like when you’re boiling water on the stove. When the water is cooler and the stove is on, it’s moving but not bubbling when boiling. The “bubbles” on the sun show as sun spots. All depends on the nuclear reaction within the sun and that is way harder to predict then any weather forecast. You’re absolutely right the ash layers can be found and accounted for. The lower energy of the sun isn’t as easy to tell as say tree rings, because ice compacts and can’t tell exactly one year or a decade of snow/ice accumulation. It’s a combination of “back-fitting” the sun cycles for the written record with today’s computers, adding available tree ring data, any additional written sources. It’s not exact, but regardless, the sun is the #1 weather factor.

  9. ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’
    . . . I believe we are talking about what is known in the science
    realm as BEING STATISTICALLY DEAD. The increase means NOTHING.
    .

    1. That’s the ongoing swindle here in California. Sacramento want to get a 75 cent gas tax put on ever gallon sold here… They’re starting with a 12 cents with plans to move up in increments.

  19. We aren’t going to let science get in the way of the biggest wealth redistribution and tax initiative in the history of the world! Let us hope the world warms up, because we’ll all be living outside in tents when it’s all over… Living outside and speaking Mandarin…

  25. It’s all for the headlines. The sheeple see the NYT headline about the “warmest year on record” and that’s all they need to be convinced that Al Gore is right, they should pay more taxes and have less freedom.

    Baa baa baa baa baa…I can hear them now.

  26. Scientists in Australia, USA and the UK have all
    been caught manipulating the data to ARTIFICIALLY create global warming.
    Scientists at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology are under indictment for
    manipulating an entire century of data to show a warming trend of 1.73C/century
    instead of the actual NEGATIVE 0.35C/century!!!! NASA & NOAA have also been
    caught making dishonest adjustments, as has the Climate research unit at the
    University of East Anglia in the UK. Yes they were illegally hacked to discover their
    lies…but lies and collusion PROVEN none the less.

    1. We have to break the law to prove the truth? Oh boy are we in trouble folks. This is as serious as it gets. To abuse Hellenism in the promulgation of a political motive shows we have a serious problem.

  27. The federal bedwetters are at it again – must be time for Barry to announce he’s tossing a few billion $ more to his (bundler) friends at A123 or other ‘startup’.
    What a load of commodity.

  29. HOW are record cold temps possible anywhere on the planet if it is getting warmer all over the entire world?

    Democrats are too stupid to know what global and/or warming mean…..

  30. More lies, more exaggerations. Weren’t all the coastal cities suppose to be under water by now? Come back when you have something a bit more substantive than your chicken little horse$hit. Until I see mankind forced to change a single behavior that isn’t imaginary or precautionary based on a fantasy and a string of proven lies then I remain firmly in the non-Kool-Aid drinking camp.

  33. The EPA has 2 BILLION earmarked for phony research.
    .
    The bigger culprit is linked to the UN. It is the SERI institute in India.
    SERI Institute is run by the same doofus that runs the U.N.
    IPCC – Dr Rajendra K. Pachauri. Don’t be fooled by his cryptic Doctorates.
    Those degrees are for work he did with his former employer – The National
    Indian Railway!!!! Nothing to do with Climate Science!

    The BAD Dr. launders Billion$s through SERI Institute to buy
    phony “Research” with Junk Science for Global Warming. You didn’t
    think all those papers flooding academia & the “Sciences” were
    real, did you?

  36. This is all a lie. Record ice on both poles, record longevity of ice on the Great Lakes and the lowest temperatures across the country in decades with this year promising to be colder. This is a lie pure and simple. Like the nazis said, keep repeating a lie long enough it becomes the truth and the bigger the lie the more you double down on it.

  38. “the heat is hiding in the oceans”

    Is that the same heat that made it too cold for fairy-boy Obama to go swimming in the ocean on his 7th vacation to Martha’s Vineyard last summer, or the heat that froze the boatload of global warming liars into the Antarctic sea ice last Antarctic summer….you know, when they were studying the shrinking sea ice?

  39. NOAA and NASA are government funded and will and will continue to receive government funding as long as they produce data that support the political progressive agenda. Follow the money.

  41. If anything is making the earth’s climate change it is because everything we buy now is made on the other side of the world, and it all has to be transported. It’s not cheap energy for the poor who aren’t allowed to work!

  49. Here’s a study that concludes there is not a shred of true evidence there is global Warm ing. n fact Global Cooling is closer to the facts. Thank you UN you may now go back to your belly button cleaning…… Thank you.

  51. Problem with the scientists claiming global waring is that they’ve cried wolf too many times. Can’t believe anything that comes out of their mouth now. They have been busted lying too many times.

  52. Facts? It’s got nothing to do with facts. This is about scaring people into excepting the next great phase of income redistribution and freedom suppression. Facts?….Don’t come here looking for a fight you bigoted, racist, intolerant, homophobic, women abusing, right wing, GW denying, one percent, immigrant bashing, oil loving, ground poisoning, air polluting piece of….wait, what was the question?

  56. These statistics are a dubious at best. First, most of the world is ocean. In truth weather buoys in the ocean are far and few between, and most are located within 200 miles of land. We don’t have many weather stations out in the open ocean. That’s very significant because it means that a huge percentage of the earth’s surface has no weather data. Second, many places in the eastern 2/3rds of the U.S. had one of their coldest, if not the coldest years ever in 2014. Most Americans were freezing their butts off last winter! Western Europe and parts of Asia also had a harsh winter last year. Nothing matches up here with reality! When a huge part North America has one of the coldest winters in history, it hear claims by NASA and NOAA don’t stand up to reason.

    3. The funny thing is that people who call themselves intelligent, continue to buy into it and pay frauds like Al Gore to give speeches on the subject. He does’t even have a degree in any form of science yet is lauded as an expert on the matter.

  59. Scientists indeed balk. We should separate scientists from the propaganda pushers of the global warming/climate change/global cooling/forecast shift/random temperature data/whatever marketing calls it next year crowd.

  63. Ah, the “New Age Religion Guru” James Hansen is busy trying to bilk us out of more cash to support his scam.

    We all know that this year has been COOLER than previous years. We also all know that Hansen and his fellow scammers have been caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar many times recently, fraudulently falsifying data. And we know that he’s definitely enjoying the “advisor to Al Gore and others” role he’s taken on, and gotten rich off of, all while still receiving a far-too-generous taxpayer-paid compensation package at the same time.

    The fact that Hansen, not long ago, applied a “fudge factor” to data which, in its raw stated, showed cooling trends, resulting in “results” which were forced to be WITHDRAWN BY NASA… should have gotten the SOB fired, long ago.

    But then again, remember, NASA is no longer about putting US interests into space, it’s about “reaching out to Muslims.” (sigh)

  64. amazing. neo-cons are totally afraid if someone wants to regulate their steel phallus, but have no fear about the reality of climate change. forget the numbers, look around you at the record droughts, record floods, record wildfires, seismic activity in bizarre places (fracking), polar vortexes ruining crops, costal highways closed due to rising water, but yeah….there’s no climate change due to man.

    1. Well now, look who just finished off a large mug of Kool Aid.
      “Forget the numbers” when they don’t agree with your leftist alarmism.
      Hype weather and climate changes that are historically insignificant (like you).
      Fail, tool.
      Fail.

      2. if you need numbers to reveal that weather patterns are much more severe than 20 years ago, it proves you’re a faux snooze, low info, human speed bump, neo-CON.

  65. And the lame stream media keep taking the lies and breathlessly telling us only what the Warmunists are saying.

    The Legacy Leftist Media are the enemies of the people.

  66. The Global Warming Alarmists told us that as the earth got warmer, we would see an increase in the number and the intensity of tropical storms.

    We haven’t experienced this.

    If the earth is warmer now and we haven’t had more storms, then Global Warming doesn’t produce more and stronger storms. The prediction was wrong.

    If the prediction is right, that warmer temps do lead to more and stronger storms, then the earth is not getting warmer.

  68. The “Global Warming” kleptocracy has gotten almost $2 billion in grants to flog their nonsense. Take away their government grants and you’ll never hear another “global warming” claim.

      1. In the pass five decades, what has the government in the US really done to improve the lives of all it’s citizens? It seems government has the Midis touch but instead of turning everything it touches into gold it turns it instead into a smouldering pile of manure. Take Obama Care for example. What would make any sane individual believe that the government can make our medical care better under Obama Care when we can all see now messed up the Veterans Administration hospitals have been run? Note, the VA is a federal entity not a private entity like most of our medical care use to be.

        You Californians reading this. Remember MTBE and how the Californian government believed it was the answer to the global warming scare by eliminating chemicals in our automobile exhaust that allegedly were damaging our atmosphere? Do you also recall that today MTBE has been the source cause of the shutdown of many of your fresh water wells as it is a carcinogen? How much has MTBE really cost the American people? We don’t know and it will be decades before we can even estimate a cost with any degree of accuracy. But we now know that MTBE is a bad thing and no longer use it. But we shouldn’t have used it in the first place and wouldn’t have used it if it had not been for strong government intervention. Meaning, the government screwed it us, again. The old Midis touch turning stuff into crap.

        How does this happen?

        Because most of America today is either to ignorant about such things or they simply do not care and cannot be bothered to see to it that government operates at the will of the people for their benefit instead of the people existing for the benefit of government and its will. Does the tail wag the dog or does the dog wag the tale? With our government today, currently it’s the tale wagging the dog and we are the one’s forced to jump through the government’s hoops for it’s benefit and entertainment.

  71. NYT articles prove that grant-money chasing pseudo-scientists have changed their minds 15 times since 1855. Warming, cool, warming, cooling, warming, cooling..it never ends!

  72. Do doubt they are still basing their ground measurements upon ill placed gauges and manipulated data while denying access to any source material for unbiased analysis.

  73. If global warming were occurring and humans are the only creature to evolve, why are we getting fatter? Fat is used to insulate one from the cold and if it were getting warmer we would all be skinny. I would like for Algorites to be true in their beliefs as then I could get me a hot babe.

    1. Yep, Even the most ardent believers in any kind of a global warming threat keep driving cars, taking vacations, burning electricity, flushing toilets, celebrating birthdays, using batteries, etc.

      Truth is, if they felt there was an actual threat caused by mankind, they would be screaming at cars at the nearest corner and living in tents trying desperately to stop their certain death.

      No action = No belief.

      2. actually, there are enhancements to one’s life that CAN take place to slow man-made carbon emissions. my household has taken several. it’s a matter of choosing to participate, or just bitch about it.

        2. Tony…I admire personal changes for the sake of reducing pollution and insuring clean air…but know that it has zero effect on how that big burning star feels about us humans. It sounds like you are a reasonable person who is not swayed by the spin of the hypocrites who are in this for $$$.

          1. i don’t live my life based on what others say, i research. i don’t care if my singular efforts change ANYTHING, except my kid’s mind about how to treat the earth. the good part is that ALL of my friends are in agreement, so i know i’m not alone, except for on this drudge board.

            2. That’s a good message. The science around this topic is so wobbly, it’s not worthy of the left’s attempt at corralling the message. Everyone needs to relax.

  75. And just how many of these city based thermometers are feet from a new black top parking lot? Lots and lots and lots. Surface data is basically useless unless the thermometer is far from any man made structure that can absorb infrared radiation. The climate hustle continues, send us money!

    1. uh, more CO2, bigger hole in the atmosphere which protects us from the sun’s radiation. ever take a science class? yeah….let’s let plant life take over. in your household it seems to have already taken place.

  77. If man causes “global warming” then how in the hell did the earth thaw from the ice age, long before man was driving cars and living with electricity? I think the sun, the cloud cover, the ocean currents, along with the CO2 released from the oceans, jungles, and volcanoes have much more to do with it. Which brings up another point…..how can CO2 be considered a pollutant when it’s the basic building block of ALL life on this planet. Without CO2 in the atmosphere there would be no plants, trees, grass, etc. Without these there would be no oxygen, and by consequence no people. Wake up libtards, this is basic 2nd grade science.

    1. OMG….are you seriously suggesting this, or are you being sarcastic? neo-CON’s: THIS guy is on your side, you sure you want him playing on your team? he might EAT the uniforms.

                  1. Of all the myths quoted, calling carbon dioxide a pollutant is the worst – it’s simply is not true! Myth: CO2 is a pollutant. Fact: Totally false. I challenge you to prove otherwise. CO2 is in our every breath, in the carbonated sodas and waters that we drink and in the dry ice that helps us keep our food cold and safe. We breathe in 385 parts per million and then exhale 40,000 parts per million with no ill effects. We breathe the 40,000 ppm into victims needing CPR and it does not cause them to die! The monitoring systems in U.S. submarines do not provide an alert until CO2 levels reach 8,000 ppm which is higher that natural CO2 levels have been on Earth in the last 540 million years. CO2 is a great airborne fertilizer which, as its concentrations rise, causes additional plant growth and causes plants to need less water. Without CO2 there would be no life (food) on Earth. The 100 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has caused an average increase in worldwide plant growth of 12 percent and of 18 percent for trees.

                    1. never said it was a pollutant, just that more CO2 means more radiation. thanks for being my research bitch though.

  78. I think the government uses this when the fire gets to hot in Washington and they throw in the Global warming to put us off the track. Well they should know, it doesn’t work. We know their screwing up.

  84. “We now have satellite data to show that global warming is actually happening!”

    “What do you mean it shows no warming?”

    “Satellite data is irrelevant!”

  87. Unfortunately – with the current Administration having PROVED themselves to be LIARS and AUTHORS OF DECEIT, I don’t believe them, especially when I read to many reports of “Record Cold” all over the world. So – EXCUSE ME for not believing this report.

    Just my Take

  89. Of course, NOAA is the same bastion of brilliance that said the “average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895″ and “the previous warmest July for the nation was in 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F.”

    While NOAA and their fellow global warming/climate change fanatics spent much of their time shouting this “scientific” news to all the world for two years… they weren’t as enthusiastic about letting everyone know they quietly reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record in the U.S. sometime in June of 2014 because their “data” (as it turns out) was “flawed.”

  91. From a 1834 Kentucky newspaper article:
    Isiah Fredskir of Nashville TN reported his donkey named man died of hyperthermia July 10. Got so hot the popcorn started poppin in the garden and the donkey thought it was a blizzard and froze to death.
    Al Gore 2003:
    My great great great granddaddy Isiah Fredskir discovered global warming is man made.
    The science is settled.

  92. Unlike slavery I hope to God all ancestors of conservative climate change deniers (Oil/Coal industry water carriers) are held accountable for the ignorance of their fathers. People on this blog are fighting logic and science to the death to secure the profits of Oil and Coal Billionaires at the expense of the Earth. Its a shame you all will long dead when and your grand children will inherit an Earth were the Sky boils in January in North America and we loose NYC and parts of Florida due to rising sea levels. I hope you all retire to Florida Pan Handle and get swept out to sea in Super Hurricanes.

    1. Get over yourself. This website isn’t just saying “we’re right and you’re wrong”, they have presented evidence from climatologists. If you want to believe a group of scientists on one side and not believe another group of scientists, that’s all on you buddy. Talk about closed minded.

      No prediction of doom and gloom has ever come to pass, ever. No biblical prophesy and no scientific or political one. Ten years ago Harry Reid made a big speech in congress saying there would never be any more snow, ever. That was back when the last 3 years of winter had no snow. Ever since then not only have we had snow, but huge blizzards. Guess he was wrong.

      How about I remind you of our Ozone layer? Remember how that was supposed to be gone by now? What you wrote is exactly the rhetorical nonsense I use to hearing back then about the Ozone layer. Everyone predicted doom and gloom and said we all had to change our ways and get taxed. Guess what, they were wrong too!

  94. It is what they want it to be! If the numbers aren’t there, they’ll make them up. If other numbers contradict, they’ll toss them. It’s all about an agenda! And money-lots of money. Carbon credits, credit trading, carbon taxes, and more taxes. Plus research grants for those who turn in reports that are favorable.

  95. Full steam ahead! (no pun intended) Keep that propaganda machine humming. Global warming, global warming, global warming. The earth is burning up…while I’m freezing my ARSE OFF!!

  97. I couldn’t care less if it’s warming, cooling or turning Japanese (I really think so).

    Try to tax me to pay for this idiocy and I’m out.
    America used to be the only player.
    No longer. I’ll happily take my money and brains somewhere they’ll be more appreciated….

  98. If you want to keep your doctor, you can; if you want to keep your policy you can, period. If the government wants to raise taxes because of a high temperature reading it can! It makes no difference if it is true or not because they can make up any number they want and that lie will last as long as the want, period.

    1. Actually, there was another guy who headed NASA but his data showed that this was natural and Obama had his Cronometric Tsar go back in time to wipe the guy from existence. 🙂

  103. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

    ….. Dwight D. Eisenhower

  104. Total bullshit.

    These clowns believe that they can accurately measure the temperature worldwide, and make a claim of a trend, when the period in question is like a grain of sand in the immense beach of time.

    Wake me when the opening act is over.

  107. Sad but true but a lot of world’s surface temps are estimated,

    even in the US up to 40% are estimated.

    “Fake temperatures are marked with an “E” in their final database, as seen below in the 2008-2011 January-June data for Cadiz, Ohio.

    https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/screenhunter_5152-dec-12-22-23.gif

    Nearly 40% of the 2014 final temperatures are marked with an “E” – which is even larger than the 29% percentage of stations which are completely fake. This indicates that they are also making up temperatures for a large number of stations which actually do have thermometer data.”

    http://cran.r-project.org/web/…

    A: Accumulated amount. This value is a total that may include data from a previous month or months (TPCP).
    B: Adjusted Total. Monthly value totals based on proportional available data across the entire month. (CLDD, HTDD)
    E: An estimated monthly or annual total.

    please note that the grey areas represent missing data- hmm i wonder what that means.

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/201409.gif

    GIss estimate temps up to 1200 kilometres from weather stations around the world.

    Here is what the MET say about that-

    “NASA GISS assumes that temperature anomalies remain coherent out to distances of 1200km from a station”

    I have often assumed things…… but never that NASA GISS are coherent.

  108. I agree that Earth may be going through a global warming phase, but where is the proof that this is not natural and is completely man-made? I read that Earth has gone through numerous global warming and cooling phases, so why, all of a sudden, it must be man-caused global warming this time? And would someone unthaw me out when this global warming is over please??!! Global warming sure makes it cold in the Peoples Republic of Maryland.

  110. I think any climate scientist who is found to be willingly misleading the public should be tried, convicted and then executed. It’s obvious these bastards are lying and doing it to continue to receive their funding since they can’t function in a normal job like a normal person. Their lies are used to support themselves and then they publish this crap which the whole world knows is a lie. Again, if proven to be willingly misleading the public for their own benefit, tried, convicted and executed.

  112. I’m confused, I thought ALL scientists were supportive of the federal government’s assertions of climate change.

    I thought the gubmint got ALL of its data from a scientific community that was entirely in consensus.

              2. You may want to glance backward with your “looking” eye and notice the drastic swings in global temperature over the past 10,000 years without it being remotely attributed to man.

  120. Global warming alarmism will not go away simply because there is too much money to be made by scientists bucking for research grants and clever businessmen seeking to soak the gullible.

    1. Yes and it may be that they have to figure out a way to tax cooling of the earth since it may be shifting that direction. No matter what, they will blame man. It’s really quite arrogant when you think about it.

  121. There’s something missing here. Where are all the global goobers who claim they will take the word of scientists over internet commenters? That’s right, they are still bitterly clinging to their religion over in the other story that’s still pushing the hoax.

  122. Because the “N” in NOAA stands for “National” as in “United States federal government under the Obama administration” the report is not to be believed. Don’t blame me, they did it to themselves.

  124. I find it fascinating that we are *ALWAYS* on the “brink of the precipice”.. Been that way for decades…

    Won’t someone please just PUSH US OVER already!!

    Then we wouldn’t have to listen to the doom-saying fanatics!

  125. None of these “scientists” opinions matter because they are not true scientists if they don’t kneel before the altar of Man Made Global Warming. I mean Global Warming. I mean Climate Change.

  126. NOAA has never belched out lies before

    These morons never ever lie

    Globaloney: NOAA Quietly Changes Warmest Year Back to …

    wizbangblog.com › … › Global Warming › Liberals › Media › Science

    Jul 01, 2014 · Globaloney: NOAA Quietly Changes Warmest Year Back to 1936 Without Comment. … (NOAA) claimed that the year 2012 was the “hottest” year on record.

  127. This is so simple I can’t believe these no one though of it….

    The earth began heating up when we discovered air conditioning….
    It’s hotter outside because we made it cooler inside!
    Conservation of energy and all that…

    So, factor in the temp in our houses and it evens out….

    Rubes.

  128. Is it just a coincidence that Obama is making a huge “climate change” power grab just as these “scientists” who work for him come out with this alarmist idiocy? Yeah, probably just a coincidence.

  130. All Northeast and Northern cities refuse to sell their snow plows and stores of road salt when they KNOW that global warming is here. The President must immediately issue an executive order to make them do so now. Its the right thing to do, you know.

  134. If 2014 was the hottest year on record, where were the increased number of storms and intensity of storms predicted by Global Warming alarmists theories?

    Remember we were told hotter temps means more storms of greater intensity.

  136. Does it matter to mother earthers that Obama’s “climate change” policies accomplish nothing other than hurting the lower and middle classes the most with higher energy prices and fewer jobs? Nope. They don’t really care what will happen theoretically 100 years from now. They want to change everybody’s way of life right now. It’s their religion. And, does it matter to them that their bogus “science” is being exposed? Not a bit. Jonathan Gruber was quite clear on how liberals get their way when telling the truth is “politically untenable.” They have our liberal president and his slick-talking spokesman lie through their teeth with big, charming smiles on their faces. Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever.

  137. Within the 3-5 billion year Earth record ,there has always been cooling with periodic warming trends but always cooling. Solar activity and the internal furnace are the primary sources of warming and cooling and the activity of man has little or nothing to do with change in the weather unless we incinerate ourselves with a nuclear war.
    Even then ,over time Earth will survive with new living creatures.
    The Climate Control fraud is about political control of all earths population governed by a Elite Dictatorship, nothing more or less.

  141. The UN’s promotion of global warming (Now called global weather change so they don’t have to predict any actual changes in the weather, they can just say SEE! SEE!) is nothing more then a money grab. They are looking for stupid people like Bimbo to give them money which they can abscond with. It’s scam and anyone with intelligence realizes it. What’s that say about the Bimbo? Stupid or part of the Scam?

  143. This is just junk science. NASA is a highly regarded and respected organization. They know what they are doing and what they are talking about. The planet is getting hotter and we need to take swift action no matter the cost. Taxes need to be raised so that we can combat this problem now. This planet and the human race are at the brink.

    3. …This planet and the human race are at the brink.

      At least since the 70’s when global cooling was all the rage, how long does a ‘brink’ last anyway?

      So far we have been on it for 45 years and counting …

  144. If official record keeping began in 1880 and therefore we don’t know the temperatures before then how do we know that 1880 wasn’t the low end of a cooling trend and that the cooling trend ended in 1880 and temperatures have been rising to ‘normal’ levels?

  145. Finally.

    An article that educates about the scientific method.

    The scientific Theory of Global warming is based on computer models.

    Both climate and weather are too complex to model without computers.

    The hypothesized historic link between man made carbon monoxide entering the atmosphere and global warming is only shown using these computer models. If the models are correct they can not only explain what happened in the past, they can also predict the future.

    The scientific method requires that any scientific model be tested against it’s ability to predict the future.

    If all the existing global warming computing models are unable to accurately predict the future, then scientific method requires that the computer models and hypotheses based on those models be rejected until computer models that both appear to explain history, and also predict the future are found.

    Those who have long questioned the validity of the computer models point out that they only work historically when applied to a very limited number of years ( a couple of hundred years versus thousands of years for which climate data is available ). The defenders of the computer models try to explain away these problems with the model by claiming only the climate data for the last 100 to 200 years is reliable.

    The big problem now is that the models both do not work for most of the existing climate data and they do not work for predicting the future.

    If a scientific hypothesis can neither be used to predict the future nor the past, it fails utterly as a valid scientific theory. That would appear to be where we are at with the theory of predominantly man caused global warming.

    1. There are hucksters that use the same tricks showing how they can predict the movements in the stock market “See it works on historical data!” which they fail to mention that they tuned it specifically for.

      The typical warmist believes whatever their Scientists Shamans tell them, even when they contradict themselves and are wrong 100% of the time.

  146. ‘Real science’ does not rely on altered data & deception. This form of ‘real science’ seems to be driven by potential profit more than reality.

  147. Ok folks, here is how to spot the lie of global warming.

    It all has to do with how the data is collected and the level of resolution the sensors that detect these temperatures.

    First of all this “argument” is in the 1/100th of a degree, .01 degrees if you will. That means in order to establish any credible figure you need to collect your data repeatedly at the level of 1/1000th of a degree just to filter out the natural “noise” in your data making your .01 degree statement credible.

    Now while there are instruments that can measure to the 1/1000th of a degree with a great deal of accuracy, repeatedly as simply taking one measurement is not enough to establish a trend nor does it account for a measurement that may be botched or wrong because no one bothered to verify it’s accuracy. The proper way would be to take ten or more measurements repeatedly, cast aside the high and the low and then average the remaining measurements to yield one figure. Because of the noise factor and natural inaccuracies at the 1/1000th of a degree resolution point you can then only establish the 1/100th of a degree point with any reasonable precision.

    Secondly, there are no temperature sensors deployed on any space platform that can repeatedly determine any temperature on earth to the 1/100th of a degree precision point. They simply not exist. I know this from having spent a lifetime working with such instruments on space craft, the very same spacecraft that produced the data these scientists are arguing about.

    Third, while earth bound instruments are capable of directly monitoring temperature at the 1/100th of a degree precision point, they are few in number, expensive, and have only been around for a decade or so. What do you think we use to calibrate the temperature data from the sensors we place on the space craft? Note: Your level of precision is only as good as the source you used to calibrate it. You simply cannot infer levels of precision, that has to be established from a calibrated source. And even then, over a period of time you need to recalibrate your sensor as the quality of its data, precision wise, deteriorates over time. That’s a virtual impossibility on an orbiting satellite.

    So you can easily see the lie being told about a 1/100th degree temperature rise of the planet based on satellite sensor data.

    So what about measuring it on earth?

    Well, first of all we do not have enough of those instruments, or the manpower, or the money that would be needed to pay for it, to accomplish the feat.

    For one, you would need to precisely measure the temperature of every square inch of the earth’s surface all at the same time. We do not have the technology to do that nor do we have the technology to process the data gathered from so many temperatures.

    Even then, if such things were possible, they would have only been possible very recently as the devices to establish levels of temperature at the 1/100th of a degree precision point, didn’t exist and have only been assumed, based on data that was collected by various people in different ways and even then they could only establish temperatures in the 1/10th of a degree precision point at best and are actually plus or minus a full degree, which is actually a two degree level of accuracy. It then could be 32 degrees or 30 degrees, based on the level of accuracy the temperature sensors then could resolve. Magic with numbers.

    It also illustrates the problem when we have only been gathering global data on a regular basis for less than one hundred years as there were no formal recognized organizations in existence that would establish the procedures of taking temperature to where every scientist on earth were doing it the same way. One procedure may have been correct while other procedures may not have been correct, thus adding to the inaccuracies in the data that would yield faulty results.

    Terrestrial weather monitoring stations were created worldwide approximately 50 years ago. When they were installed they were placed in remote areas away from mankind so that man’s activities would not affect the accuracy of the data they were to gather. Even then, the sensor devices had their own inaccuracy problems and the process assumed that all of these monitoring stations were installed the same way everywhere. Not to mention the fact that they are two few in number to establish a statement of a 1/100th degree rise in global temperature as they do not populate every square inch of the earth’s surface or are all capable of conducting their temperature measurements all at the same time.

    Another problem with these terrestrial weather monitoring stations is the fact that since they were initially installed they have suffered the effects of encroachment caused by man and man made activities. For example, the weather monitoring station in Redding California was installed at the airport far and away from man made activities. Today, it hasn’t moved, but it’s located adjacent to the tarmac where jet aircraft run up their engines as they check them out before taking off. In other words, the data coming from this station is no longer accurate because of the effects of very local changes in the micro-climate caused by man, or more specifically, these aircraft.

    Now Redding’s station isn’t the only station that is suffering the effects of micro-climates changed because of mankind’s local activities. But it doesn’t mean that it adversely effects the world climate which is only assumed from computations derived from data that is suspect in the first place. First in he methodology by which it was collected, where it was collected, when it was collected and when the device collecting the data was calibrated and to what degree of precision the calibrator possessed.

    So next time some alarmist comes up to you with the warning of a 1/100th degree of temperature change and attributes that being caused by mankind, at least you will now know enough to determine for yourself whether he or she is just a crackpot or some who you should give your attention and money to.

    Look at it this way, if it were possible to instantaneously establish a 1/100th degree precision point with our temperature it would then be easily possible to predict the earth’s weather patterns more than 48 hours in advance and they would always be accurate. We can’t, the way they go about alarming the populace for the sake of grant money and what we can do about it is what the real problem is all about.

    Perhaps if the majority of these alarmists would just shut their mouths for awhile we would then see a drop in the world’s temperature as all of that hot carbon-dioxide laden air wouldn’t be released into our earth’s atmosphere.

  150. As usual the global warming fanatics will grasp at any straw to confirm their decision to invest in carbon credits. Then we have EV vehicles that for the most part damage the environment more then fossil based vehicles. The only time an EV vehicle is a benefit is if it is completely recharged by solar energy which is rare.

  151. A real climate scientist, Ben Franklin, the real-life discoverer of the
    warm-water Gulf Stream, is cloned, and returns to today to mock government
    scientists in “Foundering Fathers!”:

    “…Franklin wanted to ask the climate expert about something that was
    bothering him. A few weeks earlier, he’d taken a train to the mid-Atlantic
    shore, and spent the day exploring and studying some seaside spots he’d visited
    in his earlier life.

    “I was wondering about something, sir,” Franklin stated. “I’m something of an
    amateur historian, and I’ve, uh, I’ve studied accounts and drawings of
    coastlines and harbors from centuries ago. According to your theories of
    warming, the sea level in such locales should have risen by hundreds of feet.”
    He thought back to the coasts he’d recently visited. “But in many cases, those
    shore lines of old are practically identical to today’s. How do you account for
    that?”

    The climate “scientist” eyed Franklin with some suspicion. Then he smoothly
    replied: “The answer is simple. Warming has been melting the ice caps, which
    should make the sea levels rise.

    “But the ice caps, being icy, are cold, and when icebergs from them fall into
    the ocean, some of the warming is mitigated. Think of the icebergs as giant ice cubes, cooling off the seas, and the ice caps.

    “Further, the planet has warmed so much, that it’s evaporated the water that
    has melted, resulting in sea levels, and coast lines, that are nearly equal to
    before…”

    — From, Foundering
    Fathers: What Jefferson, Franklin, and Abigail Adams Saw in Modern D.C.! Second
    Edition

    http://www.amazon.com/Foundering-Fathers-Jefferson-Franklin-Abigail/dp/1492257923/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1379694859&sr=1-1&keywords=foundering+fathers+second+edition

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00FEZG8UW

  153. Shaman science says that AGW is happening

    If it’s not, well it’s because of policies that were not actually implemented ( but mamma nature gives you points for the thought )
    If you have a accurate data set that disagrees with your desires then that data set is no longer accurate
    If your models are shown to be non-integral it’s the person pointing that out that’s the problem

    There are many more rules in Shaman Science but the number one rule is that the Shaman is never wrong. If you even think the Shaman is wrong then you are a heretic, a hater, and must be stopped at all costs, no one may even question the Shaman!

  157. According to Global Warming Alarmist Theories, warmer temperatures would produce more storms of greater intensity.

    Has there been an uptick in the number and intensity of storms?

  158. If the RW conservative faithful choose to ignore science, so be it. At least science is in good hands. On the upside, these illiterate voices are increasingly irrelevant as the world moves on without them. Thank Jeebus science is not a democracy.

    1. ” Thank Jeebus science is not a democracy.”

      Bleated the mindless liberal sheep who knew nothing about the subject other than a lie claiming falsely that the hoax was proven by falsely reported results of a push poll…

      1. I’m not sure I said anything about craving tyranny. Acknowledging simple scientific fact is not political, simply reasonable. What to do about it is certainly debatable, but denying the underlying truth to avoid hard choices is just lazy.

        1. But don’t you see it for yourself, you even use the catch phrases of the climate Marxists, i.e. lazy, denying, scientific fact, grown ups? I am a retired scientist and it wounds my very soul to know that in my lifetime science has been so happily perverted for such obvious political ends. When so much of the basics of scientific method are corrupt, i.e. data collection, there can be no further deductions that are realistic, except by extreme accident and that my boy, is not science. I am finished here.

              1. Am I to assume that all people who choose to accept the opinion of the vast majority of scientific academia have no soul? That is kind of harsh.

          1. Of course it has. And I’m not sure you understand how the word “theory” is used in academia as opposed to common parlance. It is really quite different.

          2. Just look at all the facts, you know, so scientific.

            John Kerry Climate Change, “Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now.”

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/we-cant-ignore-the-securi_b_272815.html

            2013 Arctic Ice Highest Since 2007 http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/screenhunter_1879-oct-26-08-13.jpg

            11/30/2014 Real Science: Greenland Ice Sheet Mass Gain at a Record High: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/11/30/autumn-greenland-ice-sheet-mass-gain-at-a-record-high/

            WH Climate Office Won’t Turn Over Supporting Data to Back Up Solar Vortex Claim. Says it was opinion (thought science was settled?) http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/29/lawsuit-white-house-wont-show-evidence-to-back-up-polar-vortex-claims/

            NASA Admits It Can’t Explain Why Warming Appears to Have Slowed: http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/185975-nasa-report-released-deep-ocean-waters-show-sign-warming-9-years/

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

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

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

    4. Climate scientists, who get their research funding off of the government teet, only if they support the AGW theory, have made a mockery of the scientific method. Their intellectual dishonesty is shameful. But, what matter facts to the Libtard mind? It is only their ideology that matters to them. Facts are ALWAYS inconvenient to liberal positions, which is why they are so easy to defeat.

      1. Well let me see. I wonder if I would be better off taking my information from AmericanMade77 from the message board or maybe the combined opinion of ……………….

        American Association for the Advancement of Science
        American Astronomical Society
        American Chemical Society
        American Geophysical Union
        American Institute of Physics
        American Meteorological Society
        American Physical Society
        Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
        Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
        British Antarctic Survey
        Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
        Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
        Environmental Protection Agency
        European Federation of Geologists
        European Geosciences Union
        European Physical Society
        Federation of American Scientists
        Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
        Geological Society of America
        Geological Society of Australia
        Geological Society of London
        International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
        International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
        National Center for Atmospheric Research
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        Royal Meteorological Society
        Royal Society of the UK

        Hmmmm. Sorry bro, it was close, but I have to go with the smart people on this one.

      2. It is indeed frightening to see how easy it is for the climate Marxists to pervert scientific investigation for their own selfish ends. Have we forgot so soon how the Nazis were so easily enticed to create monsters from their political use of science? That is exactly what we see with Global Warming/Man-made climate change. It is political theater meant to drive the world’s population to its Agenda 21 slaughterhouse.

        1. That may be the most wildly insane and paranoid thing I have read today. Wow. Curious about tinfoil hats these days, are they typically worn with the shiny side in or out? You should check your dosage. Seriously.

  160. Fascism – Political economic system in which there is domination of privately-owned business, media, and academia by the government. It never ends well…

  161. Sets of temperature data differ. A truly accurate reading seems almost impossible. But what can be derived from the readings is temperatures are not going off the scale and are generally in normal ranges. The left’s political science propaganda scammers once again try and jump on this as proof of their warming agenda. But don’t lose site of the point. Even if termperatures are increasing slightly there is no proof it’s caused by AGW and not just natural causes. NO PROOF. And scammers like Borenstein don’t have any either.

    1. There is no such thing as “truly accurate” temperature readings.

      There are just people who lie about the accuracy of temperature measuring devices.

      Anyone who tells you that most of the instruments used world wide to measure outside air temperature have a precision of better than a tenth of a degree are simply telling bold face lies.

  162. The powerful learned a long time ago that in order to control, manipulate and extort from the masses, you need to create cult like opportunities for the herd to rally around. Convince them to cheer lead and you’ll own them. CC is just that kind of opportunity. Think of the money, the laws, the power that’s been transferred already from the people and you get the picture. In my short tenure on this earth I’ve seen “expert” study after “expert” study get debunked time and time again. These clowns can’t even get the weather right 12 hours from now and we’re supposed to believe that in decades to a century (nice window of proximity) we’re going to burn- in the 70’s we were all going to freeze. Once you’re proven to be a liar, a deceiver or just plain wrong again and again, you should lose credibility. But not in the herd’s mind, they simply waddle up to the Super Big Gulp Kool-Aid machine and refill the cup. Man’s biggest tragedy on this earth is stupidity. I don’t need a hoax, a law, some rah rah speech to tell me to reduce waste and avoid polluting. And if you stand to take money from me or limit my freedom; I know your cause is NOT legit.

    1. All through history the witch doctor, shamans, seers, entrails readers, sorcerers, wizards, high priest, whatever, have been right next to the leadership throwing flash powered on the fire to scare the natives into all kinds of dumb things like say, sacrificing livestock, crops, virgins, warriors, treasure, to forestall some conjured doom that only they can foresee and protect against.

    1. So you are claiming they are wrong and most of the temperature measuring devices are accurate to better than one tenth of one degree ?

      If that is what you are claiming, then you have destroyed your own credibility.

      If on the other hand you are just calling names and not disputing the facts at all, well we all know what that makes you.

      The man made global warming theory must be able to both explain thousands of years of historical climate data and predict the future.

      It has failed at both and only works for a few hundred years of historical data at best. For a few years after the hypothesis was proposed it appeared that a very tiny trend of global warming matched the predictions, but now we have had 16 years that did NOT match the predictions. The ability to predict the future has failed.

      The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be able to predict the future if it is to even be considered a scientific theory.

      1. Or maybe I’m just merely pointing out the fact that the people named in this report are members of organizations that are supported by people with clear agendas.

        But hey, go ahead and use their data to talk your talk.

        I’ll bet you also let the salesman tell you how reliable that used car you’re going to buy is as well.

  164. .
    .
    Finally.

    An article that educates about the scientific method.

    The Scientific Theory of Man Made Global warming is based on computer models that
    are intended to show that Global warming is caused predominantly by human activity on earth.

    The computer models this theory are based on have existed for decades.

    Both climate and weather are too complex to model without computers.

    The hypothesized historic link between man made carbon monoxide entering
    the atmosphere and global warming is only shown using these computer
    models. If the models are correct they can not only explain what
    happened in the past, they can also predict the future.

    The scientific method requires that any hypothesis be tested against it’s ability to predict the future.

    If all the existing global warming computer models are unable to
    accurately predict the future, then scientific method requires that the
    computer models and hypotheses based on those models be rejected until
    computer models that both explain history, and also predict the future
    are found.

    Those who have long questioned the validity of the computer models point out that they only work historically when applied to a very limited number of years ( a couple of hundred years versus
    thousands of years for which climate data is available ). The defenders of the computer models try to explain away these short comings of the models by claiming only the climate data for the last 100 to 200 years
    should be considered for a number of speculative reasons why other historical climate data may not be as accurate..

    The big problem now is that the models neither work for explaining most of the existing
    historic climate data nor do they work for predicting the future.

    If a scientific hypothesis can neither be used to predict the future nor
    explain the past, it fails utterly as a valid scientific theory. That would
    appear to be where we are at with the scientific theory of predominantly man caused
    global warming.

    At this point the scientific theory of man made global warming is not just an unproven scientific hypothesis, it is a
    proven false scientific hypothesis.

    By contrast, the non-scientific media theory of climate change is not, and never has been a scientific
    theory, since by definition any change in climate proves the theory correct thereby making the theory impossible to prove false with any test, which is the very definition of non-science.

  165. I’m so frightened now I’ll do anything, pay anything, for these “scientist” to save me. How much and where do i send the check? Can they just set the thermostat at a pleasant 72 degrees and move on?

    1. I keep mine at 67 degrees. I can’t stand much heat anymore. I used to live
      in California and now I live in Washington State. I love the four seasons. I hope
      we get some snow here.

  166. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t water vapor a much more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2? Where is the government program to eliminate evaporation of the oceans???

    3. I will correct you. Efficient? Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas. It is just there is a s*-load (that is a technical term) of water vapor in the atmosphere. The water vapor / clouds swamp out the contribution of anything else.

      1. Point taken. I guess I should have added the following comment: “The left won’t address this fact — add the methane to the water vapor — because there is no convenient way to address this problem. These are naturally occurring substances. However, CO2, the *least* effective greenhouse gas is emitted by cars, factories… ie large industries that can be “taxed or embarrassed” by government regulation. Not to mention, there are less brownie points for attacking water vapor that there are for taxing industry.

  168. This is the funniest joke I have seen in the news in the last 6 months. I have to give the liberals credit for creativity and imagination. They outdid themselves with .07 degrees over 18 years. Maybe I read it wrong. I think the world has bigger problems than that for the multitudes since we are on the brink of economic collapse which will generate a world war. That I believe is a much bigger issue.

    1. As the true believers of man made global warming have pointed out repeatedly weather is not climate.

      The trends the true believers are looking for regarding predicting the future are in the hundredths of a degree change each year. For over 16 years even those very modest increases in temperature have not occurred as predicted.

      Historic climate data shows both global warming and global cooling on a much larger scale.

      For example Greenland is covered with ice today and has a climate today that is much too cold to raise horses or cattle without importing food for the animals on a huge scale.

      However, hundreds of years before man began spewing industrial CO2 into the worlds atmosphere European settlers had huge dairy farms on Greenland. Then the climate shifted by tens of degrees ( not hundredths of degrees ) per year and both the dairy herds and the European settlers died out.

      Archeology and crop records tell us these things world wide. Instruments that measure to the nearest hundredth of a degree are not needed for such huge changes in climate.

      The current Global Warming computer models utterly fail when applied to historic climate data from more than a couple 100 years ago.

  170. I do not think these NOAA and NASA folks are scientists. They do not understand significant figures. Half a degree F seems reasonable. Claiming a precision of 0.01 F is nonsensical. I am glad these folks are in “Global Warming / Climate Change / Mitigation / Extreme Weather” … otherwise they could do some real damage.
    .

    1. I agree. Using computers I expect the result to have at least 12 decimal places. Somebody has been cheating here! The significant number might be in the “one’s” place. However, 12 more digits behind it would make it way more credible!

        1. I am too stupid to understand math but I am very thrilled seeing a lot of numbers. The min I expect to see is 9 numbers, grouped together so that they look like a SSN!
          I sell those.

          1. You’re just babbling. You got nothing to say. No warming since 2005. That’s the facts. Continue babbling. I’m sure your side will win with that.

            1. You are right! Our side will win. Obama and the EPA will see to that.

              I can’t wait to hear Obama’s announcement of the rescue mission from the impending global warming disaster in his upcoming State of the Union Address. Our progress and implementation of the corrective actions will be swift, especially since we now have the Pope and his infallibility on our side!

    2. I think you misspelled NOAA. Not NOAA but NOAH built some kind of ark to be saved from the rising sea. At his time and without computers somebody was already predicting horrendous climate changes. And the climate changed indeed!

  174. The globe certainly has a fiver. We are going to die if we don’t intervene massively.

    My body temperature has risen from 96.80 F to 96.87 F, a full 0,07 F. Panic stricken I rushed to the ER to be told that yes, some people become delusional at this temperature but there is nothing they can do since Obamacare doesn’t addresses this problem.

    I wish Obama would and I think he could address this malady with his climate change initiatives. Praise Allah that he will and rescue me from my warmophobia!

  177. Since all of the shrill warmist predictions have failed to materialize thus far, why would anyone but the most gullible fools think they have it right this time?

  178. The most outspoken eco-wackos are all Gaia worshipers. They believe the Earth is the physical embodiment of their goddess and that humans are just a disease on its surface. It would be laughable but for the fact that they are in positions of power and able to make policy decisions that affect our lives.

  180. The data for a record hot 2014 come from NOAA and NASA who, as part of the federal government, parrot the narative . These agencies used to be unbiased and important. Now, like all other federal agencies, they have been infected with progressives from acedemia and are agenda driven.

  183. OK. I was a meteorologist, with 30 years experience. 20 of those years were in the US Air Force, dealing mainly with aviation meteorology topics. One of the primary tools I used to evaluate the atmosphere in the vertical was an atmospheric sounding, or Log P Skew-T, thermo-dynamic diagram. A fancy way of saying a balloon sounding. We used this information to compute pressure altitude (PA), and density altitude (DA). These were critical for aviation, as lift is reduced by heat, as well as by elevation. The value we used to compute PA and DA was called The Standard Atmosphere. Bear with me, I’m going somewhere with this. Back when I started in the weather business, this standard atmosphere, this mathematical CONSTANT, was 14 degrees celsius, as surface. Converted to English, this is 57.2F. As an Instructor in the Dept. of Defense Weather Training Division (all enlisted weather forecasters are trained here, for USAF, USMC, and USN…Army doesn’t have weather guys/gals), I taught this for years. Quite by accident, I discovered recently that the formula for computing PA and DA have been changed…one degree have been added to them. Yes…the mathematical constant for the average temperature of the atmosphere, critical for aviation safety, was modified. The constant. By scientists, that don’t give a shit about global climate change, or don’t care whether you are democrats or republicans. They. Don’t. Care. They’re scientists. THIS was when I realized that global climate change was real, and getting worse. I am 58 now..but I will see, in my lifetime, this mathematical constant go up again, from the current 15, up to some higher value.

  184. “Science” is what Jonathon Gruber is talkin’ bout.

    Tell the rubes whatever you want. They will link to the headline and go: See! It must be true.

  185. Perhaps the global warming weenies can explain how we’re not still trapped in the Ice Age. Carbon footprint of Early Man, or is it perhaps methane from the bowels of the Wooly Mammoth? Or was it just the natural climate cycle of the earth?

  186. Ha ha! The same cast of characters with their contribution to the discussion…just like tuning into MSNBC and having Rachel Madow talk over and over and over…it doesn’t validate it.

    NASA, NOAA, and ESA…or these rejects? Hmmm, tough call.

  187. I admire publications like the LA times and others, who have made the editorial choice to no longer give voice to climate change deniers. We get so caught up in equal time for dissenting opinion that we often give voice to ridiculous mind sets. It is as if an article about volcanic eruption would need to be balanced by a group claiming plate tectonics is some kind of power grab conspiracy. Those who choose to bury their heads in the sand cannot be helped. However there is no need to let them inhibit progress by clouding the issues at hand.

      1. I harbor no ill will toward them. I just think of them as children acting out, getting in the way of those who care to accept the challenge we are faced with head on. Let the children play, just keep them out of the office.

    3. Wow. Name calling and refusing to listen to scientific fact.

      That is the trade mark of religious fanatics, not people who understand the scientific method.

      Educated people rely on scientific journals, not the LA times for scientific information.

      If you are claiming the majority of temperature measurements of atmospheric temperature world wide are accurate to better than a tenth of a degree you have destroyed your own credibility.

    4. Oh? So free speech for everyone except those who disagree with the liberal narrative, eh?
      Sounds like somebody who can’t defend their schpiel, so they want to silence their critics.
      The scientists in this article use the warmists own data to shoot down the narrative. Warmists have no counter argument other than to deny that science.
      Who’s the denier now?

        1. Typical Gruber goober response.

          The reason democrats got so thoroughly wooped in the last election cycle is because America is waking up the the total lies being perpetrated by the liberal left.

          If you don’t think that such a political annihilation was significant, then Gruber was right about you.

          More & more, America is seeing thru the lies, as the comments on this & other comment sections will attest.
          Liberals are losing control of the narrative, and it’s only a matter of time before they are the ones being ignored.

    6. Let me fix that for you;

      A VALID analogy would be a bunch of liberal sheep saying that earthquakes are caused by Glo-Bull Warming, and the liberal media, as they always do, refusing to even acknowledge the existence of those suggesting we should also at least look at plate tectonics.

  189. NASA has zero credibility under Obama and the man he appointed chief, Charles Bolden:

    “When I became the NASA administrator, (President Obama) charged me with three things,” Bolden said in the interview which aired last week. “One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering.”

  190. Just keep wasting billions on companies that fail within a couple years after promising to fix the climate. (Now that’s a boast and a half.) Obama even visited Solyndra and said it was our future. That future ended within 18 months after his visit. If there were a reasonable alternative to fossil fuels (and those deadly cow farts), I would be all for it. There isn’t.

      1. Solar energy is NOT a viable base load tech. There is nothing to capture. If YOU think it is, try to create a start power plant and sell your electricity without the government propping you up. You can’t. S, put up r g take a Dirt Nap.

  191. There are actually morons who believe that ANYONE alive today has experienced the “hottest year” on record for Earth? We know with ZERO uncertainty that the Earth has been MUCH warmer than it is today just several hundred years ago. You could wipe man off the face of the Earth and it wouldn’t change which way the climate is going (btw, the Earth is STILL coming out of the last major Ice Age and according to geologic records, will continue to warn until a temp of ~22c AVERAGE is reached.) No humans needed for that.

      1. You got that right.
        If it comes from nasa or noaa, you should automatically be sceptical. That is the reputation the have created for themselves.

  194. “The heat was driven by record warmth in the world’s oceans”

    so the places where they made up the temperature data is what drove the results to be record-setting? who woulda guessed.

  195. Al Gore must have a new World Banking/Taxing body of unelected, unaccountable fascists bureaucrats and goons with guns to take over your homes. While confiscating your money and making themselves rich. Death to the lot.

  198. If the Earth warms by about 1.5 degrees, 16% more land would become arable. The Northwest passage will be open year round cutting shipping costs and time. Those are just two advantages for a warmer Earth. New York City was predicted to be underwater by 2010. Oh well, too bad on that one. If I fart more, could that happen? Beans for dinner, then.

  199. Nuclear power is in fact the most expensive energy on earth. If the industry had to pay for itself and not externalize costs to the taxpayers, it would be broke tomorrow. BTW just who is responsible for your private industry’s waste and the pollution and security threat you represent? Your industry has never made a dime.

  200. Just took delivery of my new new 2015 RAM Hemi. Yeah it drinks the gas, but I can afford it and the choice to buy this truck is mine! Tows my boat which has twins like a charm. So middle finger to all you phony GW Ecofreaks. I love every bit of HP this baby puts out. Next up. A new Escalade XL for the wife and kids!

  201. The climate is changing – sometimes it is warmer in places than it normally is and sometimes it is colder. Most of the increased energy from the sun, at least what we’re told every single time there is a coronal eruption from the sun (and nobody would seriously argue that we’re changing the sun would they?) makes it to earth by way of increased warmth and some days it is 1/100th of a degree warmer than it is on other days. This whole thing is such a disaster because people actually have sufficient levels of hubris to believe WE can change the climate of the earth in a SIGNIFICANT way. The West is so worried about climate change that we are missing the biggest issue to face the civilized world: radical Islamists taking up residence in places like France and Germany where it USED to be easy to get energy because they used nuclear technology, but after fears of a tsunami (from where – who knows) they opted for the reliable and dirty fuels coming form Putin’s Russia.

  202. Global warming and then Climate Change all boils down to a new way for New World Order charlatans across the world to fleece developed countries out of wealth tin order to pour it into their own pockets with some going down various black holes. Until developed countries are as poor as developing countries these NWO Charlatans will not be happy. The world will then look a lot like the Soviet Union prior to its failure or the current day Cuba – a bunch of elite haves with everyone else as a have not. Look, learn. Is that what you really are looking forward to for your children and yourselves?

  203. The high priests of the religious worldview of human caused climate continue to spout complete nonsense. Politicians love it because they are using it to further the tyranny of totalitarianism and totalitarian government which of course they intend to control and operate. We have our own totalitarian leader and party who propagates this insanity along with the American academia who preach this nonsense.

              1. No he didn’t, and I’m betting he can’t. “There is none.” might have made sense without the second sentence.
                “There is none” makes no sense if he believe what he says in the second sentence.

    3. No conspiracy. Just a bunch ofsave the earth, poorly educated, low information people like yourself and liberal politicians who will use any excuse to raise taxes.

      No conspiracy, just ignorance, greed and a thirst for power.

      Basic human nature.

  208. The left is getting desperate , these are dangerous times… we are on to their scam, we are on to their redistributive policies, we all know they are completely nuts and we know they hate this country…. They just can’t hack it in the real world without someone else taking care of them…. They will be lashing out like this even more as they don’t get their way like petulant children….

  209. Just for the sake of argument… please explain to me how raising taxes would EVER fix global warming if it was real? The “logic” of these people that think they can regulate human activity and the environment is beyond insanity. The more they put humanity in a control grid box… the more violent the human reaction is going to be in resistant to it. As for nature… it doesn’t give a fck what Al Gore and his buddies do in the name of saving the planet. Nature is going to do what it does and mankind will just be along for the ride.

  210. I go by what I see in my part of the world. Over the last 24 years it’s been hotter than normal and colder than normal. Drought and record rain. 2014 was a year without a summer and 2013 was like living in Texas. Which one do I blame on global whatever it is called today?

      1. I know what global is but know everyplace on earth goes through the same cycles of to hot to cold to dry to wet. In my part of Colorado we get most of our moisture during the monsoon season which usually starts in July. Have seen three huge fires in the last 24 years. Largest one in CO history stopped 2 miles from my house after 138 M acres burned then three years ago the most costly and two years ago the new most costly fire. Last year you couldn’t start a fire pouring gas on pine needles. Now tell me which one is caused by global warming?

    2. Humans don’t live past a 100 years normally. The geologic deep time of nature is in the billions of years. Our little blip of perception isn’t a major indicator of the big picture. The dark ages were a period of global warming while the 1700 -1900s were a period of a mini-ice age.

  212. I am a skeptic, but I do believe that carbon control policies are a GOOD thing for air and water quality. We can argue whether the world is heating or cooling, but who can say that MORE carbon in the atmosphere is better for anyone?

    I say – let the liberals win this one. We’ll all be better off as a result (except the coal miners, of course…)

    1. Well I guess we can be grateful that these idiots were not around when half the US was under 200 ft of ice and it started to recede.

      Much better to have an idiot tax.

      Now of course democrats would be disproportionately hit, but what the hell.

  214. Ask the Jews what they think about the Holocaust deniers and then ask Obama why those deniers cannot be eradicated. This pretty much explains the real problem at hand.

    1. .
      .
      So you are saying you want to exterminate billions of people to save the earth ?

      That sounds like the very definition of a religious fanatic.

    2. You are an utter fool. A Media Matters fool. Your own cooked data shows a tempt “rise” of 1/25 of a degree. A fraction of the margin of error. That means no change since 2005. There’s nothing there but a headline. You bringing the holocaust into it marks you as a clueless blithering idiot. You can’t defend your position with facts.

      1. It was the label of holocaust-“denier” that was used to defame and disparage those who are skeptical of global warming, while the Holocaust deniers are still in our midst and well, having re-branded themselves as the ISIS.

    1. Not for the man made global warming religious fanatics.

      They just ignore all facts that disagrees with their belief system and pretend the scientific method has nothing to do with their warped view of science.

        2. Yes, clearly anyone who discovered that their 14th century art degree combined with a clean driving record could get them a job delivering pizza is a climate science ex-spurt that can not be questioned when mindlessly re-bleating liberal media sound bites.

  216. Lets invest taxpayer money in more green energy companies, that should cure the problem.

    The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

    Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*

    SpectraWatt ($500,000)*

    Solyndra ($535 million)*

    Beacon Power ($43 million)*

    Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)

    SunPower ($1.2 billion)

    First Solar ($1.46 billion)

    Babcock and Brown ($178 million)

    EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5
    million)*

    Amonix ($5.9 million)

    Fisker Automotive ($529 million)

    Abound Solar ($400 million)*

    A123 Systems ($279 million)*

    Willard and Kelsey Solar Group
    ($700,981)*

    Johnson Controls ($299 million)

    Brightsource ($1.6 billion)

    ECOtality ($126.2 million)

    Raser Technologies ($33 million)*

    Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3
    million)*

    Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*

    Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s
    Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*

    Range Fuels ($80 million)*

    Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*

    Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*

    Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*

    GreenVolts ($500,000)

    Vestas ($50 million)

    LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power
    ($151 million)

    Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*

    Navistar ($39 million)

    Satcon ($3 million)*

    Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20
    million)*

    Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

    NEVER count on a democrat to tell the truth.

      1. Yeah.
        Like Harry Reid trying to steal that Bundy guys land because it was in the way of a Chinese solar power project that Reid’s son was trying to put together.
        The democrats look at GW with $$ in their eyes….

        3. Yup, and they don’t have economy that’s remotely close to ours. The US was the first person to put someone on the moon as well. We have the strongest military in the world with ridiculous technology. No one in the world comes close to the intellectual property either.

          All this with Europe having a thousand year head start. Way to make your argument, buddy!

  220. I live in MN where it finally warmed up to 20 today after a stretch of sub 0. Since I want global warming now it sounds like I should I buy a PRIUS and not a Tahoe?

  221. It’s beginning to piss me off. These leftist liars have no shame. They wake living the biggest lie everyday of their life as willing co-conspirators to one biggest frauds in human history

    1. If you looked only at the period from 1940 to 1958 you could argue that the earth was heading into another ice age.
      But that would not see the entire picture.

    2. You just stepped on your own d!ck.

      First your say the science is settled, and then you admit that the hypothesis has not even passed the first test on the way to becoming a scientific theory.

      As you just pointed out – it is just a hypothesis that has not even accurately predicted the future yet.

      Add to that that the hypothesis disagrees with most of the last 2,000 years of recorded history and you have just admited the totally fallacy of the “settled science” propaganda.

  223. Global Warming was politically correct before scientists had a chance to look into it. By the time they got around to looking into it, the politically correct crowd would have had them fired, or lynched them and their co-workers for daring to oppose their attempt to care for the environment (even though their policies would harm it). The illusion of caring is more important than the damage that their ignorance causes.

  224. Nothing short term about the taxes proposed by the global warming fanatics.

    They want permanent taxes on every financial transaction in the world and permanent taxes on every BTU of energy used in the world.

    Just recently politicians are imposing new taxes on electric cars to replace the taxes lost from energy savings.

    Follow the money and you will find the global warming tax and spend elites flying around in their private jets and living in their mansions around the world – it is all about the money.

    1. Yeah a group of wanabe’s that could care less about global warming compared to how much free money they get to keep their make believe jobs continue. Those are the ones we should listen to!

    1. Nice graph…lets’ see, X-axis in tens of millions of years. Yup, we can conclude whatever is happening in the last 100 is OK.

      Science for retards Vol 2

        1. Oooooh! I see. The scientists that generate this data really don’t know how to interpret it and people who make their own graphs from (where is this from again?) know better. Makes total sense.

                    6. Actual data. You cant trust corporations any more than you can trust the big government that is controlled by them. If you think the government doesnt have its string pulled by lobbyists, then you are too far gone to help. If you think “scientists” that the government touts arent influenced by the money used to buy those studies the government agrees with, then you are naive.

                  1. bunch of blue spike: “meh, not important”
                    one red spike “ZOMG THE WORLD IS BURNING!!!1!1!”
                    Downward trend: “……(sound of crickets)….”

                    3. You’re the one that dodged the question about how climate 10000 years ago relates to today.

                    4. wait, you think that ONLY the climate of the last 50 years matters? Jesus, thats why you think this. Way to ignore CLIMATE and focus on WEATHER.

                    7. not at all. It shows a downward trend, and that we are in an inter-glacial warming period. to ignore history and base all your facts on the last 50-100 years is completely ignorant of actual climate.

                    9. If theres a graph that ONLY shows a small representation, it looks like the data is alarming and going to continue. If you extend the graph to include more data, it becomes statistically improbably that the cause is humans, and not within the NATURAL VARIABILITY of climate.

                    12. I see a general cooling trend from about 700 years ago until very recently.
                      What changed to cause the reversal? Discontinuities have a cause, what is it?

                    13. Heat Island effect has more effect than CO2/Methane. Urban cities, collecting heat. Thermometers that were once in a field, but are now surrounded by concrete jungles and glass skyscrapers. The data is flawed, unless you take ice core samples, and ice core samples arent a day to day measurement.

                    14. If you have a thermometer, measuring the temp in one area, as a scientific method would have you not move the thermometer, you get a temperature. Then next year, you get another temp average. Then next year another. 20 years down the road, the city nearby has spread, and your thermometer is now surrounded by a city. What happens to the temp? What happens when temp rise in relation to WIND? weather patterns change. Weather patterns change and the once cooling wind doesnt blow as far south and is re-directed elsewhere or blocked.

                      The temp isnt being increased, the dtaa isnt being taken into account. We are in an inter-glacial period, and we WILL start cooling. Maybe not in our lifetimes, maybe not in our kids. We may warm a few degrees until them, but that doesnt mean the world will burn unless we raise taxes on gas.

                      http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/images/heat_island_sm.jpg

  228. More utter nonsense from our leftist government. Too bad that so many of us are realists trying to pay our heating bills. And they are only going up, not down. WHERE THE HE!! IS *MY* GLOBAL WARMING???

  229. The drastic predictions from the 90s have not ever produced any results over 20 years. The “science” of “global warming” is really a political hoax and not based on observable data or true scientific experiment. Bork it.

  230. So, do we trust tainted climatologists who depend on government grants or untainted climatologists who don’t? No-brainer on that one.

    Obama wants that carbon tax! The gasoline tax and all the other energy taxes just aren’t cutting it.

    1. We have so many tree huggers here in Washington State, yet they go to
      Oregon to chop down their Christmas trees. Don’t get me wrong I love trees, and
      I have plenty in my yard. However I find that kind of hypocritical.

    4. I have a solution! All you man made global warming people should move to Antarctica. Then you will be glad when it warms up into the high 30 deg F. range during the summer.

  237. If you Global warming kooks still believe the biggest hoaxes ever put on man kind, then why don’t you take your car and have it destroyed live in a only solar powered house and only ride a bike . Live your lie don’t just preach it!

        3. There is no “consensus” in real science. You anti-human Malthusian totalitarians have been trying to kill off people with one control scam after another for the last two hundred years. Even your lords and saviors Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx mocked Malthus’ “vile and infamous doctrine” of attempting to control everyone’s lives and productivity.

    5. You belong to the church of man made climate change. Karl Marx belonged to the same church only then the claim was man made climate cooling.
      Learn some history and you will find that the Earth has warmed and cooled many times throughout the ages. In fact there were two times when it was an ice ball.

      1. The last time the earth was an ice ball, there was not trillions of people on the planet, and a significant percentage of these people live on the edge of starvation already, with out the hardship of an frozen earth would entail. You sound like an person whom doesn’t care about anybody but youself, an person worse than Hitler.

        2. “Caring” is a meaningless word when one is discussing actual events of the distant past. When this planet was an ice ball the only life that was here was in the then omnipresent ocean.
          However, there is evidence that prior to the last ice age mankind may have had a highly technical civilization that was destroyed by that ice age or the aftermath of said age. There are observable ruins on the floor of the Mediterranean and Black seas because the water level was lower by 450-500 feet. There are also unexplainable artifacts that don’t correlate with the knowledge of the civilization that has them like the “Mayan” calendar which measures accurately the Earths unobservable precession.
          I realize that it is easier to buy into lies than it is to learn actual history. The truth is that this planet doesn’t “care”, it responds to actual stimulus like the energy that comes from the Sun or the lack thereof.

  239. Again no disrespect to the climatologist at Rutgers we don’t have temperatures before 5000 years and like electronics,rate sensing equipment,etc you can have reoccurances over longer periods of time,that is this higher temp(assuming for now their data is correct) may be normal every 1million years. Conclusion too small of sample no matter how they try to spin it.

    1. They are measuring methane trapped in air bubbles from ice cores drilled from Vvladivostok Russia at a depth of many tens of thousands of years old by gas chromatography. The last time the parts per million level was approaching a level now believed to be reachable within a hundred years, alligators and palm trees we living in Greenland.

  241. Lets face the facts, those that are destroying the earth are the Chemical spraying HARRP building super colliding weather manipulating sonar aquatic life killing war mongering power elite who need distractions like it must be the cow shit. I say Horse shit!

  242. Democrats are only about lies and the Gruber approved idiots that believe them . The hoax is up , Global warming is billion dollar business liberals don’t want to give up, simple as that.

        1. Not progressive about conservative Christian core values. I like to call it normal in a post Christian society. Maybe your confused. Wolves in sheep’s clothing are still wolves

              1. Look at their actions, ignore their words. Boehner has always played the “conservative” but he usually votes as a progressive (79% of the time).

  243. 97% of climate scientists agree on the reality of man-made climate change! When are you conservative simpletons going to get this through your thick, ignorant skulls?

    5. Forbes: Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.
      There ya go buddy. You are believing a LIE.

      2. GEE, WHO SHOULD I TRUST ON THIS ISSUE? SOME IDIOT WRITER FOR A FINANCIAL MAGAZINE THAT HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN BIG BUSINESS, OR PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS? THAT’S A TOUGH ONE

        1. who should I trust “scientists” that live on grants to keep them going (off issue: all these research with grants on diseases how come no cures? Yet no funding polio was cured fast) and Chicago Carbon Exchange investors. I’ll trust a financial journal)

    7. so when is science a consensus? One scientist like an Einstein can turn the “science” community on its ear. Remember there was 97% scientists that agreed on stuff that was now dis-proven.

  244. People who believe that Noah’s Ark is a true story are never going to think rationally and critically when provided evidence which goes against their beliefs.

    1. Actually, Christianity and the Glo-Bull Warming Cult are two separate and distinct religions.

      Even though the commonality of a fable about cataclysmic sea rising is in fact found in Christianity, the Glo-Bull Warming Cult, and several other religions.

  245. I am a volunteer weather observer for the National Weather Service. Awhile back the web site headlined the NASA claim that 2014 was a record breaking warm year. I ignored it as a waste of time. These other scientists prove I used good judgement.

  246. Any information that comes from any agency aligned with the federal government has 0 credibility as does congress, our president, and the rest of the dung pile we call our federal government.

  247. Brachium wrote:

    “17 years is too short to see long term effects.”

    Thank-you.

    The reason the educated defenders of man made global warming will tell any lie to avoid admitting, what you just admitted, is that scientists know such an admission proves that the hypothesis’s prediction ability has not even been tested yet. After that admission all a scientist can say in support is the hypothesis has not been adequately tested yet and is neither true nor false – just untested.

    That is the reason the lie about the 2014 is the warmest year in history is being repeated over and over again.

    Global temperature change in the last 16 years has been flat withing the margin of error and the man made global warming hypothesis predicts it will increase steadily. One could argue, as you just did, that 16 years mean nothing, but the problem is, those same people have claimed the 16 years of prediction before it were more than enough to settle the science.

    If a period of 16 years of prediction is not enough, then there is no theory of man made global warming just an untested hypothesis – the scientific method catches liars every time – it just takes time.

  248. If you have actually examined the overwhelming evidence that supports the existence of man-made climate change and you are a still a denier:

    1. Go purchase a large caliber handgun
    2. Put it in your mouth
    3. Blow your feeble conservative brains out!

    1. LOL, if you believe evidence which has been manipulated by Seantists who are money grubbing grant schemers you are the fool… But to instruct you in how to end your worthless existence, we know you won’t buy a gun because you are scared of an object as though it were creeping up on people and killing them out of conservative faithfullness, now who is the idiot in these two scenarios???? I think most can judge you to be the pot calling the kettle black

  250. Why ask NASA or NOAA when Obama can tell their findings, first hand. The ‘government’ tells these agencies what it wants them to find …. look at the CDC and ebola. Global warming has become Climate change … what we really would like to see is administration change.

    1. AGW is loved by communists and illuminati for it raises elites to rulers and creates serfs. The Pope wants to be the religious wing of the ruling class.

  256. I’m going to cut right to the bone with my comment…. lets get to what is really going on.

    This is not about money, even though lots of money can be made from it.

    This climate change hoax is about control.

    The leaders of the world are using climate change as an EXCUSE to put the citizens of the world in POVERTY. They want a two class system, the very rich, and the very poor… NO MIDDLE CLASS except for the military.

    Climate change is one of the tools they are using to force this change on us. They want us BROKE AND BUSTED, living in large cities and dependent on THEM. We will go and beg from them for everything… for food, electricity, and healthcare.

    Basically, they want the ENTIRE WORLD to look like NORTH KOREA. That is why they are shutting things down all over the world. This is why Obama and the EPA is shutting down our PERFECTLY GOOD power plants, straining the system, and raising electric prices.

    THEY HAVE AN AGENDA AND ARE FEEDING US A LINE OF BULL.

  257. We have interesting conservative arguments going here.
    One argument is that 10 million years of climate change proves that nothing is happening today.
    The other argument is that things haven’t changed in the last 15 years which proves that nothing is happening today.
    .
    10 million years or 10 years, but conservatives ignore 100 years, the time since the beginning of the industrial revolution and the utilization of fossil fuels.

    2. Um… climate has been changing for 10 years, 100 years and 10,000,000 years… I think people with a brain know that people contribute less than 3% of CO2 and that the earth, that C02 is responsible for plant growth and the correlate them to green house effects is the most moronic thing a person could ever say!

        1. It means that we are the underwhelming factor in C02 emissions you puppet boy…. And you missed the point, C02 is good for plant growth which leads to more food and so forth, but never mind….

    3. Since the Maunder Minimum ended in 1855 there hasn’t been even 200 years of “normal” weather. Or is it normal? perhaps it is the Maunder Minimum that is normal?
      Or perhaps the roughly 75,000 years of ice ages during the last 105,000 years on this planet is normal.
      Who knows?

              1. I see a chart with a vertical scale from -40 to +120, and a horizontal scale from 1881 to 2013, and a bunch of vertical red bar reaching to about 55. What am I supposed to glean from this?

                  1. I’m not sure your chart is coming through correctly. A vertical range of 160 degrees when we are looking for changes of 2 to 5 degrees masks the changes. Is this the way the chart was suppose to come through?

                    1. The scale represents the real range of temperature and the chart simulates an alcohol thermometer. We are not looking at a difference of 2 to 5 degrees, we are looking a variation of around one degree in an average around 58 degrees F. There are many issues with measurement precision, accuracy, and data manipulation that make the averages suspect, however, this chart illustrates that the temp has been about 58 degrees F even during a period of rapid CO2 growth and heat generation from the human population. It is a great illustration of the Chicken Little behavior of the warmistas.

                    2. Traditionally, scientist try to adjust the vertical scale to the range of variability of the data. A range from -40 to +120 makes no sense. You could have made the bottom absolute zero if you wanted to hide the data better.

        3. Isn’t it strange that the industrial revolution occurred during the Maunder Minimum? Isn’t it even stranger that during the last 105,000 years there were three separate and distinct ice ages that all lasted roughly 25,000 years?
          It must have been those pesky cave men driving around in their nasty SUV’s.

    4. Again you can have the same plots that happens every say every 1million years. For Christ sakes I know this and I’m only an engineer,yet PhD’s forget simple statistics.

  258. Global warming is good. Ice ages are bad. We’re now entering bad. Just look at the record amount of ice on and around Antarctica, despite the increase in volcanic activity on the western side. The sea ice at the North Pole is also growing. And Al Gore predicted just the opposite. I’m not sure if his problem is more greed or more stupidity. Regardless, it’s a combination of both.

  259. Live your kooky liberal lies! Why are you on a computer the electricity is generated most likely by fossil fuels give up your cars, no that’s right you are a bunch of hypocrites!

  260. The supposedly observed change is miniscule over the last 100 odd years? How many measuring stations did they have in 1880? We didn’t even have close to accurate methods to measure global temp until the 80s and it didn’t get good until the period of time that it supposedly went on pause. Then you have to compare that to the other 4 billion years that we have no real information at all about (we know large things, like there is a plant that required x temp, but no real data). Basically, this whole thing is made up with no actual rise in temp over the actual period that we could actually measure and document temps.

        1. Just agreeing with you. The graph illustrates what the yearly global average temp during the industrial age would look like on an alcohol thermometer. Very difficult to read temp to a hundredth of a degree and amazingly stable over this period.

    2. Sooner or later you will realize that the fight is now getting serious and you will stop trolling the boards making jokes.

      Time for you to stop making jokes and messing around and start fighting… we dont have much time left and you are wasting it.

      These boards used to be crawling with trolls… most have now stopped and joined the fight.

      Time to grow up and grab your weapon.

    3. Gaaa…are you STILL quoting that? Then you haven’t had the courage to read the statistical methods used and questions asked in the survey. And that’s all it was…a survey. It was not only incredibly slanted in it’s questions (which permitted only a yes or no answer to every question, but only about four percent of those receiving the survey bothered to respond…of the remaining four percent, only about 7% had ANY background in climate science.

    4. Forbes: Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.
      There ya go buddy. You are believing a LIE.

    5. I am so very proud of you. You have finally learned how to correctly spell two words: ninety and seven.
      Here are three more words you could learn to spell: get a life.

    8. Is that the proportion of global warming hysterics that are certifiably brain-dead? Or the proportion of “scientists” paid to arrive at predetermined conclusions of imminent AGW catastrophe by limousine liberal opportunists like Al Gore? Or is it the percentage of the global population with an IQ above 10 that recognize this as the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind? Or is it the Decrepitude Quotient of the average Useful Idiot?

    10. Put you money where you mouth is( or your bold type) .You Liberals are always on the road while saving the planet,burning fossil fuels.In NJ the bastion of liberalism the roads are always crowded with you libs. You don’t practice what you preach Rev. This is why Conservatives are skeptical (which is healthy in science) because the AGW crowd is on yachts,G5 jets,private 747’s.Chicago Carbon Exchange says it all

  262. So it went from New Ice Age to Global Warming to Climate Change to Climate Disruption.

    Every time we call them on it, they change the name of the same old bull story.

  263. The earth does what it will do, we just live on it. What stupid people tend to forget is the planet goes through all kinds of patterns including weather. Always has, always will. We’re just fleas on its back.

  264. seems funny to me that the man caused global warming map shows all the red in places MAN BARELY LIVES.. north east Russia.. middle of Australia.. seas east of Greenland.. wake me up when its over cities filled with millions of PEOPLE.

  265. A little girl was talking to her teacher about climate change.

    The teacher said this is the first anthropogenic climate change we ever had.

    The little girl stated that the biblical flood was another.

    Irritated, the teacher reiterated that it is the first; at that time it was impossible.

    The little girl said, “When I get to heaven I will ask Noah”.

    The teacher asked, “What if Noah went to hell?”

    The little girl replied, “Then you ask him”.

  266. You can watch Global Warming fraud happening in Real Time, using only an accurate thermometer and your smart phone. The weather app on your smart phone displays the current temperature as measured by a nearby weather station. This is the same temperature data that is used to “confirm” Global Warming. But is this data accurate?

    See for yourself!

    Simply install an accurate thermometer in an appropriate location, out of direct sunlight and away from any obvious sources of heat, like black pavement, a chimney or an air conditioning condensing unit.

    Then open the weather app on your smart phone and compare it to the temperature on your thermometer. Chances are, the temperature on your phone will be 2-3 degrees F higher than the temperature on your thermometer. This will be true, day after day.

    Then, as you go about your daily business, every time you see a thermometer, check the temperature of that location on your smart phone against the thermometer. You will see that the smart phone is again, 2-3 degrees F higher, in location after location.

    The data from the official weather station in most cases is consistently biased high, and it is high by a lot, not by a fractional degree, but by two or three Degrees F. Is it any wonder that every year is the hottest ever measured, when the data is wrong?

    The fraud is happening at the very lowest level. Everybody wants to tell the noble lie to save the planet. They know Global Warming is happening, and they will do whatever it takes to prove it!

  267. Only the hard core leftist believers still give a crap about this. Everyone else have heard enough lies to disregard the same dire predictions over and over and over again.

  268. If we think we have the power to warm the planet, then we should do just that. Anyone who want to push us toward an ice age is high on stupidity. Many of these so called scientists need to fess up on why they want the mass extinction of human life an ice age would bring via starvation. This is the more important point. Why do they want death and depopulation because this is not science it is a philosophy? It is also an illegal philosophy to have. Just like Hitler these warming extremists want lots of people to die and are creating policies to see this through by directly supporting things that would lead to another ice age. A warmer planet means MORE food and continued prosperity for humans around the globe. An ice age means the abolition of Canada and the Northern USA and all the food we currently produce and mass starvation around the world.
    Of course all of this thinking still depends on whether or not we believe humans have the power to change the climate and scientists do not agree humans have this ability.

  272. The sun is entering into another minimum phase that could last 50 years.

    What will the global warming pushers say when we have 50 years of harsh winters and snow in June in Kansas?

    The last mimimum happened a few centuries ago, and froze rivers and lakes solid. It is documented in paintings and literature. Snow literally topped houses, and people dug tunnels to get around town.

    That time is coming again… in about 5 years we will get a full dose of it, and it will continue for several decades.

    Lets see how they will spin that.

  276. Man, reading through this comment section it is pretty clear the Drudge herd had descended here. These guys sure do love having their own uninformed opinion regurgitated back them. It’s like some creepy digital circle jerk.

      1. They are free to oppose what they want, and read what they like. I’m just making the observation. They are fanatical and tribal, but ultimately harmless and insignificant. Nobody of import buys into this websites rantings.

              1. Oh don’t be such a drama queen. There are no serious voices saying the world is going to end. Simply that a changing climate is going to create all kinds of socioeconomic problems for future generations, and it probably can’t be prevented entirely, the effects can be mitigated if we are bold enough to face the problem and work on real solutions. But I guess it is easier to stick your fingers in your ears and scream lalalalalala, and pretend all is well. Don’t worry. The grown ups are on it. Just get back to whatever it is you were doing.

                1. Maybe the government should work on fixing the VA, Post Office, Social Security, open boarders, DMV, etc. before they take on the challenge of the entire Earth’s climate?

                  But I guess it is easier to stick your fingers in my wallet and take my money.

      1. I am. It’s true. I sometimes like to check on the looney bin from time to time, at least drudge keeps his flock in a tight little bunch. I read all sorts of stories from all sorts of sources. Unlike most, I don’t just go where I know my own opinions will simply be echoed back to me. I don’t need that level of reinforcement.

        1. Speaking of looney bin, what’s it like to keep defending global warming on a thread when the article above is completely contradicting your belief?

          1. I find it satisfying. No point in preaching to the converted. I bring my wit and wisdom to those who need it most. You are welcome for my selfless service, given free of charge!

            1. Well we’ll mark this down as the first time a liberal doesn’t want someone else’s money.

              Seriously though…you realize you’re arguing Global Warming with everything above you telling you it’s junk science?

  278. The agenda 21 crowd expects you to believe that a .01% increase one year (or one four billionth of earth history) is a problem. They also expect you to believe this is a historical high mark for the planet. Remember the 4 billion other years? This is literally the most stable this planet has ever been. Hell in another 4 billion years the sun will engulf the planet anyways. Bring on the carbon taxes!!! KFTC

      1. The problem with those numbers is that they lack perspective. Yes, there have been 10 million jobs “created” in the last 50 years, but tons of them are low wage and we still lose more jobs every month when compared to how many people enter the jobs market. We are probably 20 million below where we were in 2008 even with the supposed gains.

  280. I understand there is going to be counter arguments to global warming but this particular website hurts those causes more than it helps. This website is a joke

  283. What a stupid page. It’s all over the place and the various cited differences in temps shows that the author is grasping.

    Claiming that “0.8 degrees” is negligible is not something a real scientist would say. If the trend is to increase in increments of such, then it’s still disastrous.

    I don’t care about the argument about whether of not humans caused the warming. I really don’t. It could be a natural cycle.

    But the one *fact* that has *never* been challenged is that the planetary ice is melting faster than its re-freezing and that without exception sea level continues to rise – to ignore that one fact and not do anything is madness.

    1. Pretty much what I just said. I understand and expect there to be a counter argument. Every issue should have a side that is skeptical. However, this website is truly an embarrassment.

    2. I don’t think you understand. They are saying that .07 degrees is actually an unmeasurable amount when you consider a global temp and we haven’t even been able to get that until the last couple of decades. When you talk about in all of history I doubt it is accurate within 10 degrees, so there is no way we can accurately compare a .07 degree difference and even if we could we would know what it meant because we have no idea what the average temp of the Earth is.

      1. All I can say for sure is that the ice is melting and the sea level continues to rise.
        And most humans live on coastlines.
        As do many nuclear reactors, factories and ports.
        Unless something is done, all of the above will be below water and that will set us back a couple hundred years.

        1. The problem with that is that you have no proof that we caused it and you have no proof that we can stop it, or change it, or even if everything you claim is true and you could get your way, that it would actually make a difference. The US has been doing the things you want for decades as has most of Europe. We really can’t change faster than we are.

  284. There is no money if there is no global warming. Just ask Al Gore. He made a hundred millions dollars scaring the schitt out of people with global warming. That’s all it’s about, people, MONEY.

    1. So thousands of scientist all over the planet are intentionally misrepresenting numbers and lying about what is truly going on for money? It’s one big conspiracy. They meet in secret and explain to one another how they can conspire to fool the masses. The corporate world and businesses have already decided that they think the concerns are real enough that they have adjusted their business models accordingly. Insurance companies have also. You an be skeptical of the Science if you wish. However, if for profit companies are spending money and adjusting policies because they believe the threat is real, it’s probably something to consider.

      1. Not really. Large companies will not be hurt by this stupidity. It is the smaller companies that will be badly hurt because they don’t have the necessary resources and their failure will allow the larger companies to make larger profits.
        Why else would one purchase the necessary legislation? Or, for that matter, the necessary “scientific” studies?
        The tobacco industry was able to stave off the truth for almost a hundred years by “funding” studies that claimed how good the use of tobacco was for you. Nothing has changed.

  287. This is but another way for progressives to dictate where and how we are to live.

    Its no wonder environmentalists are also most likely to be believe in the Marxist way of running the economy: Control the resources, disarm the population, and increase the size of the government which, folks, is being done at this time.

  291. I have deferred to my experts and the Dog says last yr was definitely the hottest,now the Cat says maybe. So perhaps the Goldfish has it right,NO GLOBAL WARMING! But its hard to hear him thru all that media,you know,water.

  292. Live your liberal lies, Global Warming believers! Why are you on a computer the electricity is generated most likely by fossil fuels give up your cars, no that’s right you are a bunch of hypocrites!

  295. The mere fact that Obama, John Kerry and Al Gore are big proponents of the anthropogenic global warming theory is in and of itself near 100% certain proof and compelling scientific evidence the theory is a total crock.

  297. What will actually qualify it as a record or not is if the obammy administration tries to use it as an excuse so more social engineering and wealth distribution.

    1. Even if humans produces all of the CO2 which makes up the 0.039% of the atmosphere, to say this increases the earth’s temperature is unscientific and best, treason at worse.

        1. Political propaganda? No, No, No. Can’t you see. We’re the ones being manipulated. All the liberals and 98% of the climate scientist on the entire planet meet in secret and have planned out this vast conspiracy. The politicians have paid the scientist billions. Your just a sheep. Baa aah.

      2. This site shouldn’t even be considered a “news source”. Heck it isn’t . It’s not even a scientific source. It’s non-sense. Arguably the most embarrassing website I’ve seen.

    2. you know you are young college know it all. Trying to be shocking with a Jesus middle finger, “shocking” staments. Got news for ya kid-it’s not shocking .I live in NJ .I’ve seen the pillars of society give the finger especially driving the smug liberal roads. I gave the finger. Glad you gaffawing with you braces and acne face-Have fun.

  300. THE OBAMA LEGACY:

    1. HEALTHCARE FOR MILLIONS
    2. ALL JOBS REGAINED FROM THE GEORGE W. BUSH RECESSION, THANKS TO THE STIMULUS AND OTHER GOVT. PROGRAMS
    3. AMNESTY FOR UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS
    4. DEATH OF USAMA BIN LADEN
    5. SENSIBLE CUBA POLICY
    6. POWERFUL ECONOMIC GROWTH
    7. COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOR ALL
    8. SWEEPING EPA REGULATIONS!

    9. EXECUTIVE ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

  303. Gore is doing his part. He often drives his Lincoln SUV to the airport to fly in his private jet everywhere to warn people about global warming. His SUV and jet use coconut milk as fuel. And yes,Michelle takes 23 vacations a year to Hawaii but she paddles there in a raft.

    5. so this same warming 100 year period may have occurred time and time again through the history of Earth. No data to prove or disprove. If climate is like many intermittent and random failures I ‘ve seen in electronics, climate can follow the same pattern. A PHd, if gets out of idealism, would recognize this happens.

    6. I dunno Einstein, can you explain why they found neanderthal tools and campfires when the glacial ice receded?

      You have any empirical evidence AT ALL to support the “fearies” on “Global Warming”?

    7. How exactly has the Earth warned? Is it still warning us? Unless you meant warmed, and the fact is thats debatable – any measurable stat needs a +/- and to say temperatures have gone up less than one degree is insane. Even if it went up several degrees thats still well within the trend of the last 5 warming periods.

  305. These same alarmist at Rutgers were sounding the alarm that we would have floods every year because of heavier rains because of AGW( although we had heavier rains years ago without flooding-muliple circumstances that these ‘climatologists’ don’t take in account on the tributaries) .Back to normal no floods for 3 years.

  306. They have to keep the fraud going to continue with the university,college and crony corporate dollars coming in. Lot of people are taking home big pay checks on this rackett. Government,the U.N. and co conspirators and the Pope should be charged with a world wide and national racketeering and fraud for the purposes of deceiving people,business and corporations on a hoax for raising revenue for the purposes of redistribution.

    1. The only fraud is that coming from the right-wing propaganda machine denying science in the interests of big business and natural resource exploitation.

      2. What are you talking about? Climate fraud IS in the interest of select big businesses. Same as Obamacare.

        Liberals are the champions of crony capitalism.

  308. And people will read headlines that say the earth is “sizzling” with the warmest year on record. Yeah, that 100th of a degree is sizzling, LOL.

  309. When does it stop! Ice on the Great Lakes till the middle of June and these morons say hottest year on record. What planet dude? I now believe all the so called “conspiracy theorists” in that it is not about climate control it’s about population reduction. Why else would they change the original carbon to carbon dioxide. I wonder if we could research these guys how many are linked to Agenda 21.

                  1. Sorry sonny but that is your wrong assumption. I know your game and what you are trying to do and in the end your gonna regret it. I have been trained and tested by those at Oak Ridge and so far after all your big mouth nonsense you present no factual evidence. So piss off piss ant.

  312. Help! What is happening to all this consensus. I just read that the Indian Science Congress is skeptical of all this “Hype” about doomsday and melting ice etc. So that is what is happening consensus is melting away too. And the Hype will get louder the closer we get to the Paris meeting. To the point that we may have only weeks before the world will end. Hysteria is the buz word. This is the future of world government.

  313. The so called climate scientists who are alarmed at what is going on, have NOT studied the Climate HISTORY of this rock we are on. If they did so, they would know that it has been way warmer in the past then now. They would know that the ancient port cities that lie below the ocean depths now, were once on dry land. those cities ended up under water due to global warming, way, way back in time, when there were less than 2 billion people on the planet, with no fossil fuels to blame.. But hey, the demented liberal/socialist/commie pinkos do not like facts.

  314. THE LEADERSHIP OF OBAMA

    1. HEALTHCARE FOR MILLIONS
    2. ALL JOBS REGAINED FROM THE GEORGE W. BUSH RECESSION, THANKS TO THE STIMULUS AND OTHER GOVT. PROGRAMS
    3. AMNESTY FOR UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS
    4. DEATH OF USAMA BIN LADEN
    5. SENSIBLE CUBA POLICY
    6. POWERFUL ECONOMIC GROWTH
    7. COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOR ALL
    8. SWEEPING EPA REGULATIONS!
    9. EXECUTIVE ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

    1. If you fid 5 seconds of research you’d see that only a small amount of scientists believed an ice age was coming, the vast majority still knew it was warming.

      2. In the 1960s the culprit was carbon emissions by industry. Then it became carbon emissions by power plants. In the last 12 yrs. is has changed to carbon dioxide. Now I don’t know of a car, plane, bus etc that emits large amounts of CO2. You and so many others have missed the point of Agenda 21 in LOWERING POPULATIONs by a recommended elimination of 350,000 per day to achieve balance with nature. Do You Get That? and that is fact sonny look it up.

  318. I’ve written my own climate model and have been testing various scenarios on changing the Earth’s orbit. I’ve come to the conclusion if 90% of the worlds population would congregate in the Sahara desert for 3 consecutive days, the rotation of the Earth would change slightly and move the earth further away from the Sun thus creating a 2 degree decline in global warming. I also show than anything less than 90% will only create more earthquakes. But, as it approaches 93%, we run the risk of tipping Guam. The window of opportunity for this is July 22-25, 2015. Malaysia airlines is offering discounted tickets.

  321. Can conservatives tell me what they believe happens to the gas that comes out of their tailpipe when they’re driving?

    Hint: It doesn’t simply vanish.

    3. No one has a problem with what you believe, but when you tell folks your going to do what I say because of what I believe ya got a problem and will be told where to go. Do your thing and set a good example maybe folks will listen.

  323. Keep in mind that all of this blather is from one government agency that has been shown to be greatly in error before, and another who was recently caught changing historical temp data to feed through their computer models so they would show glowBULL warming!

  324. Time to “correct” the satellite-derived temperatures again.
    In the late 80’s and early 90’s when the satellite-derived temps were cooler than the ground-based sensors atmospheric temperatures the government put great pressure on the satellite community to “correct” their temps–i.e. “correct” the algorithms to make the temps warmer. They did that and the warming crowd put great store in satellite-derived temps because they became warmer than the ground-based measurements. So then they “corrected” the ground-based temperatures to match the warmer satellite-derived temps. So now the ground-based are even warmer than the satellite-derived so they now want to put great store in the ground-based temps.
    Can you say “positive feed-back loop”?

  325. Fact: Most “conservatives” are in fact white, middle-America, uneducated fools who vote against their own interests in the name of their fake sky fairy.

    1. And that is another load of horse manure. By race percentages the numbers fall out to the same. However there is a very active movement by the progressives that have infested our nation to divide in anyway possible.

        2. As a matter of facts yes, I have been. Funny thing there were people of all ethnicities there represented in good measure. The only “racist” remarks I heard of any sort came from a car load of black women who went around the block twice, shouting racial slurs as they went!

    2. Fact: Most “liberals” are in fact pompous self described omniscient individuals with delusions of grandeur who will believe anything so long as it furthers their agendas.

    3. Then why are Conservatives have the highest percentage of degrees? And proven useful ones ,not phony scientists in universities with theories that are not proven in the real world?

  326. Ice age predicted in the 70s

    “[M]any scientists now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age
    – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including The New York Times,
    Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four
    different climate shifts since 1895.” (Fire and Ice)

    Mainstream Media

    What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article “The Cooling World” that suggested cooling “may portend a drastic decline for food production.”

    “Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.”

    A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:

    “When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend
    shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are
    becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are
    studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.”

  327. this articles just proves those who push global warming are wedded to their environmentalist religion and dont care much for science. If you listened to them the earth would have already come to an end years ago due to ecological disasters. Liberals do not know much about what they speak of or try to push upon others.

      1. You must be a regressive liberal believing what’s spoon fed to you and not looking beyond your little world of liberal faux news. It is truly a shame brainwashed liberals like yourself are leading the country to ruin.

    6. Ever seen a field before & after a conservative meet? Cleaner after they leave it. Ever see the garbage lib tards leave wherever they go? You all are trashy hateful morons.

  331. Global warming activists and “scientists ” are full of BS. Just trying to justify their paycheck (grants). No facts. Last winter was horribly cold and summer was very wet in Michigan. Just Mother nature doing the natural course on the planet and do not give me that this is man made. She will do fine. By the way. So far here in Michigan is freezing again with extreme low temperatures again to date. Maybe the Ice Age is coming (and I am sick of it). Wish Al Gore would move here.

    1. Sure. Meanwhile, you “homeschooled” regressive conservatards know everything. Go ahead, keep listening to Rush Limbaugh, swallowing the right-wing dribble, and keeping yourself stupid.

      2. Wow. And (moron) think I am a retard and conservative. Shows your colors moron. I just accept the facts while you make moronic assumptions. No. I do not like Rush. Read a book if you can.

      3. “Home-schooled”. Perhaps these individuals you despise so much have more common sense than you progressive Academian Nuts but just keep reading Marx and drink the Kool-aid.

        PS. The Triune God is real.

          1. calling the people who defend your rights…losers?. You sure have some keyboard muscles.. go to an army base and say that. Nevermind.. just leave this country

  332. When will they give up? It’s like a weird obsession with these people. Every time they sat something, it seems to blow in they’re faces. As if God was mocking them.

    2. Once you start believing we are just an improbable cosmic accident on a fragile rock in cold space with no means of protection, anything becomes a threat.

  336. I have known this for 10 years… it is all about grants and the desire to reduce petroleum use. If anyone is curious enough they can do the research themselves. We are in an interglacial ice age. In the future the sun will expand and burn the earth, but fear not… it will happen in over a billion years from now. We will have multiple new ice ages before that happens.

  337. correlation and causation…. just because the temperature has increased in the last 150 yrs, doesn’t mean man has caused it. After all the earth has warmed in the past… without man. Oh and don’t give me that.. ‘it’s rising faster’ crap… co2 levels are through the roof and yet, temps remain steady

  339. I’m just gonna say it because someone needs to spread the good word. God is fake, Jesus is a dead homosexual deviant, and only coward bullies and losers who can’t find real jobs join the military.

  342. I heard that this stupid fúck that calls himself “Christ Almighty” and his lot lizard wife were arrested for turning out their daughter to the mexican laborers at the Home Depot so that they could pay for their meth habit. What a fúcking bästard!

  344. Pretty hilarious seeing all these people (or possibly petrol company astroturf accounts) who don’t believe in science calling everyone else stupid.

        1. Which articles does Matt Drudge write exactly?

          You do realize that The Drudge Report is just an aggregator, right? (I’ll give you time to look that word up)

                    1. Good one. Keep telling us how the Earth is warming, despite all the evidence against it. Great job electing Obama by the way, liberal.

                    2. Please, you people still think the world is flat, 10,000 years old, and “created”

                1. In the Muslim Tradition all children are born Muslim. One can also be “born” Jewish in their tradition, inheriting their religious beliefs through the mother. A person can be “raised as a Christian, but scripturally speaking one cannot simply be “born” a Christian. That has never been true.

      2. Spoken like some one truly ignorant of the Bible. That isn’t a put down, if your mind hasn’t been opened to the Truth, there is no way you can comprehend it. Even if Christianity were just fables, the Climate religion still requires more blind faith (there is ZERO factual basis for it) than Christianity.

  348. i live in wa state..the idiot gov.(INSLEE) here wants to impose cap and trade …..to redistribute wealth to POOR PEOPLE….i think to help poor people is to GET THEM AN OP. TO HAVE A JOB…TO LIFT THEMSELVES OUT OF POVERTY ……NOT A GOV BANK ACCOUNT TO RECEIVE PUBLIC FUNDS…I WOULD LIKE TO SEE INSLEE MOVE TO KALIFORNIA, AND ADMIT HIS FAMILY RELATION W/ MOON BEAM

  350. We have real scientists and then we have the wacky witch doctor voodoo kind paid for and bought by the Demwitted GRUBER party that Obama pretends to bow too or is just so stupid he thinks they are truthful.

  351. remember this?

    11/23/2011 @ 11:38AM 394,828 views

    Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

    A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

    Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

    1. When scientist say the numbers don’t add up, and that certain “scientists” are fudging the numbers to match the narrative, that should cause red flags to fly up all over the place, and rightly so….

      Given the current administrations penchant for galactic lies, the fact that they are ramming this agenda thru without open public discourse (same as obamacare) does not pass the sniff test.
      It smells about as bad as those evil cow farts they were blaming this on a few years back….

    1. Who said they switched it back??? To expect a liberal to act in a fair manner and be truthful is completely ridiculous. They, like muslims, think that lying to further their cause is righteous & just.

  355. Marc Morano bio: Morano has a bachelor’s degree from George Mason University in political science. He began his career working for Rush Limbaugh from 1992 to 1996, during which time he was known as “Limbaugh’s man in Washington”. After 1996, he began working for Cybercast News Service, where he was the first to publish the accusations from Swift-Boat veterans that John Kerry had allegedly exaggerated his military service record.

    Enough said. This is the rightwing’s climate change expert?

  356. The marxists, fools, the scientifically challenged and all those poor putzes looking for a “religion: to make them feel worthy gather together to push this stupid and ever-changing “climate” hoax.

  357. The demonicrats/progressives will continue to force this on us until enough “useful idi0ts” believe it. This is about money, control, and power. The senate is supposed to vote on whether climate change/global warming/(???????) is real? If they vote that this is real & caused by human activity, then that will be the sign that the country is gone.
    I’ve debated many liberals on this subject with FACTS, but you cannot win with people who create their own facts & reality.

    Watch the “YURI BEZMENOV” interviews, and it will become clear.

  358. I find it very interesting that boards like this are flooded by aggressive flunkies know as progressives. They work in unison to shut down the opinions of Americans who see the lie and want to say so. Why is it so important that they get you all to believe the sky is falling?

  359. I grew up in the ’50’s which I can tell you were warmer than it currently IS. My father always said back then in the ’50’s that he thought it was hotter still in the ’30’s. What have we done since the ’30’s? Well, the Wright Bros. flew their first flight in 1903, and in the ’30’s and ’40’s we started paving over a lot of land to build airports. Have you ever stood in the middle of a grass field versus standing in the middle of a parking lot on a Summer Day? Not counter-intuitively, it’s hotter on the pavement. After WWII, we built lots and lots of airports, paving over lots and lots of grassland. Eisenhower in the ’50’s also built the U.S. Highway System. Paving, paving, paving. We, in fact, built “Heat Islands” around our major cities. Many have commented that ALL the so-called “warming” being touted in recent years can be accounted for simply by the process of Urbanization (having nothing necessarily to do with CO2.) Funny, crazy, also, where we ended up putting our Weather Stations. Where are they? Located at our Airports, where it’s the hottest.

    3. I think it’s more a question of where the data is collected. Within these urban heat zones. No one can convince me that 2014 was the hottest year on record. There were record cold/cool temps all year long, practically every week.

      1. Yes, I agree. WHERE. And that’s what I’m saying. In the winter, at the airport, they actually scrape the snow off the runways, down to the pavement, and if they ARE going to keep track of the temperature, which they are, it’s ALWAYS going to be warmer at the airport than it’s going to be, locally, anywhere else. So, I’m saying it was actually COLDER than the data would indicate, and the data indicted record cold/cool temps. So, the record cold/cool temps you noted were actually hotter/warmer than the Real numbers,if the temperatures were logged in away from the heat islands (sinks.) But those real numbers, away from the heat sinks, were not recorded; so, i.e., it was actually colder than what was written down.

  360. We US taxpayers pay $23 billion/year to counter man-made global warming. Why? NOAA data shows warming is slowing over last 18 years even with large rise in CO2. Wonderful MAMA Nature and her cycles with her honey Mr. Sun, and with water vapor, oceans and volcanoes when she blows her top, and either opens methane holes or blows wind causing a polar vortex when she has gas, all as her home the Earth tilts on its axis. Search: “natural-tilts-earths-axis-ice-ages-harvard-geophysicist”

    1. Nope: “Both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA
      calculated that in 2014 the world had its hottest year in 135 years of
      record-keeping. Earlier, the Japanese weather agency and an independent
      group out of University of California Berkeley also measured 2014 as the
      hottest on record. NOAA said 2014 averaged 58.24 degrees Fahrenheit, 1.24 degrees above the 20th-century average.”

        1. Nine
          of the 10 hottest years in NOAA global records have occurred since
          2000. The odds of this happening at random are about 650 million to 1,
          according to University of South Carolina statistician John Grego. Two
          other statisticians confirmed his calculations.

          3. You guys really believe in fraudulent data, and manipulated data collection, and thermometers being stationed in places that violate the original rules, such as near roofs, A/C units, blacktop parking lots. This is a data scam. My rules would be absolutely no temperature collection within 20 miles of a metro area for starters.

  365. more ice in antarctica since records were kept and we have hottest year ever. What a bunch of lies and misleading nonsense. There is nothing we can do to stop the sun from heating the earth nor can we stop the cold from freezing the great lakes solid again this year. Its all about moving money to third world countries and keeping scientist fat and happy.

    1. Actually the Chem trails are meant to reflect the suns heat but over the last five years I’ve noticed when we have cloud cover from horizon to horizon the temps are warmer. In the spay is a number of chemicals but the one of concern is aluminum oxide. it seem to be doing the opposite of what they say.

        1. Spent 4 yrs in naval air. there is a difference between Con Trails and Chem trails. Condensation trails will disappear at some distance behind the aircraft. However Chem Trails are loaded with a number of chemicals none of which are healthy for us and they do not disappear. Instead the spread out to a thin film which seeds moisture and creates clouds. Unfortunately one of the chemicals is strontium which is not conducive to good health. It is not conspiracy theory and part of the program is run by the US Air Force.

        2. Actually, like most conspiracy theories there is just enough truth to make it not exactly the “dumbest I’ve heard of”, but certainly not enough to make it completely true.
          In the late 80’s and early 90’s there was a huge concern that contrails would cool the earth at a time when cooling of the earth was the buzz-scare of the day. So NASA and the AF (for different reasons) spent many millions of dollars studying contrails and how to control them. One of the things they did was try different additives to JP to try and decrease the particulate matter, or at least make it less hygroscopic to cut down on contrails. NASA because of cooling and AF because of the B-2 and other stealth aircraft.
          The conspiracy nuts grabbed onto the additives stories and blew it all out of proportion to come up with “chemtrails” and some vast conspiracy.

    1. You’re right. This website is 100% political.

      Marc Morano bio: Morano has a bachelor’s degree from George Mason
      University in political science. He began his career working for Rush
      Limbaugh from 1992 to 1996, during which time he was known as
      “Limbaugh’s man in Washington”. After 1996, he began working for
      Cybercast News Service, where he was the first to publish the
      accusations from Swift-Boat veterans that John Kerry had allegedly
      exaggerated his military service record.

      Enough said. This is the rightwing’s climate change expert?

      Well,
      he did major in political “science” so I guess he is one of these
      “scientists” who disagrees with the other 99% of actual scientists.

  367. Marc Morano’s bio: Morano has a bachelor’s degree from George Mason
    University in political science. He began his career working for Rush
    Limbaugh from 1992 to 1996, during which time he was known as
    “Limbaugh’s man in Washington”. After 1996, he began working for
    Cybercast News Service, where he was the first to publish the
    accusations from Swift-Boat veterans that John Kerry had allegedly
    exaggerated his military service record.

    Enough said. This is the rightwing’s climate change expert?

    Well, he did major in political “science” so I guess he is one of these
    “scientists” who disagrees with the other 99% of actual scientists.

    1. um.. .97% of CLIMATE scientists that had an opinion on the study that man caused warming.. in that study 90% of climate scientists didn’t have an opinion. So your 97% consensus is about 7% of all climate scientists that responded to the survey.. oh and there were only about 1000 surveys sent out… you kool aid drinking dolt

      1. So, of those who felt qualified to have an opinion, 97 said it is caused by man, and 3 said it wasn’t, and the rest abstained. So, that’s your argument against it?

  368. It’s the AGW alarmists that are the real deniers.

    Why do they deny that data has been tampered with to make the past cooler than it was and the present warmer than it is?
    Why do they deny the statistical irrelavance of a couple 1/100ths of a degree?
    Why do they deny an 18 year 3 month pause in warming?
    Why do they deny that ground based measurements cannot accurately measure the entire globe?
    Why do they deny that Michael Manns hockey stick graph was based on false data?
    Why do they deny climate gate emails?
    Why do they deny that models used to predict future climate are woefully inaccurate?
    Why do they deny that fiery ball of nuclear fusion in the sky is dynamic in its output?
    Why do they deny that solar winds can have a profound influence on earths climate?
    Why do they deny that climate changes coincide with solar cycles?
    Why do they deny the climate changes on every other planet in the solar system?
    Why do they deny an increase in arctic and antarctic ice?
    Why do they deny that polar bears are not dying?
    Why do they deny that there has been no increase of frequency or intensity of storms as they predicted?
    Why do they deny that geothermic events (or lack therof) are what heats/cools the deep ocean?
    Why do they deny the insignificant amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (.04%)?
    Why to they deny that ice core samples show a temperature increase followed a few hundred years later by a CO2 increase?
    Why do they deny that water vapor is a far more dangerous greenhouse gas?
    Why do they deny that climate change is now a political issue rather than a scientific one?
    Why do they deny common sense and logic?

  369. I actually had someone, who believes in man-made global warming, ask me to tell him what would happen to me if I were to go into my garage, close the garage door, turn on my car and sit in the drivers seat.

  371. Envirofreaks scream that normal people who understand clearly that puny little mankind cannot alter the entire planet’s climate should look at the science. Well, we ARE looking at the science and the science says you envirofreaks are full of leftist political crap! #GlobalWarmingHoax #NoGlobalWarming

  372. I have given up on having any reasonable discussion with those that practice climate religion. I just punch them in the throat and walk away……………..OK, I don’t really punch them in the throat, but I do give them facts, which is worse.

  373. It has been proven that most of the (SO CALLED) weather changes are the simple fact that measuring devices are initially placed in open areas on the outskirts of towns. In time building grow up around them and THAT is what causes FALSE increases in temperature, wind and even humidity readings.
    Man is only as smart as he thinks he is and when he stops thinking and just accepting data without proper context he IS as STUPID as he is today.

  374. We’ve spent billions fighting climate change since the 90’s and it has done nothing to stop it…. therefore it can be said that man is not the cause, nor the solution

    1. That is not logically sound. Even though I don’t believe either 1) the premise that the earth is warmer, overall, nor 2) man affects the temp of the earth.

  375. These global warming “scientists” and demagogues like Al Gore have told one lie after another, after another, after another and on and on and on, and now they’re crowing about a statistically meaningless difference well inside the margin of error, and that’s assuming their data is even true … and these climate hustlers think they have any credibility ?

  377. Even if it is the “hottest year on record” we are now suffering from one of the coldest winters. One aspect of a good government is to see a natural catastrophe like this winter and act accordingly.
    For the Obama government to maintain a “fuel adjustment charge” when Americans are freezing, because he believes in global warming is beyond reckless. it is cruel

  379. Nevermind these guys……

    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    American Astronomical Society
    American Chemical Society
    American Geophysical Union
    American Institute of Physics
    American Meteorological Society
    American Physical Society
    Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
    British Antarctic Survey
    Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
    Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    Environmental Protection Agency
    European Federation of Geologists
    European Geosciences Union
    European Physical Society
    Federation of American Scientists
    Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
    Geological Society of America
    Geological Society of Australia
    Geological Society of London
    International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
    International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
    National Center for Atmospheric Research
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    Royal Meteorological Society
    Royal Society of the UK

    Mike Morano from Climatedepot says it’s all rubbish. Well there you have it.

  381. This scientific ‘consensus’ people speak of is like going to an obama fundraiser and asking if you liked Bush. 97% will say no, then publishing a paper saying 97% of voters dislike Bush. It’s all BS. Nothing but data and information manipulation to fool gruber voters. Sad really. If I believed in god, I would pray for you.

  384. For it to be some of the hottest temps on record is a shock in the South Eastern US. For three consecutive years we have had much milder than usual summers and for the past two years we have had colder than usual winters.
    That global warming must be selective as hell in relation to who and where is getting those record highs.

  385. Why does it seem like scientists don’t know WTF they are talking about??? One set goes chicken little about global warming.The other set says they are FOS. Neither seems much wrapped up in the Scientific Method.

    2. It might surprise you to learn that cutting edge science is almost all based on disagreement. Only HS science classes are nice and neat and clean.
      I was in the middle of a very intense disagreement between he nations leading met satellite folks in the 90’s that made for some very interesting meetings and conferences. And to this day it is not determined who was right and who was wrong.
      This is not “ball goes up, ball comes down” science.

      1. I know you probably cant share all the reasons for what you said but maybe that is the problem. Maybe it should be that simple and the ball goes up and the ball comes down.

        1. That would certainly be nice, but it would mean that science would have stopped about the time man invented fire.
          Even the ball goes up ball goes down was argued for many centuries as to why and if it was always true. Only relatively recently have we discovered that it’s not always true and that even gravity is not as absolute as was believed from the time Newton got hit with the apple until the 20th century. Should we have just declared that Newton got it completely right and that Einstein should have just not disagreed and just gone along with ball go up, ball go down?

          1. Albert was one of a kind in my opinion. No there are always extenuating circumstances but doesn’t results usually bear out theory. Einstein was proven right by the events of an eclipse. Till then no one believed in him.

            1. The point is that what you call “results” are either not known for many years, or sometimes never known.
              Did adding ‘corrections” to satellite-derived temperatures that increased derived temperatures by some 0.5 d C mean that the new temperatures were closer to truth or not? We will never know because there is no way to determine the ground truth either then, or now. Even if we kept the exact same “corrections” for as long as it takes us to determine a totally new method of measuring temperature that can measure ground truth, there is still some level of uncertainty on what the temps were 20 years ago when the “corrections” were first proposed and implemented.
              Science is like a sausage. It looks OK when it’s finished and you’re eating it, but how it’s made is really messy and most folks don’t understand the process of making it.

              1. Ok, so I guess you are saying that because they had a different system of recording data in the past, they’ve had to use a fudge factor to make that data useable if you want to combined it with the data of the present. In reality, there is no real way to actually make the comparison in the first place? I guess my first thought is why even make a comparison, if you really can’t. My second thought is, based on what you have said, that it sounds like the Statistical Analysis bunch are involved with this in some way. Never liked their answers which usually are tailored to an outcome someone has predetermined.
                Hey thanks so much for your time and words of wisdom. We can only hope for the best the rest is in Gods Hands.

                1. Actually, it’s worse then that. The current observations are already “corrected” since even our current instruments are not perfect. It’s part of the reason that there was a real stink when the UKMET office wouldn’t release the original raw data, but only the “corrected” data. And as you point out, either intentionally, or unintentionally, any “correction” is easily skewed towards the answer one wants-or just what one expects.
                  The satellite-derived temps were made warmer in the 90’s because the powers that be expected warmer temps so obviously they had to “correct” to make them warmer. And then since the ground-based observations were now cooler than satellite, they had to “correct” the ground-based. Not necessarily because of a conspiracy, but certainly because they had to “correct” to what they thought was right.
                  It makes any comparison to past data highly questionable at best.

  391. Just a few years ago we had a winter that had NO snow in Central Ohio. It was definitely the warmest year I remember (2011 maybe 2012). We were bass fishing through December took a month off in January and started right back up in February. The end of 2014 and beginning of 2015 has been COLD AS FUCK!!!!!!

  392. This is the same thing Hitler did before he began his campaign to eliminate another invented threat to mankind. Hitler used the media to create the psychological paranoia to scare the common sense/right minded people into shame or silence.

    Today, there is a power grab going on for different reasons, but the same sort of conjured “facts” and “science” are being employed in order to “educate” and intimidate the peasants on how to think and how to live due to so called “global warming”, “climate change”, or whatever they’re are calling it now.
    You can be sure of one thing…it all leads to more regulation/taxation on the working class…with little to no impact on those in power. The elites will still live in their castle-sized homes, palaces and vacation resorts. They will still drive any number of gas guzzling vehicles from their fleet or take their private jets or helicopters.

    This is not about saving the planet. This is about power, control, taxation. It is about money…lots and lots of money.

    Once the holdout countries get on board with the UN, it is all over. The witch hunts will begin for the non believers who point to the growing ice caps and the longer, colder winters and they will be shamed into compliance of “science” or they will be imprisoned for crimes against the “mother” (earth).

    There is no room or patience for worshipping the Creator…but only for His creation which is now the only god the minions and their elitist leaders will serve and tolerate.

  395. All this Chicken Littleism from the Warmists is just in time for the next UN climate conference in some far flung resort where the attendees will sip fruity cocktails and then conspire to fleece the rest of us of our blood and treasure. You’ve got to hand it to these calumnious one trick ponies…they are PERSISTENT. They have the smell of money, lots of money, and lots of power in their nostrils. They and their political overlords don’t want to pass up this opportunity to yoke the common man with taxes and penalties that will ensure that the elites and their useful idiot “scientists” will be flush with dough, and that we and our heirs will be left at a perpetual social and political disadvantage. face it, in order to buy into the whole global warming/climate change controversy, you have to be able to trust the messengers of the “settled science.” Thus far, all we can trust these folks to do is lie, obfuscate and exaggerate. Hidden declines, phony hockey sticks and cherry picked ice cores and tree rings do not “science” make.

    I believe there is a just and caring God. If these idiots are concerned about places that are “warm” or “warming”…they best start fretting about the place they might get to visit for a long, long time after their meeting with their Maker. I hear it’s REALLY hot there.

  397. I have some really good foil hats for sale, they produce zero emissions and leave a zero carbon footprint. All of you doomsday theorist can buy one half price today. If you’d like I can include, for a small fee, the “smarter than the average monkey” coating. Its helps you to better predict the future.

  399. This propaganda is brought to You by the same people that tell us, ”The unemployment rate is 5.6%” at the same time 27.3 % of people in the labor force don’t have a job.

  400. As blood is being shed around the world by Radical Islam, President Obola and his wackos see climate as our most important issue? You can’t make this krapp up!!

  401. if gods little boy jesus was to appear tomorrow on earth. by saterday we would be arguing over different aspects of da visit and on back to football and duck dienashty

  403. Why did the Earth heat up so much in the dust bowl days? There was only a fraction of industrialization going on compared to today? Seems like a cycle…more to do with the Sun and Moon’s impact on the Earth than anything man has done.
    Why was there a 150-year long mini ice age from 1700 to 1850? What has caused the Earth to warm by approximately .5-degress Celsius per century since that time?
    Man couldn’t have done it.
    It is all natural fluctuations, cycles, and non-cyclical disturbances that cannot be explained. Man ought not to think himself so powerful. If the Sun were to burp too large in our direction, we are all dead.

  406. Why did the Earth heat up so much in the dust bowl days? There was only a fraction of industrialization going on compared to today? Seems like a cycle…more to do with the Sun and Moon’s impact on the Earth than anything man has done.

    Why was there a 150-year long mini ice age from 1700 to 1850? What has caused the Earth to warm by approximately .5-degress Celsius per century since that time?
    Man couldn’t have done it.

    It is all natural fluctuations, cycles, and non-cyclical disturbances that cannot be explained. Man ought not to think himself so powerful. If the Sun were to burp too large in our direction, we are all dead. End of story.

  408. lets all say the same curapp we do everytime dis comes on up! then wait till the SCOTUS rules on dat gay thang and say the stuff we always say when that be brought up!

        3. How you know he be a nigga ? Maybe he be a white devil. An how you know he be beetin his step daughter, maybe he be beetin his fo reel daughter. Lawd havemercy!

            1. “Do not talk directly to a fool, because he will despise the wisdom of your words.”
              -Proverbs 23:9
              This one is talking to both of us. So I will stop replying directly to a fool and use my time more wisely. You ought to read more and talk less. You might gain some wisdom and much needed maturity.

  416. This is a horridly written article. It like most of the comments make unsubstantiated claims and parade opinions as facts. I’d have liked a reasonable article that was an actual debunk, not “More isn’t more if it’s only a little more.”

  417. They say that the USA was an anomaly this year – record cold across the country. It’s the rest of the world that is hot as a popcorn fart, they say, causing 2014 to be the hottest year on record. Well, have you seen the pictures of snow in Jerusalem? I know that Climate Change is real – it has been happening since creation. However, man-made global warming is a HOAX, pure & simple, intended to support and further the cause of a radical (political) transformation worldwide.

  421. 2014 the hottest year ever? It started out so cold in my vacation home area that the ice covering my lake in Northern Mn did not melt until the week before Memorial day. Ice cover is a pretty good indicator and sorry but 2014 spring, summer were colder I hardly swam at the lake at all this past year now 2012 was warm I WAS CANOEING on my Lake on March 27th…that was a warm year. Plus I can back this up. Check the Minnesota DNR Ice Out online and it gives ice melt dates going back many years and sorry 2014 was not the warmest in modern memory. Last winter we had pipes in the ground freezing due to the cold at my business and many others. The ground freeze went much farther down than normal last year just ask our city public works dept. Warmest on record….???? B as in B and S as in S…BS.

  422. It is refreshing that the trend now in reporting is to move right past the “debate” as to the validity of AGW, and allow that to be presumed fact and the discussion is about how to deal with it. Several publications have come right out and said they no longer will give voice to deniers, as it is simply a drain on resources. Just as an article about rainfall does not need to have a discussion about if, in fact, water is wet. The more air time and ink given to so called deniers, the less resources available to have meaningful discussion on what, if anything we can do to better our situation. I think the masses of deniers are well intentioned, only they are getting bad information. But really it makes no difference, Academia has moved on from them long ago, and the media and policy makers are doing likewise. They are stubborn, ill informed, passionate, and ultimately irrelevant.

  427. The people who make the “hottest year” claim are advocates of a political cause searching for more grant money and status. It makes a wonderful headline, doesn’t it, despite the fact that it is a complete and total lie. Media hacks like Borenstein become flacks distorting data to “prove” that we are experiencing global warming. How utterly shameful for people who call themselves scientists to attempt to deceive the public in this way. These self-serving individuals have no credibility whatsoever. They seem more like religious fanatics than scientists.

  430. We know what kind of year we had. A mild summer and cold winter. They think we are so dumb, they can tell us what the weather was like this last year and we’ll believe it.

  432. Why are we in such an uproar over rising temperatures? Because MAN hasn’t recorded anything higher since we stopped grunting and began writing? What about fossils that show the Earth was much MUCH warmer with more gases than today? Were there not animals and plants still living then? Who’s to say we’re not living in a false climate right now?

    Too many questions, not enough data. If this was a scientific study, it would be like studying the effects of Aspirin on higher income white kids over a period of 24 hours as opposed to including every kind of kid over years of research. There’s too many variables to be crying over what’s going on right now. Where’s my sunscreen? Someone text Alfred to find my sunscreen!

  435. Sun Scientists Debate Whether Solar Lull Could Trigger Another ‘Little Ice Age’

    The Huffington Post | By Macrina Cooper-White

    If you thought the polar vortex was bad, get a load of a new climate phenomenon that just might be coming our way.

    Some scientists say we could be headed for another “Little Ice Age,” given how eerily calm the sun has been in recent years.

    First, a bit of background. The sun goes through cycles that last roughly 11 years, marked by the ebb and flow of sunspots on its surface. At peak sunspot activity, the so-called solar maximum, the sun sports lots of sunspots and is steadily unleashing solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs). Since our current solar cycle, Number 24, kicked off in 2008, the number of sunspots observed has been half of what heliophysicists expected.

    “I’ve never seen anything quite like this,” Dr. Richard Harrison, head of space physics at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in England, told the BBC. “If you want to go back to see when the sun was this inactive in terms of the minimum we’ve just had and the peak that we have now, you’ve got to go back about 100 years.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/solar-lull-little-ice-age-sun-scientists_n_4645248.html

  436. This report is false and you are all idiots if you can’t see climate change in your own cities and country. You are contributing to the dumbing down of America. How many of you watch Fox News? I am sensing a 100% here.

  439. Was the hundredth of a degree statistically significant? Of course not. I can tell just by looking at the varience in the data. These warming alarmists should have studied statistics in school!

  440. The Sun controls the weather, mankind footprint is insignificant. Thank you honorable Researchers for telling the truth about this scam and exposing the contrived science by NASA and the United Nation to justify their death cult mindset that is creating this hysteria.

  441. Well I for one believe that we should act. We can start but disconnecting all forms of energy to all registered Democrats who believe in global warming. Then we ban them from using anything that emits so called greenhouse gases, and let them freeze to death. We will simultaneously solve over population problems and make the world the better place. 🙂

  442. Just think, all we have to do is quit living in a civilized world with heated homes and transportation and factories and electricity and maybe global temps will be .01 degree cooler one hundred years from now…maybe.

  443. Never trust a democrat and never vote for one. Remember they will take advantage of any situation in order to gain power/money just look at president OBAMA and his buddy AL SHARPTON. You can’t believe a word from any of his administration. They have now gone from GLOBAL WARMING to CLIMATE CHANGE and then to CLIMATE DISRUPTION trying to con the public in voting for them or pay a tax for carbon credits.

  444. Alarmists are bending over backward and tying themselves into intellectual knots all while trying to tell you that you’re not seeing what you’re seeing.

  445. Of course these bought and paid for Scientists are in disagreement. They’ll say anything to keep that grant money coming in to them – bought and paid for by you the American taxpayer.

  448. Oh my, Al Gore and the pope are probably going ape over this. Wow, gee golly whillikers, what are we going to do? Run, run for the hills. The sky is falling, the end is near. Repent ye sinners.

  452. ABC radio “news” dutifully reports about every week “scientists” verify hottest years on record. This are in the can with the kool aid drinkers.

  455. This administration cooks the books on EVERYTHING. I don’t believe anything they say.
    Prudent citizens are arming themselves and stocking up on ammo…be prudent.

  457. Ignore your own eyes and believe them. This is kind of like walking in on your cheating wife and she say “it is not what it looks like”. Or the cheating boy friend who say are you going to believe me or your own eyes. Did you see the picture of the sun with the dark spot that was about 25% of the sun. Those dark spots are 2000 degrees colder than the rest of the surface.

  461. 1970’s – 1980’s – ” Global Cooling ” 1990’s – 2000 – ” Global Warming “, both failed to withstand scientific scrutiny ( or even common sense ), so THEY adopted terminology more suitable for their demented agenda. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you, drum-roll please…. ‘ Climate CHANGE! ‘ None of this silliness has ANY root in reality, people. NONE! As this article suggests ( proves ), it’s not based on any sound scientific reasoning they spew this nonsense. They just keep regurgitating the same bat-shit-crazy mumbo-jumbo again and again without any regard to conflicting and provable scientific data. THEY aren’t operating with a full deck of cards, my friends. So entirely insane are they I actually feel sorry for the poor souls…

  467. There certainly are a lot of ‘scientists’ who missed that fifth grade science class which taught us that the weather is cyclical. The earth heats up, the earth cools down. Been doing that for thousands of years, and no amount of global warming money is going to change that.

    1. “The most outrageous accumulation of bunk science ever imagined”
      ………………………BUT ENOUGH ABOUT YOUR COLLECTIVE COMMENTS AND POSTINGS

  472. I love how in the midst of Times articles Drudge cites “Climatedepot.com” as a valid source for the opinions of scientists. The creator of this website, Marc Marano, is a fraud hired by right wing interests to promote bunk.

  473. The mere fact that Obama, John Kerry and Al Gore are big proponents of the anthropogenic global warming theory is in and of itself near 100% certain proof and compelling scientific evidence the theory is a total crock.

  476. IF I COULD FIND A PLACE IN THE USA WITH THE TEMPS BEING AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO 55 TO 65 DEGREES AND AFFORDABLE HOME PRICES, ID GO THERE . CANT AFFORD DIEGO. OMG IM GOONA RESEARCH IT

  479. Even if they are right, the warmists’ prescriptions will not stop manmade global warming if it exists. All they want is to control human beings and transfer wealth. And, of course collect an administrative fee in the process.

    Letting the United Nations fight global warming is like letting the World Health Organization (WHO) fight Ebola. Oh, silly me, the WHO is effectively the UN. Where are we now, over 10,000 dead?

    Amazing, almost fifty years ago in 1976 before knowing what they were really fighting, Zaire brought an Ebola outbreak to a halt primarily with travel restrictions enforced with roadblocks between villages and population centers with under 300 fatalities. With the UN in charge we are going backwards. Of course, the reported incompetence of the WHO/UN, corruption and political cronyism along with resistance to ages old epidemic containment practices has killed thousands. They continue to die.

    Trust the UN? I think not.

    2. Considering that you demonstrate in many of your comments that you’re neither a scientist nor scientifically literate, I’m not surprised that you’re not smart enough to know that the current Ebola outbreak is the largest ever due to a more virulent type of the deadliest strain of the virus i.e. Zaire ebolavirus of the zoonotic disease.

      1. Good observation. I am not a scientist. But, fairly well trained and versed in history, government, politics, activism, agendas and policy. And, in various capacities have developed and worked on programs to mitigate green house gases ranging from net zero energy housing to innovative low cost financing for alternative energy for businesses and homeowners along with a number of public policy initiatives. I have no love for hydrocarbons; and, a healthy skepticism of an un-critical belief in the efficacy and motivation of government; especially uber-government. My skepticism is based on thirty years of government experience and education.

        With respect to Ebola, I would respectfully urge a reading of “Containment and Surveillance of an Epidemic of Ebola Virus Infection in Yambuku Area, Zaire, 1976”. The travel restrictions and roadblocks were credited with saving villages, a population center and getting the disease under control. It was quite virulent. It was observed that the infection was following the road system in the region from village to village. (A similar path of infection manifested in the current outbreak) A population center was completely isolated from the infection zone. Travel restrictions were invoked early. Many of the same cultural issues such as burial practices etc were an issue. The outcome in Zaire was substantially better than the current tragedy in West Africa. Zaire had no clue what they were dealing with; but invoked historical practices used to contain a highly infectious disease.

        A reading of the literature available on the current outbreak reveals that the infection broke out of the rural areas and spread into urban areas via travel. Once in the high populated urban areas travel restrictions are somewhat moot. However, large attendance at burials of infected persons, where relatives would travel from far and wide, have physical contact with the deceased (the skin and body of an infected person is highly contagious after death) and then return home infected with Ebola facilitated the spread of the disease. Breaking this pattern would have slowed the spread making it easier for the other containment methods to work.

        The corruption and incompetence of the WHO has been reported to have contributed to its slow response. The adjacent countries that invoked border and travel restrictions quickly faired reasonably well. The over reliance exclusively on surveillance, contact tracing and isolation of the infected, to the exclusion of travel restriction has contributed to the avoidable deaths of many thousands in my opinion. The irony is that travel restrictions in certain areas within the epidemic countries have now been invoked late in the game along with roadblocks to test people with non-contact thermometers.

        it is an observation of over-reliance on the competence and integrity of government, not a distrust of science. Unfortunately, science does become the tool and captive of agendas and government interests. This is Public Policy 101.

        Regards

      1. The extrapolate and conjure many of those temperatures…I guess you missed the part about scientists not agreeing with the “hottest year on record” fake claim.

        2. extrapolate and conjure many of those temperatures

          as neither of your vacuous opinions happen you show the world that you’re neither a scientist nor scientifically literate and proud to be a member of the pervasive majority in US society who are obnoxiously ignorant when it comes to science.

      2. The Flat Earther’s have voted to exclude the sun as a variable that could influence our climate change. That’s why “cloud brightening” is being touted as the next best geo-engineering approach that seems to work very well….hmmm something you may not be aware of that is being done.

  486. It’s not global warming at issue you dingbats, it’s climate change. I love how pubs are re framing the argument. The oceans are pretty well dying, and rising in the level. The CO2 is at a peak. Who cares about the temperature when the CO2 is being inhaled by the ocean and that it is suffocating the ocean. You pub idiots.

  489. Well fellows, I watched the NBC news tonight and they showed the effect of the drought in California. If that doesn’t improve shortly, there will be little reason to stay in that state. For some reason, we have refused to build desalination plants but they better get going with them or if your house catches on fire, you better start praying for water and we know how much good that will do. So, I tend to believe the people who have been trained and have worked in this field for years. Good thing I won’t be around when the Muslims erupt in earnest and the oceans rise as they surely will a bit at a time but coming!

  494. The actual “deniers” are those who refuse to accept that the world in spite of all their near religious computer models has not warmed in 18+ years.

    1. Strange but even the information given in this very distorted account doesn’t agree with you. Care to provide the science that says there’s been a “pause” in warming because it is not in any of the published science. Further, simple basic physics should inform you why it is impossible to have a “pause”.

  497. What can people believe when our governmental agencies all tell boldface lies over and over and over again… Hottest year on record, not a chance… It wasn’t even the hottest year in the last decade… These people think all Americans are idiots and guess what, most are… MUST PUSH GLOBAL WARMING AGENDA, even when the FACTS refute it… Please…

  498. My girlfriend told me about a great way to make $2900 per week by claiming to be scientist and spewing hot air to the gutter-like media on behalf of the progressive agenda at NASA, the UN, Brussels, the Vatican and the seamy bowels of western academia.

  499. Standard deviation and 3 sigma limits please…after all this is supposed to be science.

    I worked with part per billion, trace elemental analysis for years, a single number means nothing. My boss would always want to put the “best” number on the table, never the BAD one.

    It’s all about spin, just think if it had been 0.04 C degrees cooler. Yes, you’ve got it “hiding in the ocean” — AGAIN.

  503. They just reported this on NPR. They said that 2014 was the HOTTEST YEAR. Then, went on to say in their report that the ‘Hottest Year Temperature was not surface Temperature, but Ocean Temperature’. YEAH, Right. I guess that would be so, if you took a reading near an underwater volcanic source. Have they no shame in reporting complete BS?

  504. Humans are causing global warming and 9/11 was caused by Osama Bin Laden…….
    you are getting sleepy
    you are getting sleepy
    you are getting sleepy……

  505. If the world had no massive network of thermometers carefully recording the temperature, no satellites, no way to accurately measure and record the temperature,

    And you had a huge increase in average temperature, of a whole degree, over not a century but suddenly, over one year,

    Would anyone notice?

  507. Looks like a majority of the scientists are in agreement and the science is settled.. it didn’t happen and it isn’t happening. SUCKERS.. keep believing it is happening and write checks to the Government to stop it..

    1. Thanks for sharing that you’re neither a scientist nor scientifically literate otherwise you’d know that increasing sea-ice in Antarctica is a result of global warming and that southern hemisphere sea-ice has virtually no impact on global climate change.

  519. They almost have this world government thing wrapped up. Thanks to falling oil prices the oil producing nations are on board. The third-world is on board so that they can demand reparations for every storm that passes their way. The leftists are on board because either they want world government or are dumber than a box of rocks. It really is settled, but just not scientifically.

    They have cooked this thing slowly so that nobody will be alarmed at what they are doing. Unelected world government securing tribute from the peons of the world.

  520. The mere fact that Obama, John Kerry and Al Gore are big proponents of the anthropogenic global warming theory is in and of itself near 100% certain proof and compelling scientific evidence the theory is a total crock.

  521. Rule: Follow the money.

    Here’s the reality.
    The “scientist” that are funded by the government
    always come to conclusions that support the
    “global warming consensus” fraud,
    because it makes the government happy,
    otherwise they will lose their government grants
    and will not be funded for next year,
    and will have to find work in the private sector,
    which means these political pseudo scientist hacks will be unemployed.

    The scientist that work in the private sector,
    go where their research takes them,
    and they know that the “global warming consensus”
    is a political hoax.

    All of the most important “global warming consensus” studies,
    have been exposed a frauds, even the most famous and
    significant “hockey stick” graph bases on the famously
    political computer scam projections,
    has been exposed as a hoax, and its lead
    pseudo scientist hack exposed as a fraud.

    Hey, it’s the libterd way.

    1. Depends on where the measurements were taken. .07 is in margin of error. All measurements depend on accuracy of instruments which have a tolerance of measured result.

    2. It was two one-hundredths of a degree — a difference that is smaller than the margin of error for the measuring instruments themselves, and hence “statistically insignificant”.

  524. The Climate Change agenda is the quickest way to worldwide wealth redistribution. Facts mean nothing. Agenda is Everything. Progressives are very good at creating their own Truth and they will allow nothing to stand in their way.

  525. If like me, once you accept you are being lied to it’s easy. Just ignore the hype. The big crime is we can never believe any scientist claim again.

  526. All I heard by the blathering frenetic talking heads on ABC radio news today was that the world is getting warmer. And yet there were cold days too. Garbage.

  527. 2014 was one of the coolest summers I can remember in North Alabama. It didn’t even start getting hot till around the first of June. It usually starts getting hot in April.

  528. Rule: Follow the money.

    Here’s the reality.
    The “scientist” that are funded by the government
    always come to conclusions that support the
    “global warming consensus” fraud,
    because it makes the government happy,
    otherwise they will lose their government grants
    and will not be funded for next year,
    and will have to find work in the private sector,
    which means these political pseudo scientist hacks will be unemployed.

    The scientist that work in the private sector,
    go where their research takes them,
    and they know that the “global warming consensus”
    is a political hoax.

    All of the most important “global warming consensus” studies,
    have been exposed a frauds, even the most famous and
    significant “hockey stick” graph based on the famously
    political computer scam projections,
    has been exposed as a hoax, and its lead
    pseudo scientist hack exposed as a fraud.

    Hey, it’s the libterd way..

                    1. Facts to a liberal is like kryptonite to superman.
                      When presented with facts a liberal’s eyes roll back and swear words come out.

                    2. Imagine how much smarter you’ll be
                      after you take your hands out of your pants,
                      and get a GED.

  529. A liberal once told me, “If you don’t believe in climate change then I would have to suggest that you don’t know the first thing about basic science”. To which I responded, “If you don’t believe the Climate has been changing on its own since the beggining of time, I would have to suggest it is you that don’t now the first thing about science. And furthermore, if you believe giving the politicians the UNLIMITED power they claim they need to change the climate will end up as a good thing and won’t be turned against the citizens then I also have to suggest you don’t know the first thing about basic history either.”

    1. There you go again,
      demonstrating rational thought, and intelligence,
      when dealing with the typically deceitful and despicable libterd.

      That’s cruel and unusual punishment for libterds.

  531. Well to be scientifically accruate the hottest year on earth was measured over how many measurable years? If the data is short, if the input is small, if the temperatures on all parts of the earth other than cities is not measured then the entire scientific study is a fraud. TOO MANY IFS ALL SPECULATION = El Torro Kaka. Now put Speculation in the hands of Bad Journalist and Bad Scientist and you get = GLOBAL WARMING.

  532. These people; the global warmest climate changers who have been caught fabricating data, submitting misleading data false and misleading “scientific” papers, and I use the term loosely, make The Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland look SANE!

    1. All of the most important “global warming consensus” studies,
      have been exposed a frauds, even the most famous and
      significant “hockey stick” graph based on the famously
      political computer scam projections,
      has been exposed as a hoax, and its lead
      pseudo scientist hack exposed as a fraud.

      Hey, it’s the libterd way..

      1. I often wonder how seemingly intelligent people can become “True believers” . Well just think of it Moran and all the climate scammers who have en caught red handed many times e.g Climategate et al. Well there livelihood and careers depend on it that is a big reason to be the Bernie Madoffs of Climate change.
        Then there is the useful idiots, “the folk” as the dummy Obama calls them, who know nothing and consequently can be scared to death like all ignorant people like Susanne a poster on this thread who just “knows” and also “feels” that it, global warming’, must be true. They remind me of the Frankenstein movie of the 40’s where the villagers are chasing the kindhearted ”monster” created by Dr. Frankenstein out of fear and ignorance. Too funny.

    2. Here’s a challenge. Emotive, vacuous deniers like you are clueless when it comes to science so it is obvious that if any science was rebutted as you allege, it was done by scientist who would have proudly published their research which we can all read as it would have a DOI reference. Would you be kind enough to provide us with the DOI reference/s that support your vacuity. I bet you’ll supply none and your silence will be a confirmation of your obnoxious ignorance.

      1. LeftwithLightBrain

        So what you are saying is that the article above was not sufficient for you?? and all the links attached? Your are really not that stupid are you? Or are you just intellectually lazy??Talk about vacuous deniers .
        The damn evidence is staring you in the face. What do you have blinders on?? How about Climate gate? Did that make a dent in your thick head re the veracity of the Climate Scammers aka Used Car Salesman??

        1. I understand that you’re neither a scientist nor scientifically literate but the above does not contain what you allege about data fabrication or misleading “scientific” papers. So I assume your silence on DOI references and segue off-topic was just obfuscation for your gross ignorance.

  533. The new world order is desperate to shut down ALL fossil fuel production, especially in America. They need to make us totally dependent on either external fossil fuel sources or “so-called” green energy schemes. This is another facet of obamas fundamental transformation of the nation. It’s all smoke and mirrors to lower our standard of livinh and was of life.

  534. I made ice cubes this morning and then spread a thin layer on the carpet throughout the
    entire house — I’m sorry to report that as a result I’ve thrown the world into another ice age.

    To solve the problem I cranked the heater all the way to 80 for 20 minutes then turned
    it off — problem solved.

    I’ve successfully stopped both glo-bull warming and glo-bull cooling.

    The science is now settled.

    2. Thanks for sharing that you’re obnoxiously scientifically ignorant. Your comments are straight from the Tea Party’s online guide to Thermodynamics. Now if you spent the time wasted in the denier echo chamber and studied simple physics you’d know that your ice experiment was an exercise in stupidity and futility. Too many Americans like you have easy access to the internet and, for that matter, to all manner of scientific and technological advancements you had nothing to do with, but feel free to deride the people who made all this possible because you’re oblivious to the intellect, education, knowledge and experience needed to have a career in science. I am assuming your parents are every bit as stupid, ignorant, superstitious and uneducated as you are and, therefore, are proud of their little bundle of retard. Please don’t pass your stupidity on to your spawn.

        1. Thanks for confirming your puerility and obnoxious ignorance. That was totally not necessary as it was self-evident from your original vacuous comment.

            1. Like you my grandmother was not a scientist either and she always told me never to argue with a buffoon or a drunk. I’m hoping that you’re excuse is that your inebriated. I’ll let you wallow in the anonymity of the internet that allows ignorami and the non-sober to sprout freely.

  536. Yes clearly its a conspiracy since it snowed a lot for a few days in Michigan and Japan this year. Are you people really that dumb? Is this the effect too much tv and internet has had on your brains? Do you really think highly qualified scientists are coordinating some grand political scheme instead of doing what they studied and love, meaning science? Why does only the US have such a large proportion of sheer stupidity, especially on a topic so important to all of mankind. This is what you get when you combine wealth with lack of education.

      2. exactly people like you are the problem. you may have some inbred rage against the other side of the political spectrum, and that’s fine, but that you would be willing to put the future well being of your children and grandchildren at risk is disgusting.

              1. im curious, do they pay you for each of these replies, or by the content of each? Or just by the number of times you write Libterd…or is it Libturd? Consistency matters.

                1. so lets say you get 10 cents for each. judging by your profile you have made a mere $2800 since you opened that account. you must be living the dream! your capitalist paradise that you defend so vehemently obviously is taking good care of you

      3. You can’t blame him ! Why wouldn’t the public believe? We all of us believed in the beginning didn’t we ?
        It’s only when you take a good long look at it that one comes to see the fallacy and who does that…..not everyone.

  538. Hey, libterds, look, a squirrel.

    For Americans…

    Here’s the reality.
    The “scientist” that are funded by the government
    always come to conclusions that support the
    “global warming consensus” fraud,
    because it makes the government happy,
    otherwise they will lose their government grants
    and will not be funded for next year,
    and will have to find work in the private sector,
    which means these political pseudo scientist hacks will be unemployed.

    The scientist that work in the private sector,
    go where their research takes them,
    and they know that the “global warming consensus”
    is a political hoax.

    All of the most important “global warming consensus” studies,
    have been exposed a frauds, even the most famous and
    significant “hockey stick” graph based on the famously
    political computer scam projections,
    has been exposed as a hoax, and its lead
    pseudo scientist hack exposed as a fraud.

    Hey, it’s the libterd way

  539. What ever happened to the Rain forest being destroyed at some ridiculous … 300,000 acres per day… crap! That claim was over 15 years ago… yet the rain forest is Still There! The problem with these environmentalist… is they always cry wolf… and “the End of World is Upon us” …. this is why they lose creditability! If they would go about it in a sensible manner, they would taken more seriously.

        1. True. But it has the largest. Malaysia’s almost all gone, turned into a ‘green desert’ of palm oil plantations. Indonesia isnt doing much better. The Congo is doing ok…more or less.

    1. This may come as a shock to you, but both NASA and NOAA have been around for much longer than Obama, and will still be there when he’s gone. You do a disservice to the people working at these agencies.

      2. The Border Patrol has been around longer than Obama but that does not mean he has not forced them to break the law and not protect the nation. Get real, every agency Obama has control over has been corrupted or maybe just more corrupted.
        “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.” I guess you believe that too.

  544. hi fans! PAY ATTENSHUM TO ME AND GIVE ME LOTS OF LITTLE ARROWS UPSIES AND REPLIES
    IM 59 AND RETIRED FROM A GRAVY WA. STATE GOVT JOB!
    I GET A FAIR DEFINED BENNY FOR LIFE, BUT HAVE TO SELF PAY MY CADDY HEALTH CARE PREMIUM THAT WAS PAID
    FOR ME WHEN I WORKED. AND IN 3 YEARS? SOC SEC!
    MY BASIC RANCH HOME WILL BE PAID FOR IN 3 YEARS ALSO!
    I LIKE TO TROAL, WORKOUT, COOK, SPEND QUALITY TIME WITH
    MY BFF WHO IS MY 2.5 YEAR OLD G-DAUGHTER, GARDEN AND READ. WHEN I TROLL, I REALIZE HOW BLESSED I AM.
    MOST YALL ARE SO PITIFUL AS YOU ENTRENCH WITH A PARTY, THINKING IT MAKES A DIFF LOL AND DO NOTHING..
    NOTHING! ABOUT ANYTHING YOU SPEW TO BE AN “ISSUE”. THANK YOU FOR THE AMUSEMENT. SURE, SOME OF YOU ARE
    FUNNY BUT MOST ARE SICK AND NUEROTIC “-) . WHAT WILL YOU BE DOING
    WHEN YOUR 59? (IF YOU LIVE THAT LONG DUE TO YOUR BP, CHOLES AND PRE DIABETES AND SLOTH LIKE LIFESTYLE?)
    BOATING? TRAVELING? GOLFING? GOOD LUCK! IF YOU SMOKE
    AND RENT A HOME, LETS FACE IT YOU ARE GONNA PREMATURELY DIE AND NEVER ENJOY THIS BLISSFUL FREEDOM I ENJOY!! ‘
    SURE I WAS DIVORCED TWICE. IM SURE THAT WONT HAPPEN TO YOU THOUGH!! ANY IDEAS I COULD ADD TO THIS?

      1. Will get around to it. Still scraping out the lies of ClimateGate I. Let alone ClimateGate I.I (as if one weren’t enough) – and yeah fuck the gerbils! (along with the man-made-global-warming cult).

  554. A paid glo-bull warming college professor just finished his lecture on why
    glo-bull warming is real and we should all be afraid and give all our money
    to the 21st century snake-oil salesmen and ended with:

    “And that class is the proof for why Glo-Bull Warming is real.”

    And the shy timid class wallflower who’s spent every class in the front row
    listening intently speaks up with:

    “But Sir, you’ve just proven Glo-Bull Warming is a lie.”

    And the professor snaps back with:

    “And you were expecting what kind of grade out of this class?”

    Progressive Consensus Science – if you don’t believe in fairy-tales, we will
    threaten you, call you names, and punish you severely until you agree.

    1. Vacuous puerility written with grade 5 syntax and grammar by a person with a substantial inferiority complex with respect to education, knowledge and cerebral heft. Pity it will never experience the satisfaction of successfully completing tertiary let alone secondary education. It should just revel in the joy of being amongst the majority (of US citizens) who are scientifically ignorant despite having some of the world’s best educational opportunities and facilities. Hopefully it is older than 15 years and won’t drag the already abysmal US rankings in science and math lower than 23 and 32 out of 65 developed nations, respectively according to PISA. Math scores of students in Shanghai showed that they are the equivalent of over two years of formal schooling ahead of those observed in Massachusetts the strongest performing US State.

  559. Since CO2 emissions by humans amount to .05% of CO2 and CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere how does .05% of .04% warm the earth. The answer is it does not. So they are looking at anything they can think of. Physics is a bitch.

    1. I’ll bite tell us the simple basic physics that supports your vacuity. Physics does explain very clearly how CO₂ in the atmosphere warms the planet so I’m most interested to learn your version.

        1. It doesn’t work that way dufus. You have made some bold statements that are partly true but your conclusions are complete nonsense. So now you have to put on your big boy grown up pants and tell us how you concluded what you did. Especially when you state CO₂ doesn’t do what it does and the physics has been known and tested for nearly 200 years. My grand kids in Elementary school know why CO₂ which is a miscible non-condensing GHG is needed in the atmosphere otherwise the planet would be a spinning snowball (which has happened in geological history). So I’m extremely keen to hear why you think otherwise. Are you too scared or embarrassed to leave the comfort of your quilting circle and submit your stuff for peer review where it’ll get the treatment it deserves?

        1. First, you need to clarify what do you mean by .05% 0f .04% . Second, are you suggesting that the observed and measured ratio ¹³C to ¹²C is not valid to determine human-sources from natural? Third, do you contest the laws of thermodynamics that show for every 1°K energy equivalent increase from CO₂ GHG that there’s a net 3°K forcing due to additional water vapor etc.? Last, are you suggesting that CO₂ GHG forcing is not logarithmic?

  560. The problem is that these climate fraudsters have access to the levers
    of political power. They spout the left-wing propaganda and get their
    grant money, and their paychecks.
    They should be behind bars for impersonating men of science.

  562. Climate ripoff artists just keep spewing the lie. Oh my God the earth is burning up we are all gonna die of heat rash and sun spots. They all need a good dose of preparation H.

  564. Global Warming = Globa Taxing
    Climate Change = Taxing Rate Change

    Sorry to be blunt: ITS. A. SCAM.

    Get it?

    So, here it is. Global Warming / Climate Change 101 in two short sentences:

    The government wants there to be Global Lying, er, uh, WARMING so they can tax more so they invest in “scientists” by way of bribes, er, uh, GRANTS to prove global warming. No global warming, no grants, no taxes.

    Are you people that believe this REALLY that DUMB?

    Its not rocket science. Actually, its not science at all. If we were to put a science label on it, I’d prefer to call it SCAMOLOGY. You could call Al Gore and other liars Fleeceologists.

    “Dear God, I think you may have made a mistake. You said you were going to drop me on planet Earth where there were caring, smart individuals that would help me grow and develop. Instead, I’m stuck here on planet stupid where there are people that my toejam could outsmart.”

  566. Sign at the temple for worship of the religion of global warming – ‘This weeks global warming sermon is cancelled due to record cold…..and the temple heater is broken’

  567. Anyone can scrub the world for scientists who will agree with their point of view. It is telling that climatedepot has to go outside the field of atmospheric science/climatology to find comments on this issue. If the point was to merely disparage the use of “hottest year ever” by the media it would be one thing, but to then tie it to the idea that man made climate change doesn’t exist by pointing to ‘a pause’ shows how disingenuous and/or misinformed some people are. A ‘pause’ doesn’t disprove anthroprogenic climate change anymore than having the hottest year on record proves it. Anyone who understands climate dynamics should know that.

      1. Not an expert on the dust bowl, but climate has natural variability. It may have been a combination of a warm period in the US, human mismanagement of the land causing drier and hence warmer and hence drier conditions. I’m not sure. I’m also not sure what that has to do with the idea that greenhouse gasses created by humans may be warming the planet and making the ocean more acidic.

        1. There were periods in earth’s history when there was zero ice on the poles. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be concerned about possible consequences of man forced climate change.

      1. I went in to grad school a skeptic, and I still have an open mind. But the science and evidence is pretty overwhelming when you understand it throw the scope of climate change history and various timescales. For a greenhorn, I recommend Climate Change: Past Present and Future by William Ruddiman.

      1. I’m not advocating specific numbers. No more than a meteorologist can give you the specific temperature 5 days out. But we do have the ability to make a general prediction and prepare accordingly. I’m as conservative as they come on pretty much every issue, although on the issue of climate change I cringe whenever these stories appear and everyone reacts in a political manner. I blame liberals for bringing the issue down this path, and conservatives for acting like children in how they respond. Get a degree in atmospheric science and get back to me. I was a skeptic until I learned about the history of climate change and the many influences. The guy who put together some of the arguments in the above story is naive at best.

        1. Natural climate variability occurs on many time scales from hours to multiple decades. Just as the temperature decreasing at night, or after a cold front, or during winter, or during a la-nina year, wouldn’t disprove climate change, neither should a ‘pause’. There is such a thing as multi-decadal variability. Not saying that is what is happening, but to say “well it isn’t hotter now than in 2005 shows global warming is a hoax”, is misleading.

          1. Instead of natural variability you may be more scientific using the term ‘Dynamic climate with known natural cycles’. Every known cosmic event that impacts the planet’s climate known to scientists is incorporated in all climate analysis. The global warming trend has not paused as the basic laws of simple physics have not abated nor changed i.e. climate change boils down to one simple energy balance: . E_in is constant (the Sun is not changing dramatically from its normal cycles). E_out is decreasing with the increase in ghgs (another physical process). We have not only predicted this with theory, but we also observe both of these figures directly with satellite measurements. Thus based on the conservation of energy, the Earth is heating up. The pause comes in one sliver of the four layers affected by the Earth’s natural energy balance mainly due to missing data as reported by Cowtan and Way 12/2013 [DOI: 10.1002/qj.2297]. The missing data are due to gaps in the land-based weather station network with the unsampled regions being concentrated at the poles and over Africa. The Arctic ocean which falls within the missing datasets is the fastest warming place on the Earth. The Hadley Centre record just excludes this area whereas the NASA version infers that the temperatures are the same as the nearest land-based observation centers. Filling the data gaps using satellite measurements causes the so-called “pause” to virtually disappear and shows the warming trend is more than double that of HadCRUT4. The denier echo chamber on this site are clueless and oblivious to the simple science.

  568. It really was hot down here in Texas in summer of 2014 but it went away a few months later and now it’s really cold. It must have something to do with those newly invented ‘Polar Vortex’ thingies!

  570. You all have to understand . . . all the polar bears and the inhumanity of it
    all….and the women and minorities….and the people of colour…..and the
    transgendered. These are the real victims. Racism is the
    cause of climate change and the source of simultaneous global warming and
    cooling. Whatever will become of all the lesbian
    Eskimo chambermaids and massueses?

    4. It has nothing to do with political persuasion but rather scientific ignorance which is pervasive in our society. Admittedly, from the comments on this site by the self-proclaimed conservatives they are overwhelmingly grossly scientifically ignorant.

  572. On the horns of a dilemma, who is lying and who is telling the truth, this isn’t hard, who has lied to the American people, that is easy, the Government!

            2. I like your statement, but I disagree. If your stupid, the tax payer (me) will be forced to take care of you. Government gives nothing that it first does not take from someone else.

  573. Whether humans cause warming or not, no scientists are challanging the data and the methods of analysis that reach these conclusions. Therefore, I conclude that they are NOT applying the scientific method that REQUIRES scientists to be skeptical of the claims of others. Logically there must be other potential causes of any climate change, humanity is not the single cause. Where have you read about a scientific comparison of all these causes? By what means did science decide that all the other possible causes of climate change are insignificant compared with human activity? What are the uncertainties in the scientific analyses? What are the uncertainties in the climate models that extrapolate climate over decades? They must be HUGE. I can’t buy the AGW theory without seeing science applied.

    1. Wild claims used to justify funding and taxation. Problem is no computer model is accurate at climate changes or causes. Humans do not understand the variables. So garbage in garbage out.

      1. Do you trust the satellite data despite your posit about modelling? If you do, then you’re either a denier buffoon or scientifically illiterate or both.

      1. Care to share some of those alleged embarrassing moments? As you profess to be knowledgeable and well-versed in climate science I’m sure you’ll be able to provide the DOI references for the published articles that support your statement.

    3. Well thank you for sharing that you’re neither a scientist nor scientifically literate. You are apparently oblivious that in science, theory is the best explanation to explain natural phenomena – there is no higher threshold. Gravitational theory, for example, attempts to explain the nature of gravity. Cell theory explains the workings of cells. Evolutionary theory explains the history of life on Earth. AGW theory explains the recent and current unprecedented global warming (energy increase). The validity of a theory rests upon its ability to explain phenomena and it may be supported, rejected, or modified, based on new evidence. For example Newton’s gravity theories were modified by Einstein’s Theory of relativity which in term has been modified to distinguish between stationary and moving bodies. Now if science only still clung to Newton then the recent comet landing would not likely have happened. This doesn’t discard Newton’s groundbreaking discoveries but it shows that they are not cast in stone either and he is still recognized for his work. Science is dynamic and theories are never hunches nor guesses but exist due to consensus within the scientific community. So when you mis-wrote about theory you probably meant hypothesis. A hypothesis is a testable idea. Scientists do not set out to “prove” hypotheses, but to test them. Often multiple hypotheses are posed to explain phenomena and the goal of research is to eliminate the incorrect ones. Hypotheses come and go by the thousands, but theories often remain to be tested and modified for decades or centuries. You raise many silly questions so I suggest that you have to leave to comfort of your quilting circle and submit your stuff for peer review where it’ll get the treatment it deserves as your disdain and ineptitude for science is due to your gross ignorance.

  574. “It is clear beyond doubt by now that there is a growing discrepancy between computer climate projections and real-world data that questions their ability to produce meaningful projections about future climatic conditions.” In other words: Garbage in – Garbage out.

      1. True! Science, in which a hypothesis has NO predetermined outcome! Real science welcomes, no REQUIRES debate. Religion requires faith! And it is quite obvious that globalclimatedisruptionwarmingchange is a religion! And the warmunists do NOT tolerate dissent among the rank and file.

              1. Who said I pray, not that that has anything to do with the topic at hand? Oh, that’s right. I’m conversing with a Marxist who never lets facts get involved, only personal attacks and insults.

      2. In science, if the data contradicts the theory, you throw out the theory.

        In the church of global warming, if the data contradicts the theory, you throw out the data.

      4. Yes, and since the Climatology computer models are completely non-predictive, and there is zero evidence that CO2 drives climate change, then we can dismiss the hypothesis that CO2 levels cause climate change.

  575. How is over 1 degree above average a mere few tenths?
    If economics are your worry than so be it. However, just admit there is warming but say it is impossible to change the course of man-kind in an economically way. Of course I disagree. There is money to be had in green energy, and sustainable life styles.

      1. I like money like all you kind folks. But I’m waiting for money to be made hand over fists by doing the right thing in a sustainable manner. We can think short-term and be selfish. Most say who cares about future generations. There are a few of us who yes can lean to the right politically and still care about the environment. Years ago back when there were higher morals and standards. Farmers and hard workers in small towns who were good Christians that cared about making a good living but not destroying the lands that feed them. The greed this country has turned to is unbelievable and quite sad. Again I like money but it has to be a balance. The real problem is not getting America on board but getting countries like China on board.

        1. Instead of being mature enough to simply acknowledge that you are wrong, you spew a lengthy diatribe of hate, lies and slander.

          Though not worthy of response on the merits, there is one bit of hypocrisy so profound that it is notable.

          You blather noises about doing the right thing for future generations; how do you square that with over $18,000,000,000,000 in leftist debt? You sentence the next five generations to a life of debt slavery, and have the gall to accuse others of greed? What about a SUSTAINABLE budget and levels ofspending?

          1. the national debt has nothing to do with changing the ways of standard operating procedures. You sir are very confused and simple minded. Let me repeat…. THE NATIONAL DEBT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING. Like I said I lean right… I’m a REPUBLICAN. But I have morals.

          2. The facts don’t support your diatribe about the debt being leftist. A cursory review of the CBO spreadsheets will increase your knowledge greatly and assist you to write about fact and not opinion especially when more than 60% of the deficit since 2003 to current is due to two unfunded wars and tax cuts using borrowed money. The 18T is not a problem. When assessing national debt economists standard practice is to measure debt-to-GDP ratio. According to the CIA World Fact Book ours stood at 69% in 2011, 30th in the world. This was below that of France (86%), Canada (84%), Germany (82%), The United Kingdom (80%), Israel (74%), and Austria (72%), among others. Furthermore, those at the bottom of the list hardly read as a who’s-who of strong economies: Oman (4%), Azerbaijan (5%), Libya (5%), Equatorial Guinea (6%), Wallis and Futana (6%), Estonia (6%), Algeria (7%), Kuwait (7%), Gibraltar (8%), Uzbekistan (8%), and Russia (9%). And to add to your education it is clear that low levels of government debt do not correlate with high standards of living..

            1. Kuwait has a pretty good standard of living, they are swimming in money. Oman has a lot of money also. They are both oil producing countries. The US fomented an islamic revolution in Libya then bombed it back to the stone age, so we are not blameless for their standard of living.

      1. Which party was in charge when Operation Paperclip was initiated? Must have been republicans, because they love hitler. Which party is in charge of the our burgeoning police state? Must be republicans. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones…

  577. And to think, Margaret Thatcher started all this rubbish as a way to advance nuclear power plants…for bomb production…and carried it on to make coal miners’ unions less relevant. She, being one of very few politicians, with her BS in chemistry, to have ANY scientific background, dug up an obscure, and disproved, hypothesis from the 1880’s on man-made global warming, and began to speak with authority as if it were dogma. The other world leaders, who were not exactly rocket surgeons, had little to refute her assertions and, voila, the great hoax was begun. Later, of course, it has been expounded upon by the media, backed up by scientists who desperately need grant money, and funding is readily given in tax dollars, and is currently being used to further the agenda of the global elitists to bring on their Utopian new world order. So everyone, except the taxpayers, wins.

    1. Maggie had a BSc which takes three years and covers the same ground as the four year US BS curriculum. You state, obscure, and disproved, hypothesis … which is either nonsense or poor grammar or both. I’d be interested in the citations for the hypothesis you allude to with posit and rebuttal references … care to share? Scientific hypotheses are not subject to proof and you are confused between math, liquor and the law where proofs are applicable but not science. Now if you were scientifically literate you’d be versed in that scientists do not set out to “prove” hypotheses, but to test them. Often multiple hypotheses are posed to explain phenomena and the goal of research is to eliminate the incorrect ones. Hypotheses come and go by the thousands, but theories often remain to be tested and modified for decades or centuries. In science, theories are never hunches or guesses but exist due to consensus within the scientific community. AGW is accepted science theory in the same company as gravity, cell structure, evolution, etc. and not a hypothesis.Anyone who suggests climate scientists have been massively corrupted by federal/grant funding and peer pressure does not consider the countervailing power of opposing financial interests that might lure scientists to question the scientific consensus such as the lucrative funding made available in the right-wing think-tank world and fossil fuel corporations. If it were only money why haven’t the scientists defected in droves? Because you discount the possibility that scientists would find the lure of eventually being proven correct to be a powerful reputational incentive, let alone that they would actually care enough about being right to disregard social and financial pressure. If you had any specific sense of how these social pressures survived the rigors of the scientific method and peer review, you don’t explicate them.

      1. ” I’d be interested in the citations for the hypothesis you allude to with posit and rebuttal references … care to share? Scientific hypotheses are not subject to proof and you are confused between math, liquor and the law where proofs are applicable but not science. Now if you were scientifically literate you’d be versed in that scientists do not set out to “prove” hypotheses, but to test them.”

        When I researched this, I did not bookmark anything, but, it was easy enough to find, as I am certain you will discover. Since you are obviously better versed than myself in research…a PhD, perhaps?…I will defer to you on these semantics. My career is that of an anesthesiologist in the private sector and I deal with endless hours of attempting to save and/or better human lives. I have done no research since leaving the amniotic sac of academia, so please forgive me if I am a little rusty on the technicalities, as it has been a while. My goal was to merely point out where this great hoax originated so that others, who are so inclined, may read and draw their own conclusions based on the origins and evolution of this borderline cult which has evolved purely as an agenda to further the advancement of a new world order.

        1. great hoax originated … borderline cult

          you’re a vacuous ignoramus despite alleging tertiary education. Be thankful that the anonymity of the internet grants you the freedom to pretend to be an educated person. Should I disparage your profession as nurses perform your function in the medical chain in the US as it does not require the full knowledge and skills of MD education. It is overtly clear that your brain shut down when you left academia and it is not likely to reopen when you use vacuity and falsely spew emotive opinion. I actually would be concerned for your patients if you were an anesthesiologist. An educated science brain would be better versed than what you display.

          1. Typical Marxist fare. Marginalize and insult. Always on the attack while ignoring what I am saying. Trying to converse with you is a futile effort. Believe what you will. I have no reason to lie. It’s just a job I chose to do later in life. Nothing special, just overworked more each year for less profit, as are most folks. BTW, CRNA’s do not have the background to handle some of the more complex matters that come into play on occasion, which is why, at least in my home state, we MD’s must be available and sign off on all cases in which CRNA’s and AA’s give patient care. This struggle for independence from MD’s has been ongoing, and at times contentious, for years. Totalitarian ideology is ingrained in you as much as free market ideology is in me. We will not change each others’ minds. I wish you well.

  578. The real untold story is the complete lack of professional discipline exercised by these so called scientists. A real scientist would at least admit that the data is indefinite and advocate for further research. But the “modern” scientists (like so many aspects of modern Western society) simply insist they’re right by virtue of their very presence in the “here and now”. Just consider all the issues where we’re supposed to believe the current generation simply because they are the current generation (homosexuality, nutrition, education, economics, mental health, family structure, historical perspective . . . etc.) None of these “professionals” ever considers that if their generation is right, then generations reaching back for thousands of years must therefore be wrong. What are the odds of that being true? And if they don’t even raise this question, let alone consider the answer, how professional or scientific can they really be?

    1. You, obviously, understand that this has NOTHING to do with some hair-brained premise that we will, someday, all be drowning in polar ice. It has EVERYTHING to do with being the biggest power grab/hoax since ORGANIZED religion.

      1. I agree that it’s a complete hoax and a means of trying to control society, but I disagree about organized religion being a hoax. Organized religion seems to be more of an futile effort to put an exact definition to something that virtually all humans instinctively know to exist (the intangible, spiritual aspect of existence), yet are unwilling to accept the fact that we lack the capacity to define this aspect of existence accurately. But the fact that, since the beginning of history, so many societies have some type of belief in an indestructible aspect of life (i.e. the soul) seems to indicate that there’s some truth to the idea. It’s when they try to put the idea on paper that is takes on a silly dimension.

        1. My emphasis on ORGANIZED simply means that I think the very real relationship between God and the God fearing man has been exploited for financial and political gain throughout the ages. Any entity involving as much money as the church will find a way to be hi-jacked by the money-grubbing wicked.

    2. Anyone who uses the word real as an adjective to scientist is a buffoon and is neither a scientist nor scientifically literate. You cannot find in the volumes of published science where scientists ever conclude finality, as science is dynamic, and no, data is sic indefinite is a nebulous clause with no scientific meaning … what were you trying to spew?

  580. AL GwhORE couldn’t get this bogus scam past most Americans so now they are enlisting the Black Pope…which makes sense as the entire global warming charade is nothing but bad religion…pretty soon we will all be tithing our tax dollars to “fix” the problem.
    My guess is that they know the petrodollar is very nearly down the toilet so they are looking at creating a new fiat currency backed by carbon credits.

  581. Last week they admitted to the pause and blamed it on volcanos. It’s a joke is a different story every week. Is it climate change, global warming ufos or Elvis?

  583. What a bunch of liars. The temperature has been increasing for the last 20,000 years (BTW – that’s before George Bush was even born) as we approach the next glacial minimum. And it’s still several degrees cooler than the average of the last three glacial minimums. That’s according to the “scientists.” And while those “scientists” toss around thoughts, ideas, conjectures and theories about what causes these glacial minimums and maximums, the fact is that nobody knows. It could be as close as methane hydrates or as far away as cosmic rays from other stars systems or any number of other reasons, but so far only God really knows. Five and a half thousand years ago North Africa was a lush verdant land plentiful with animals and people. In less than 200 years it became the Sahara desert we see today. In this universe anyone who thinks that the climate should forever be
    the way it was 10, 20 or 100 years ago suffers from an advanced case of
    stupidity. The First law of Statistics — Numbers, when tortured sufficiently, can be made to say anything. Corollary — Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.

  584. Climate Change is an accurate term. Climate is constantly changing, up or down, and has been for billions of years. Even if temperatures are rising, it very likely has nothing to do with CO2. The climate computer models are completely non-predictive, and the long term historical data shows changes in CO2 lagging temperature change.

    1. Your comment mis-connects the dots so your facts end up with incorrect outcomes. For example

      climate computer models are completely non-predictive

      is true and the word computer is superfluous and so what? Climate models do projections and are the best tool that we have to run simulations based on the quantity of data and many variables. Most models are calibrated and tweaked by hindcasting known observations before forecasting. In the same sentence completely out of context with first part you erroneously state

      long term historical data shows changes in CO2 lagging temperature change

      which has nothing to do with modelling and is in itself a half-truth. I’d suggest that you make no comments about climate science as you don’t have a grasp of the topic at all.

  585. The mere fact that Obama, John Kerry and Al Gore are big proponents of
    the anthropogenic global warming theory is in and of itself near 100%
    certain proof and compelling scientific evidence the theory is a total
    crock.

  586. The planet is warming not in doubt as part of a natural cycle, BUT……it isn’t human caused although not helped by humans, so cut out all the political crap and stop using it to tax us more. Al Gore and his liberal buddies have a completely different agenda to make money for themselves (first and foremost) and to redistribute wealth. Nothing else pure and simple.

  589. Has anyone looked into higher Taxes make it Warmer when added to more Obama regulation it make it “Hell on Earth” for every single person on this planet except 4 @ss holes in a big White House.

  591. i think the ancient palestinian nation is causing global warming or could it be the great gay culture perhaps its the peaceful muslim nobel prize winning scientists

  593. If these global warming, eco-terrorist, climate “scientists” are so certain that man is the cause of global climate change today, then they need to explain exactly who was responsible for global warming and cooling throughout earth’s history?? It must have been caused by dinosaur farts because it sure WASN’T man. This would include the time before the discovery of ancient man. If earth warmed and cooled BEFORE man, how can man be the cause of it now? Trick question, man wasn’t the cause then and he
    isn’t the cause now.

  594. Global Warming is a fraud and a scam perpetrated on the entire planet by those who want to control earth’s population and re-distribute wealth from developed countries and give it to third world puss buckets. It is all about New World Order control over the planet and every human on it.

  595. The use of this 18 year graph is cherry-picking and ignores the existence of the deep oceans. The treatment of the NOAA polar-orbiting satellite data by climate scientists Roy Spencer and John Christy at UAH for those same 18 years shows 0.26 degrees F of warming. See http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/last:216/mean:1/plot/uah/last:216/trend/plot/rss/last:216/mean:1/plot/rss/last:216/trend. The oceans down to a depth of 2000m have been accumulating heat at a rate equivalent to the addition of the energy from nearly 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second. http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ FYI, the Hiroshima atomic bomb released 603×10^13 joules of energy.

    2. Your post is to difficult for most on this site to comprehend as they defended by the cacophony of repetitive nonsense in the denier echo chamber world. RSS and UAH use the same raw satellite data and reach different answers. The deniers fill their depends when they talk about climate models. Yet they have such great faith in UAH as that is their last hope with every other line of evidence showing warming. The silly gullible deniers don’t know or pretend not to know that UAH produces temperature data by manipulating microwave brightness observations using atmospheric models and that satellites don’t record empirical temperature data. They also ignore that UAH was found by other scientists (not vacuous emotive opinionated deniers or their ilk) to be fudging the data to show a cooling trend for many years which has now been corrected in their model outputs.

  596. All of you deniers need to stop all your bellyaching and pay your taxes to Al Gore and surrender your freedom to Agenda 21. Just because he and his crowd live like kings does not mean you should not live like a miserable carbon serf.

        1. You’re the fight I was looking for. A sissy like you should bow to my demands. Your rights mean nothing to me. You are a subhuman dung heap and the world would be a better place without you in it.

  597. I’m so scared. We shall all burn…. The limp wristed media says so… It must be true.
    There is no better end to the idiot known as mankind than to burn. Let the filthy creature burn. I am on my way to pour my used motor oil into the creek while I burn my used tires. Choke on it humans.

    1. As you’re obviously neither a scientist nor scientifically literate I’d wager you couldn’t provide any evidence to convert your vacuity into reality.

    1. the left always has a theory… but ignore facts at random… They hate the bible because its a theology and create their own theologies that makes them money. Lets see.. Liberal Money machines.. HUD, Section 8 Housing, Cancer Research collections for 50 years and we still have Chemotherapy, FDA, EPA, EBT to reduce soup lines, Print a trillion a year to Ease the Pain.. that’s almost like a morphine button on your death bed.

  601. IM ISTENIN TO THE SCANNER. SHOTS FIRED IN AREA FOLLOWED BY A INDIOUS SCREM! FUN TIMES, THE SCREAMER PROB AINT CONCERENED ABOUT THIS CURAPP AND I AINTS NEITHER MY PEEPS!

  602. The Navier Stokes equations the describe fluid flow with changes in temperature and density are nonlinear, chaotic, and have sensitive dependence on initial conditions. That means that no finite set of past data can ever be sufficient to predict a distant future state. This has been known since the 1963 paper “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow” by Edward Lorenz.

    That means that anyone who attempts to predict distant future states of the atmosphere from any finite record of past states is either grossly incompetent, or a fraud, or both.

    1. Navier Stokes equationsdon’t apply to the atmosphere. Boyle’s, Charles’s, Gay-Lussac’s, Henry’s etc. laws do. Science does not predict but projects based on the known evidence. Physics which attempts to explain all cosmic physical phenomena disagrees with you. For example it is able to project where Earth will be in relation to the sun, at what inclination, etc with great accuracy for millions of years into the future based on billions of years of past evidence.

  603. I scanned a bit of the below comments. What I see is a striking lack of informative and intelligent dialogue compared to many after article comments I see in South African publications. I suppose I should use this to support an argument that the USA has been excellent at diminishing the quality of its educational system.

                    1. Where do you see pouting. You’re the leftists not me. Being the hall monitor and complaining that the other kids are not listening to you and bullying you is the leftist way. Go march in your anti bullying, gay pride parade.

    2. Sadly science ignorance is pervasive in US society. Comparing the South African science knowledge with that of the US population is the same as comparing nearly any other country’s knowledge to that found in the US … the US is usually the more ignorant yet it has some of the world’s best education facilities and opportunities and it is free through HS . Despite the advantages and one of the highest costs/child our 15-year olds continue to drop further down the world’s PISA rankings representing 65 nations and territories and now rank 23rd and 32nd in science and math respectively. MA our top state ranks two years behind Shanghai Province in math skills.

      1. I mostly read Mail & Guardian and Daily Maverick. More often people commenting in those publications are literate, knowledgeable, and RESPECTFUL than in US publications. As well, I learned a lot reading EE Publications on the energy problems in SA. However, the SA educational system is in a shambles. Post Apartheid the AN disassembled the “racist” schools, rather than just improving them, leaving a lot of people illiterate. Still, a respectful attitude in South Africa seems to be the norm here, even on talk radio.

        I feel that better science education all over the world. USA liberals and conservatives both seem have rabid approaches to some topics. GMO or vaccination on the one hand, anthropocentric climate change on the other. Sigh.

      2. Sadly I was blacklisted on this site. So you probably did not see my response. I wish you well, and thank you for the comments. And by the way, education is not ideal in SA. That is another long story. It is just that I note that people here seem to be more respectful. Not always though.

        1. I know the South African education system well. I travel frequently to the country and it has world class scientists. I agree secondary is slipping but that has more to do with trying to bring about equality after one of the world’s most brutal regimes came to a fairly peaceful conclusion. The aftermath of apartheid will linger will several generations.

          1. From what I am told and read, the ANC disassembled much of the educational system post apartheid. It is sad to run into illiterate adults, but that was the result of closing of schools 20 years ago. There are continuing stories about the Eastern Cape, missing school books, etc. As you no doubt know, there are exceptions. After all, SA is home to the SKA, just to name one thing of many. Do feel free to connect via F’book. Bye.

    3. You sound like someone extremely “butt hurt” about your man-made global warming has been debunked. . .all your “prophesied” predictions have gone kerplunkt. . . (grin)But keep deriding people while clinging to faked/baked/data. . . .You’re proving who is really the “science denier” here and who are the real “flat earthers”. . . .

      1. I will not engage with an anonymous writer. First, reveal who you are, or go back to hiding under a rock. 2nd. Use facts with citations. I will gladly engage with you if you are willing and competent. Prove yourself, or go back to Ferguson type rock throwing.

      2. Humm…. are you willing to reveal yourself? Real name? Or do you wish to continue to hide behind a rock throwing stones at passing cars? (See protests in Ferguson and Grabouw).

      5. I did respond to your comment, but it seems I was banished from this web site (had to use subterfuge to sneak back in) so …. just keep in mind as you visit sites like this… blinders have been applied. If you want to talk, you can find me. Unlike others, I use my real name.

  604. Notice in the “news” lately, especially over at Yahoo, that are TONS of articles from the left’s lie factories talking about how “all ocean life is on the verge of an extinction level event”. According to the climate cultists, the seas are about to boil any day now.

  605. The Cult of the Church of Climatology has put out another wave of guff regarding AGW.

    But the biggest extinction event ever was from Dinosaurogenic Global Warming – DGW.

    The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times! Oh no! The Jurassic DGW, Dinosaurogenic Global Warming, shows that those Dinosaurs – with their Airplanes, SUVs, Coal Fire Plants and Cars and stuff, you know, those Dinosaurs and their DGW destroyed THE WHOLE PLANET!! With their DGW! Look, who wants 26% atmospheric oxygen? More air to breathe? Who wants that? And who wants more CO2 @1950 ppm, you know, to make all those plants and trees convert that CO2 into a higher O2! Who wants that! And we DON’T want the massive biodiversity of the Jurassic, no, we don’t want more plants and animals and trees, no.
    Any time period the warmunists want to “prove” there is AGW the warmunists just cherry pick ranges. And now I give the warmunists what the need on a silver platter – now they have the perfect example – the Dinosaurs and their horrible DGW (Dinosauric Global Warming) that destroyed the Jurassic… Wait, no, it didn’t, it was the best time for life on earth with 1950 ppm atmospheric CO2!

    Debt is Wealth. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery. War is Peace. Cold is Warm.

    1. Another example of why a non-scientist who is grossly scientifically ignorant should not write about topics they don’t grasp. If this buffoon had included the energy input from the sun it would be 30% less than what it is today yet the planet was 3°K warmer and atmospheric pressure was about double. By simple physics CO₂ acted as a GHG to provide the higher temperature when the sun was cooler and modern hominoids (us and our ancestors) did not and could not have evolved under these conditions. Also 99% of all extant went extinct before we emerged on the scene. So no, your Jurassic analogy is silly and dumb and you are an embarrassment to Team Denial.

      1. Exactly what are you basing your statement on that the sun was putting out 30% less energy than it is today? We have no way to know this.
        Stop claiming that scientific theories are fact. They are theories and they may be correct but they may also be very wrong.
        Even your “accepted fact” that the theory of evolution is correct is still just an unprovable theory.
        What we do know is that climatic conditions on this planet have varied widely throughout history. What has been proven is that there have been three ice ages during the last 105,000 years and that each ice age lasted roughly 25,000 years. However, while we have many theories as to what caused the ice ages, we still have no way of determining which theory, if any, is correct.

        1. Correcto mundo! – observation of the outcome of an event, in conjunction with the known evidence, to form an educated guess, is called a THEORY. Like Darwins theory of evolution, which he eventually admitted had big holes in it, or electrical theory of electron flow. No one knows exactly all the details that occurred between the beginning and the end of the process, but the results have been proven to be somewhat of a reliability. THEORY is a half truth.

        2. First, if you had the tiniest modicum of science knowledge between your ears you’d know how the sun’s energy over time can be calculated and maybe you should start reading up on the SSM (standard solar model). Second, you’re clueless about what a scientific theory … Wikipedia can explain for your low education and intellect levels. A theory is an explanation. The validity of a theory rests upon its ability to explain phenomena. Theories may be supported, rejected, or modified, based on new evidence. Gravitational theory, for example, attempts to explain the nature of gravity. Cell theory explains the workings of cells. Evolutionary theory explains the history of life on Earth. AGW theory explains the recent and current unprecedented global warming (energy increase). Third, science doesn’t do proofs that’s only for math, law and alcohol. Fourth, science explains all known cosmic events that have influenced the Earth’s dynamic climate system and it’s just gross ignorance to write that science can’t explain paleo-climate. There is no such science as many theories for the historical ice ages … just one … which is the current consensus of the science community. I think you’re confusing hypotheses for theory. Evolution theory is supported in every scientific field and the genome is helping refine it further such that we know there are genes common to all living organisms … yes you share with plants, animals and bacteria … molecular biology is refining what we know from the fossil record and changing some classifications in that we know that we now know that the hippopotamus and whales, dolphins, and porpoises are cousins with the same common evolutionary ancestor. You are in serious need of both an English and science tutor.

          1. Your claim is erroneous. A theory can best be summarized as “an educated guess”. Nothing more, nothing less.
            Actual science is provable and is not a theory. A theory is an attempt to “fill in” the actual gaps in human knowledge which is why there are so many of them.
            While some theories are eventually proven and become provable science far more are eventually discarded because they are provably erroneous. Like many, you confuse what is proven science (not “consensus science” as if one can vote on what is truth and what isn’t) and conjecture (theories).
            We had a very interesting discussion on this subject at the economic summit a week or so ago. It appears that there are now those who want to interject economic theories where provable economic facts already exist.

            1. Sorry cupcake you just keep reinforcing that you’re neither a scientist nor scientifically literate. Science theory is not provable but the best explanation for natural phenomena and is tested for repeatability. Please get and English and science tutor as you’re far to ignorant and uneducated to be stating your emotional opinion which is 180° from reality. Until you’ve had a few lessons from your tutors why don’t you read Wiki or any science education faculty’s explanations of scientific theory.

                1. That’s so peachy coming from the cupcake who is befuddled as to how simple physics can calculate the sun’s historical energy (and project its future outputs). Is clueless what theory means in science and so forth. As to English competency, that’s so laughable, especially when your syntax and awful grammar barely makes grade 4 standards … tutors can set you on the path to relevance if you can master the basics.

  606. Duhhhh i like me some home depot*swigs beer, belch* mmm beer good. Duh when i need me some climate news *fart* i go to climatedepot. Hey is nascar on yet? *Picks nose* and in 2016 we need more tea party patriots in da washington place yeeehawww

  607. You know world…this world we know as earth…has been here for a long…long time…and during that long…long time…the evolution of the earth has taken place…through flood…drought…heat and cold…and it all had a purpose…and always will.

    But I find it even more astonishing with all of the education and intelligence of mankind…that you still think you can change it!

    First of all…had you believed in Holy Scripture of the one, true and only ‘living’ GOD of Abraham, Isaac and Jakob…and especially prophecies of that which is to come…you will realize that in the LATTER days…there will be shortages of food…there will be plagues and new diseases such as the world has never seen…and that nothing or no one will change these prophecies…they will take place…and they are there to be a road map for the future…so that mankind can prepare for it’s future…not in trying to change things in the environment…but to prepare to change things in the heart.

    As the prophecies declared that which is to come…the one, true and only ‘living’ GOD of Abraham, Isaac and Jakob…had a plan all along…for the redemption of mankind from the fall…to save all of mankind from the fall…through the bl**d sacrifice of the living LAMB OF GOD…JESUS CHRIST.

    Change will only come through HIM and by HIM…and it all starts with our believing in HIM!

    1. Scientific fact: there is no evidence of Earth been flooded in all of geological history. It is also a physical impossibility where did all the water come from and where did it all go? You are free to believe that the oral traditions of illiterate goat and sheep herders is better than our modern era .. it is your free choice to be so grossly ignorant. You are free to believe in you Jesus myth but it has no bearing on this subject at all and your belief system is a product of where you were born and nothing else. Too many Americans like you have easy access to the internet and, for that matter, to all manner of scientific and technological advancements you had nothing to do with, but feel free to deride the people who made all this possible because you’re oblivious to the intellect, education, knowledge and experience needed to have a career in science. I am assuming your parents are every bit as stupid, ignorant, superstitious and uneducated as you are and, therefore, are proud of their little bundle of retard. Hopefully you won’t pass your stupidity on to your spawn or maybe some elementary school science may relieve them from their parent’s ignorance and belief systems including cannibal worshipping and besotted and transfixed adorations of torture devices.

      1. It is…obvious…by your disbelief that you do NOT believe in the one, true and only ‘living’ GOD of Abraham, Isaac and Jakob and HIS power as the CREATOR of all living things upon this earth…to do what appears to the human mind as impossible…and do the impossible to prove HE is who HE is…THE GREAT I AM.

        Had you experienced the transforming change of the heart…you would see as you should see…and as HE intended…and HE does not deal in our limited reality…as HE knows ALL things…from the beginning.

        My parents were not ignorant, stupid or ignorant…they were hard working Americans who passed onto their children…integrity…and character…something you appear to be lacking.

        I have passed onto my children not only integrity and character…but a solid foundation of faith that they have seen throughout the years in MY life…and that has made all the difference in THEIR lives.

        You…my friend are the one who likes to pronounce yourself as being so intelligent and practical…when in fact…you are blind to the truths…that GOD sets before us all…and in the end…you will suffer at HIS hand…for your sin against HIM in your unbelief…unless you come to the point of repentance in NOT acknowledging HIS power in your life and in our Universe.

        DENY IT ALL YOU WANT…HE IS ALIVE…HE IS STILL FORGIVING…AND SAVING MANKIND AND CHANGING THE HEARTS OF MANKIND DAILY…AND ALWAYS WILL…UNTIL THE END OF TIME…WHICH HOLY SCRIPTURE PROCLAIMS IS SOON TO BE!

        ENOUGH SAID…I WILL LET HIM WHO CREATED YOU…SPEAK TO YOU FROM THIS POINT…AND MAKE NO MISTAKE HE WILL…IF YOU ARE LISTENING!

      2. Your ignorance is profound. There are many theories as to what caused the great flood but that it was recorded around the world as happening is indisputable. We have 67 different accounts by different civilizations that this event did happen. All of these accounts also claim that there were survivors.

            1. The standard indicator of failure to support vacuity is the weak retort of

              Do your own research

              if you had the slightest tidbit of semi-reality you’d have spewed forth again instead of drawing a blank.

      3. If you are a bible student you understand that the waters above the earth, on the earth and below the earth were combined to create the flood. It is possible for the mantle of the earth to hold a whole lot more water than you have been led to believe. They have found evidence of civilization 200 to 300 feet below the water surface in places which are land locked, which means water from an outside source had to cross a land bridge to raise the water level that preexisted. One of the places is located thousands of feet above current sea level. Then there is the Megalithic structures built by who knows whom which are 200 to 300 feet below our current sea level off of Japan and Bimini. The latest megalithic structure found in Turkey near the ancient town of Urfa is called Gobekli Tepe. It is dated to 12000 years ago which predates Stone Henge by 3000 yrs and the pyramids by approx. 6000 yrs. At the site they have found unbelievably sophisticated positive reliefs on the sides of stone T’s used in the construction of Temples of worship. Worship? man didn’t worship 12000 yrs ago did they. Additionally they have found they actually farmed wheat with the ancestor to all our wheat. Humans according to the evolution lies were primitive then only capable of hunting and gathering and living in caves. This site is knocking the traditional evolution lie on it’s a$$, and they are just scraping the surface. Among the many discoveries one fact is most puzzling. Someone took the time to cover this whole development with dirt so that it only looked like a small mountain. WHY? that is yet to be determined. Also who was able to move huge blocks of stone from a quarry located miles away and then shape them into a T while creating a relief on the side of any number of animals and reptiles. AND THEY DID THIS BEFORE RECORDED TIME WHEN MAN WAS WEARING SKINS OF ANIMALS. Maybe you should investigate the latest reports on Gobekli Tepe and find out some real truth about the world and it’s inhabitants 12000 years ago. And then after you find out you are Not so brilliant after all, you could show a little good character, and apologize to the person you just slandered.

        1. Total crap. Thanks for sharing that you’re gullible buffoon and clueless about science. The supernatural does not exist if it did there would be evidence. You are every bit as stupid, ignorant, superstitious and uneducated as the original comment writer. I am assuming your parents are every bit as stupid, ignorant, superstitious and uneducated as you are too and, therefore, are proud of their little bundle of retard too. Thanks for showing the world how backward some folk can be in one the world’s societies that has some of the best educational facilities and opportunities. You demonstrate stupidity is inherited and then learned by the gullible who can’t exercise their cerebral talents in reality..

          1. Why is it you can’t seem to have a conversation without the nasty master race nonsense that is the precursor to Fascism. Your alleged superior mind is clouded by common core poison that breeds hate for anyone who dares to think in a different light. And of course you offer no real evidence of you positions yet because YOU say so we are all supposed to be in awe? Such nonsense again from a child who is thoughtless, selfish, self-serving, and an emotional loss to civilization. You will not intimidate me with your false ideas and doctrines because you are not the barer of truth. When you speak the truth all humanity knows it and listens. So get behind me satan.

      4. It must really bother some of you that people are able to speak their minds. The govt. should crush free speech right? Especially opposing points of view. Don’t worry they probably will.

        1. You have no concept of the meaning of free speech and how you leap to a conclusion that I would support any suppression must be some defect in your mental sky. You’re clueless about what an opposing view is and conflate apples with oranges. Inventing fairy tales to erroneously explain natural phenomena is not an opposing view on the interpretation of evidence … it’s just pure fiction and has zero validity as the premises that forms the foundation is superstition. What could explain natural phenomena better … the sciences that educated smart people who can land an explorer on a comet use or the gullible superstitious believers in myths spew?

        1. Anyone who suggests a movie by an uneducated person whose sole heft is based in the belief of the supernatural is going to be a credible source that would rebut the world’s brightest, best educated and most knowledgeable people has been conned by another snake oil salesman due to their own gullibility. Just because the evidence overturns the tales of illiterate desert dwellers and sheep and goat herders of the Bronze-age nothing an adherent who believes in those myths demonstrates will counter reality.

            1. Being gullible and extremely narrow-minded yourself you are clueless as to how an open and inquisitive mind can easily discern myth from reality. Because I have that ability due to education, knowledge and experience and focus on what the evidence shows, I am by definition, the opposite of narrow-minded and do not dwell on frivolous and pernicious myths..

              1. So…Bubba…by being ‘open minded’…you refuse to watch the film of evidence…because you are not really open minded…and just a buffoon proclaiming to be something you are not?

                1. Sorry cupcake, I read the crapola provided on your link and it is nonsense and the evidence does not support the statements that the producers allege that they can demonstrate. So why are you so gullible to swallow their nonsense … ignorance or lack of knowledge or uneducated or all of the aforementioned?

      6. For someone who claims “knowledge” and derides people, your ignorance and arrogance sure is amazing. Too much to address in one post – but let’s go with your nonsense “earth been (sic) flooded in all of geological history” portion.It’s odd that someone as “learned” as yourself wouldn’t know that civilizations across the planet speak of a “great flood” . . .including Gilgamesh, the Mesopotamian account, which is even older than the bible (2100 bc), as well as those by Berosus the Chaldean, Hieronymus the Egyptian, Mnaseas, and Nicolaus of Damascus, Native American and Aboriginal societies. Ancient civilizations (such as China, Babylonia, Wales, Russia, India, America, Hawaii, Scandinavia, Sumatra, Peru, and Polynesia) all have their own versions of a giant flood.But keep spewing your ignorance – it’s hysterical to watch. . . .

        1. Sorry there’s no evidence to support the myths, no matter how many varieties or repetitions, that’s why you have to be a gullible believer. Did the unicorns also become extinct during your mythical floods?

      7. Think out of your box just a little, Mr. Brain. Colliding land masses rise and fall, as do mountains. Isn’t this proven by marine fossils being found at high elevations in mountain strata? How much water would it actually take to cover significant portions of the planet if it were not such a topographicaly irregular oblate spheroid? Has it always been so? Are you certain?

        Be careful of declaring something impossible when you can’t even think outside of the box. Just a century ago it was “physically impossible” to go to the moon.

        Where did all the water come from? I would pose the same question back to you. Where DID all the water on Earth come from? It certainly could have spent a lot of time orbiting the planet as ice particles and vapor, even outside of the atmosphere, from wherever it came. Gravity, temperature changes, condensation, and precipitation could play a role in bringing it all to the surface, couldn’t they? Perhaps it didn’t all come from above. And where did it all go? Did it really all go? There is still plenty of water on the surface. It wouldn’t take all that much more to submerge a significant amount of the land surface as we know it today. Certainly this could have all the practical appearances and effects of a flood to illiterate goat herders. Are you familiar with polystrate fossils or cyclothems? Perhaps you’d bless everyone with a scientifically accurate explanation of them. Are you aware that vast amounts of water were discovered deep within the mantle? Just ten years ago this was not known.
        http://www.livescience.com/1312-huge-ocean-discovered-earth.html

        The Bible refers to “fountains of the deep” and “waters above the firmament”. How exactly would illiterate Bronze Age goat herders, without modern scientific language or understanding, describe water in the atmosphere or water below the Earth’s surface, or even the basic hydrological cycle, and then pass these descriptions down through their generations, even before there was a written language? It probably wouldn’t sound very scientific. And how is it possible that these illiterate goat herders may have known something that you don’t know? I doubt that you are sufficiently familiar with science or the Bible to know of all of the references to these things, but it certainly is possible. You just don’t know it.

        I’m not a “young Earth creationist”, or any of the slurs I’m sure you’d quickly spit at me, but I do think outside of the box, and typically see things that common people like you typically don’t see. You really should be careful with such hubris and hatefulness toward people you don’t even know. FYI, I have a science degree and enjoyed a career in science, with an IQ probably far north of yours. So put that in your pipe and suck it.

        1. I’m sorry but your knowledge and understanding is just a compilation of miss connected dots. First, you appear to disregard gravitational theory as you apparently can get water to flow uphill. Second, mountains are the product of colliding tectonic plates not land masses. Land masses don’t rise and fall … they’re in isostatic equilibrium with all cosmic forces that are impacting them and move accordingly. Third, when did your alleged global flood occur? If you know the time frame, simple math and physics will demonstrate why it is a physical impossibility … if you can’t do the calculations … give me your date and I’ll help you out. Fourth, water vapor does not exist outside of an atmosphere in space and it is a condensing gas and occurs in the atmosphere as a function of temperature i.e. precipitates out with decreasing temperature. Fifth, your link is not new but rather confirmation of known connate and other hypothesized deep water and I think you have clearly misunderstood the topic. Sixth, your bible babble bears no relationship to the water of the article you linked to but rather to what even goat and sheep herders would be able to observe i.e. springs and artesian wells to water their livestock and themselves which emanate from subterranean sources. Why didn’t you comment on where the bible gets science so wrong … stars stop, animals speak Hebrew, people float, matter transmutes, people walk through doors or teleport, insects have four legs, gets the value of Pi wrong, there’s a solid roof over the world, the moon is a light, stars are smaller than the Earth, the Earth formed before the sun, the sun revolves around the Earth and so on. There are no scientific facts from the bronze-age that are relevant to day. Last, your penultimate sentence of your vacuous screed cannot be valid as if you indeed were educated and experienced in science you’d know polystrate fossils do not exist in any scientific discipline and are the figments of creationists simple minds and how did you get so much known physical phenomena so vastly wrong?

            1. Oh cupcake you couldn’t support anyone of your crapola statements that I thoroughly shredded and demolished with current science understanding and theory. Talking about dicks I’d say because too many Americans like you have easy access to the internet and, for that matter, to all manner of scientific and technological advancements you had nothing to do with, but feel free to deride the people who made all this possible because it isn’t enough for you, in your personal life, to “believe” some magic sky fairy created everything with his magic dick. I am assuming your parents are every bit as stupid, ignorant, superstitious and uneducated as you are and, therefore, are proud of their little bundle of retard?

              1. Wow. The same copy-and-paste insults you spat at someone else. Not even very creative. But I certainly pegged you. I wasn’t trying to prove anything scientifically, but just trying to get you to think outside of your very tiny little box. Clearly too much of an intellectual exercise. I’m surprised there’s any room in that tiny little space for you, it’s already so full of hatred, bile, and bigotry. There wasn’t anything to shred, so you didn’t shred anything except any chance you had of retaining some dignity. You didn’t even begin to address how water might have come to Earth (comets? any number of condensation reactions from extraterrestrial compounds), nor where else it may have gone. You obviously think you know it all, yet you were stuck on the hydrostasis of Artesian wells, which obviously couldn’t account for what I was talking about, and without even considering how water might come
                up from the Earth by mechanisms having nothing to do with defying physics by “flowing
                uphill” (geysers, volcanoes, both of which can bring water from much greater depth than Artesian wells). You denied the existence of polystrate fossils, as if they were some Creationist fabrication, while they have actually been found almost everywhere on Earth. While they aren’t conclusive evidence of a global flood, they still exist, and you can’t explain them all, or you wouldn’t have denied their existence. You probably expend some of your negative energy trolling religious websites doing the exact same thing you did here. You were quite predictable. Bronze age goat herders had more imagination than you. No, you were simply primed with your hatred to jump on anyone who attempted to get you out of your simple paradigm, with a bonus chance to kneejerk your visceral disdain for religion, while you don’t know anything about my beliefs. You’re a hateful person, and it’s pathetic that your bile is really your strongest suit. Foxtrot Oscar.

                  1. That’s brilliant. I didn’t go to “bible school”. In fact I’ve not even claimed to be Christian – that’s merely your presumption. The funny thing is that you probably think that you’re the open-minded one. “Cupcake”? You should ask your therapist if using that as an attempted slur is conducive to overcoming your gender identity anxieties.

                    1. Well faker cupcake (it’s a term of endearment for the “special” gifts in our presence), no institution other than those that are biblically orientated use the non-scientific term polystrate so where did you go to get your education if it was not at an institution that worships cannabalism and torture?

    2. Eileen very nice post but for the sake of the readers could you just write sentences which convey a thought, and leave out the …. which means to some of us that you have left words out from the original.
      You are right though. Science is finding out that they really don’t know all and lately more evidence is being uncovered to show that the bible of the Jews is an accurate representation of history in a broad sense. Meaning only that God had the record keepers record the most important parts of history for all to know and the rest to be figured out later. Hopefully not too late for mankind.

      1. I write…as if I were speaking to you…with pauses…in between my thoughts…and I cannot do otherwise…it is me…and always will be!

        But thank you…

    1. How can you write that? The estimated first year take, I mean profit, from the Chicago Carbon Exchange is only $1B. It will only improve from there.
      And isn’t it strange how the clowns pushing this all own shares in the exchanges? Or that they are all part of the anti-American crowd?

  610. We have come to the point where nothing any government agency says can be taken for the truth. This administration – and hence its agencies have continually lied when there is a chance to further Mr. Obama’s political agenda. This report like all other reports, and studies issued by this administration reeks to high heavens of male bovine excrement.

    3. This deception precedes, and transcends, the current administration. There is certainly no positive integrity feedback with this adminstration, however.

  611. Holy crap, there’s so much just plain wrong with this article there’s no way to describe it but exceptionally and intentionally misleading. Starting with the first claim that land temperature readings aren’t accurate within hundredths. That’s a claim one can easily dispute by a simple internet search. You don’t have to go much further too see the entire article was written with the same level of scrutiny. It really hurts the cause.

      1. Considering that the reported temperatures are an average of thousands of readings, calculating the AVERAGE temperature to 100th of a degree is not hard.

        1. Sure, and lets make sure we include those readings where it is near a parking lot or a building, ok?Unbelievable. . . you people are beyond reasoning with. . . .

        2. Exactly. It is not a single temperature reading measured to 0.01° accuracy, but the average of many less accurately recorded temperatures. So when the average of thousands of readings in one year differs from the average of thousands of readings in another year by less than 0.02° , it is really a stretch to claim that there is anything statistically different between the two. In other words, no honest scientist would be claiming “Warmest year on record!!!” with a straight face when the individual temperature readings aren’t even accurate to 0.1°.

        3. It doesn’t make the actual reading accurate though which is why the satellites were put up in the first place. Their sensors were designed to be far more accurate but those sensors don’t support the man made global warming lie.

  612. It would be nice if the Global Warmers would make a report about sun flares, sun radiation, sunspots and the jet streams that it changes, along with the history of the sun’s sunspots and earth’s climate. Then show us how the sun which is a zillion times bigger then earth does not affect our climate..

      2. There is plenty of evidence that temperature variations correlate with solar cycles more closely than with atmospheric CO2 levels. Since the IPCC’s sole mission is to politically promote CO2-centric AGW hypotheses, rather than to scientifically investigate other causes for climate trends, why would you bother to consider anything else? If you had, you would have already come across such evidence, and not ask someone else to serve it up for you on a dinner plate.

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080512120523.htm

        How are you at putting things in perspective? In the range of varying atmospheric content of CO2 during the most recent 10% of Earth’s existence, up to a high of about 2500 ppm, we are presently near the bottom of the tank at about 400 ppm. An increase in atmospheric CO2 from 300 ppm to 400 ppm represents a very small increase in total GHGs – about +0.004%. Variations in TSI between phases of solar cycles can be 0.1%. Which do you think can have a greater impact on Earth’s temperature? The observed temperatures of recent decades have not followed the predictions based on models that focus on CO2, to the exclusion of solar factors, let alone all GHGs as an aggregate factor. Do you really think it is the observations that are flawed? Or could it be the AGW hypothesis?

  613. It’s 5 degrees with -17 wind chill factor in NH this am. Imagine how much colder it would have been without global warming! This reminds me of how last year I got two bad cases of the flu after taking the flu shot. After reporting this to my doc he said just think about how much worse those two cases of the flu would have been had you not had the shot. Wt

    1. I never cease be amaze at how proud some people are of their ignorance and stupidity, and how they parade it around like a badge of honour.
      Your back yard is not the globe, and you are, after all, in New Hampshire. Your plan for your orange plantation will have to wait.

  614. I think the scientists have a bit of a chip on their shoulders here in regards to their climate predictions. They cant accurately predict the weather 10 days from now. They routinely make wrong predictions about the hurricane season. They predicted more than a decade ago that all the polar ice would be gone, polar bears would be extinct, that Florida would be mostly underwater by now, etc. Its all baseless fear mongering being driven by those desiring a global wealth redistribution scheme.

    1. The majority of what you wrote is not supported by facts. First, climate is not weather. Second, no one predicted that Florida would be underwater by now. And the wealth redistribution reference? That’s simple paranoia. If you want to make statements like this you need to know the facts first.

      1. Which ones aren’t supported by facts? That the 10 day weather forecast is not very accurate? Daily evidence of that. I think it was just last year or the year before that they predicted a terrible Atlantic hurricane season and there was nary a one. Al Gore predicted sea levels would rise 20 feet within 10 years in his movie Inconvenient Truth and that the Polar Sea ice would be all but gone. Certainly the carbon tax/carbon credits scheme is about redistribution of wealth to poor undeveloped nations. None of the horrible stuff they predicted has happened. Scientists have a bunch of data and have little idea of what it means and the left obviously wants to use it for political purposes.

      2. One of the co-authors of AR-4 and AR-5 must be acutely paranoid.

        “…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate
        policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about
        how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”
        -Ottmar Edenhoffer, Head of Department Sustainable Solutions at PIK Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and Co-chair of IPCC Working Group III

        Or maybe it’s you who doesn’t know the facts.

  616. “Essentially meaningless”, except for the headline propaganda used to dupe morons into backing a trillion dollar tax and swindle program to benefit government elites and their crony capitalists.

  619. We had one of the coolest summers I can ever remember (and I been around a while) in Colorado, and we are into cold winter right now. The left continues to serve their agenda.

  620. Facts escape the “devout” Chicken little’s of the world. I have had ongoing debates with a fellow who uses “Oldfart” as a moniker. Usually those who have attained such a “title” are a bit more skeptical when it comes to “claims.” of factual information. He like others are “true believers” and no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise. The “fact” that in 1990 the very agency they reference as the end all be all source stated the satellite measurements are far more accurate than any earth base monitoring and should be the standard tells it all. But do not confuse the “devout” with reality for the have created their own alternative universe.

  621. Accuracy in calling this the hottest year ever is not the point. Getting funding for NOAA and NASA is the point. Make stuff up to the right lawmakers and get money to keep the researchers phony baloney jobs is the point. Real science is for losers.

  623. The left funds and uses the “science” for political purposes…which means it’s highly suspect to begin with. Add to that all the false predictions made in the last 10 years or so and one has to wonder if they have a clue as to how to interpret the data and what the significance of it even is. Certainly nothing at this point to base any policy on.

  624. On the map of hotter areas they are ALL over water. Except California. Who can verify this stuff over the Atlantic ocean ???

    This is almost too obvious that data is being manipulated. Is there man made global warming activities in the ocean? Whale farts? Dolphins impacting co2?

    So no rising temps where people live and drive those mean old cars and the cows fart?

  629. The fact that the false statement “2014 Hottest year Record” is a complete fabrication and contradicted by satellite data (aka the truth), will only make the AGW worshipers/Gruber voters/democrats scream all the louder that we are all doomed.

  630. GIT PAUL BREMMER, GEN CASEY, CONDI, BUSH, RUMSFELD, POWELL, CHENEY, AND WOLFOWITZ TO FIX IT! THEY DID A WONDERFUL JOB IN IRAQ GETTIN OUR BEST AND BRIGHTEST (lol) KILT! (and maimed)

  633. I live in South Dakota. I can drive 5 hours from my doorstep and look at dinosaur skeletons and petrified palm trees. It was -16 here last week. Far cry from a tropical climate. Do I believe in climate change? Of course! Do I believe mankind has anything to do with it. Absolutely not. We’re just not that big of a deal. Climate change has been going on from day one. By the way, the earth is getting older too. STOP EARTH AGING NOW! I’m sure there is a new tax in there somewhere.

  634. LETS SAY STUFF LIKE “”WERE NOT A BIG DEAL” LOL AS FUKISHIMA POURS RADIATION INTO THE OCEAN AND THE BIG BP GULF SPILL IS ALL NOW PRISTINE! LMAO “””NO BIG DEAL”””

  635. Ho Hum, more leftist bull—- Anything to keep the grant money and status, science for sale, but what do you expect when liberalism? and liberals? sink their meat hooks into something. Best part, just another political cause to justify their existence and feed their weird egos.
    Climate always changes, that’s what climates do.

      1. Willum, voting does mean something. So does contributions to candidates and parties. It all adds up.
        DO YOU ALWAYS POST IN CAPS?
        Keep the faith. There’s hope.

    2. It wasn’t “just” the money . .. .it was also about the “proposals” from the faked/baked data fabricated in order to “blame” humans.Then, they could somehow “justify” controlling nations, freedom, energy and economies around the globe.It was much more dangerous and insidious than people realize.Energy production is the key to economic growth.Kissinger said:”Control the oil, you control a nation. Control the food, you control the people.”This was much more insidious and dangerous than anyone realizes. . . .and thank goodness they’re being “vanquished”. . . .except for Obama, who doesn’t want to see the plans go down the drain. . . .

  640. Amazing to see that you keep spouting the same “pause” nonsense despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    Climate change is not a political issue, it is a FACT.

    1. The “fact” is, there has been no warming for over 18 years. (fact)The flatulent and bogus Dr. Mann and equally bogus Dr. Hanson faked/baked the data so much. . . . they tried to hide the “The Little Ice Age” (Maunder Minimum) and the “Medieval Warming Period”. . . .Dr. Mann won’t even admit it was a “global” event.Paleoclimatologists laugh at Mann’s claim it was only regional, when boreholes from every continent on the planet prove it was a “global” event. . . . .Face it – who is the “cult” now and who are the “science deniers” now, hmmmm?It was always a bogus and fake “issue”. . . meant to siphon money/power/control by trying to blame us, using faked/cooked/baked data.You’re lucky I’m not President or AG. . . .these people would be wearing orange jumpsuits in prison for taxpayer fraud. – so would the Universities that took our money and helped these frauds fleece us of millions of dollars. . . .

      1. Even if you say “fact” several times, it doesn’t MAKE it a fact.

        Check weather and temperature stats & observations around the globe in 2014, and that should be evidence enough. And not even an El Ninõ-year… Climate has changed – and it this is just the beginning.

        We’re already seeing nature changing in the polar regions due to several degrees warmer sea water. New species moving north. Regional changes of 3 degrees centigrade – more than 5 degrees Fahrenheit increase – in just two decades.

        These are facts.

        Want to talk fraud? The paid shills on Lobby Hill – eh – Congress & Senate, speaking for the fossil fuel interests, since that is where they receive their funds to stay in the game. Lying through their teet for money.

        Universities aren’t scamming you – but fossil fuel robber barons are stealing our future – destroying the planet, while a select few reap record profits.

        Good thing we have Richard Attenborough & BBC nature television shows: That is the only way we will remember many species. The current extinction rate is rivalled only by the one that knocked out the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago.

        Mr “No One Important” – are you a paid shill, or just ideologically blind? Or perhaps a troll? Doesn’t matter. Climate change doesn’t care. We will all feel it – some are already. There are thousands of climate refugees in Australia and US – I dare not think how many it is globally. And we’ve seen nothing yet.

        Best of luck. You’re gonna need it. We all are.

  641. Finally – scientists standing up and defending their “research”. . . pushing back on the “global warming” crowd. . pushing back on their faked/baked/cooked nonsense. . . . .I’m so glad to see “real” scientists taking back the conversation. . . . .Science that has been faked/baked is a cult, not science.I was beginning to think there wasn’t anyone out there who were real scientists in this field anymore.Personally, I think we need to study solar flare activity more, and how to endure the possibility of another “maunder minimum” . . . .We need to focus on that investigation, and developing crops that can grow in cooler/wetter than optimal conditions.So much money/hype has been wasted on a bogus/ridiculous theory – and all because if you blame “man” – then you can come up with a way to justify “controlling” nations.It’s been about the money and the control, nothing else.Thank goodness for real scientists now standing up and giving these fakers the “finger”. . . .

    1. Yea, how dare they believe actual “data” (grin)How dare they speak out against the snake oil “global warming” crowd!It’s heresy! (grin)Someone needs to start to call the global warming alarmists the “science deniers” now. . . .the “flat earthers”. . . .They’re the true cult followers. . .

  643. In July,1945, some other kids and I actually fried an egg on the sidewalk. I tried to repeat that this July and it wouldn’t fry. “If the egg won’t fry, man made global warming is a lie.”

  644. I’m with Chicken Little the sky is falling ! I was out looking for bugs and water droplets started falling from the sky and it was .000001 degree colder than yesterday. Deniers you’re despicable!!!!

  647. Occasionally we get nutters going door to door spewing nonsense. So when they come to my door – I point to a tree in my yard:——————
    See that tree over there? It’s called a “Dawn Redwood.” Yea, it’s a metasequoia. Believed to be the great, great grand daddy of the Giant Sequoias and California redwoods. It’s known as a living fossil, thought to be extinct until they were discovered growing in China in the 40s.There are fossilized remains of that tree growing in the ancient polar forests 250 million years ago from the Mesozoic era.So unless you can dig up a fossilized SUV or show me a cave painting of a Hummer, you better come up with an explanation of why that tree was growing 250 million years ago in forests at the poles of the earth.
    ——————More than a few times I’ve sent away these nutters scratching their heads as they walk past that pine tree. . . . .staring at living proof against their argument. . . .Go get one and plant it. They’re only about $30.00, fast growing and a great living argument against the nonsense that these nutters are spewing.

  648. The above reaction by the small handful of the usual climate science deniers only underscores their increasing desperation that they cannot refute the science that anthropogenic global warming is real. Meanwhile, smart Republicans and business people are beginning to realize that the free market is alive and well and producing innovative alternative energy sources at decreasing costs. Oil companies are beginning to realize that they are really energy companies and that it is in their long-term interest to embrace new low-carbon, energy-producing technologies that gets away from oil.

    The right-wing political attack on science is a losing proposition. Political denialism never wins in the long-run, just as it didn’t in the tobacco wars.

    1. And responses like yours prove that the usual climate-screamers are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the increasing evidence that your claims are nonsense. The “market” is leaving you behind – and is no longer going to tolerate your “limits” and your “justifications” on clamping down on our energy production and usage. . . .”global warming is real”. . .even though the data shows it isn’t. . . .you’re still going to make these ridiculous claims, when you can’t even explain the Maunder Minimum, aka “Little Ice Age” (“hide the decline”) and the Medieval Warming Period.Your prophet, Dr. Mann, won’t even admit the MWP was a “global” event. . . .wow, quite the “science denier” you believe in . . . .Face it – you guys are a cult. Despite all the evidence to the contrary – you deny reality and cling to your theory like a “religious” cult.Hare Krishna leaders across the world are jealous of your devotion. . . . .

    2. And responses like yours prove that the usual climate-screamers are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the increasing evidence that your claims are nonsense. The “market” is leaving you behind – and is no longer going to tolerate your “limits” and your “justifications” on clamping down on our energy production and usage. . . .”global warming is real”. . .even though the data shows it isn’t. . . .you’re still going to make these ridiculous claims, when you can’t even explain the Maunder Minimum, aka “Little Ice Age” (“hide the decline”) and the Medieval Warming Period.Your prophet, Dr. Mann, won’t even admit the MWP was a “global” event. . . .wow, quite the “science denier” you believe in . . . .Face it – you guys are a cult. Despite all the evidence to the contrary – you deny reality and cling to your theory like a “religious” cult.Hare Krishna leaders across the world are jealous of your devotion. . . . .

  649. This is getting serious. With each of these overblown, statistically non-significant claims (not distinguishable from typical variation), not only are climate scientists losing credibility, but the stank generalizes to all scientists – and that’s a bad thing.

  650. This is getting serious. With each of these overblown, statistically non-significant claims (not distinguishable from typical variation), not only are climate scientists losing credibility, but the stank generalizes to all scientists – and that’s a bad thing.

    1. Exactly, which is why I’m glad to see an article that actually has scientists immediately calling “foul” on this bogus claim.It’s time the “real” scientists took back their fields from the hacks/bogus people like Mann and Hansen.If we did something like they did – we’d be doing time in “club fed” for taxpayer fraud.If you and I took millions, and produced a study that said eating your lawn clippings will help you live forever – they’d lock us up and take everything we had, including those that helped up produce a fraudulent study with taxpayer money. . . . .These bogus people should be in prison, as well as confiscating the University property that helped them propagate their fraud on the nation.This was the world’s biggest “scam” in the history of mankind. . . .These people should be in prison. . . .

      1. NOI – Amen. The movement calling for basic research scientists to “be more relevant” – i. e., become more involved in critical political issues of the times started sometime in the early ’70s. Too many young scientists of the time, with weaker mentoring, bought into it without understanding that, except in the simplest cases, one cannot be an “advocate” and simultaneously maintain one’s credibility as a neutral investigator (even with scrupulous intent and credible methods, subtle non-conscious decisions can be influenced) and the public’s trust (intuitively, the public understands conflicts of interest).

  651. Since so many temperature data readings are near population centers, and the nearness is getting more significant every year, climatologists use “error factors” that they themselves make up. Human nature being what it is, people in such positions invariably have their fingers on the scale even though they don’t realize it. That’s the reason for double-blind studies – to rule out bias that is basic to human behavior. The researchers really believe in their “data” even though the “data”, because it’s been fudged, is largely made up or guessed at.

    1. It’s even worse than that – the original data (now destroyed) was then “cooked”. . . “normalized” is the term they like to use. Of course, we found out that when they “normalized” the data, they actually changed significant events, like the Maunder Minimum and the Medieval Warming Period.The Maunder Minimum continues to plague bogus people like Hansen and Mann, because it discredits their own theory (hence the “hide the decline”). . . .And Mann, to this day, won’t admit that the MWP was a global event, despite boreholes from every continent showing that it was.He dismissed the evidence (6,500 boreholes) and claimed, based on 262(?) boreholes, that it was only a “regional” event.Paleoclimatologists laugh at his arrogant ignorance. Just because he claims it doesn’t make it so.The “global warming alarmists” have been so thoroughly discredited, they’re getting desperate. Expect even more ridiculous lies like this. . . .Meanwhile, they never did come up with a plausible excuse to ignore a full set of tree ring data available and used an incomplete set. . .They’re laughing stocks now, and rightfully so. They should actually be in prison for taxpayer fraud. . but alas, too many people are trying to help them cover the fraud, and won’t hold them accountable.I think we should start to throw people like them in jail – send a warning message to the scientific community – if you produce deliberately fraudulent studies/data on the taxpayers’ dime – you’re going to do time in prison for fraud.

  652. I had thought that the “era of stupid, greed-driven people” had ended…;) Anyone who thinks that civilization is driving the climate is a moron, imo. The sun, now there you have an engine capable of it.

  655. The global warming ‘moon bats’ are about one thing…taking your money and giving it to themselves. The fact Al Gore was behind this whole scam should be enough to make any thinking person realize what a massive pile of horse $hi+ this faux issue is.

    1. AL GwhORE couldn’t get their phony science past most Americans so now they are enlisting the Black Pope…which makes perfect sense as the entire global warming scam is nothing but bad religion…pretty soon we will all be tithing our tax dollars to “fix” the problem.
      My guess is that they know the petrodollar is very nearly down the toilet so they are looking at creating a new fiat currency backed by carbon credits.

  657. I’m still alive! Whoa Ho!…..

    Growing up as a child in the 50’s I did not have much to
    look forward to with the “Coming New Ice Age” predicted by everyone.

    It was all the news could talk about.

    But I survived and even survived the threat of nuclear war
    two tours in Vietnam in the Marines.

    I am not worried I think I can survive this new planet
    killing heat wave.

    I believe in “Murphy’s Law”….in war if the enemy is in range
    so are you!

    If science say’s the world is coming to an end it’s the
    opposite!

    You only have one life and one chance on this planet.

    If you hide your head in the sand you will miss it.

  659. It’s about time someone stood up against the liberal garbage that is manipulating our society to big money, big government, & big catastrophic ruins.. Wake up people ! Follow the money trail.. NOT TO MENTION , CONTROL !

  661. Would some journalist grow a pair and review the “climate forecasts” made by these frauds 20, 10 and even 5 years ago about what they ABSOLUTELY KNEW the climate would be like in 2015? These frauds have been predicting “gloom and doom” for 40 years! Remember Al Gore’s “Guarantee” made 5 years ago that “in 5 years the Polar Ice Caps would be melted”???? This “Consensus Science” crap needs to be exposed and eliminated once and for all.

  662. Means nothing that they moved the sensors around the world to tarmacs and other areas of high concentration of concrete so they could fudge the numbers. How did the last ice age end when man wasn’t around. It’s cyclical. Stupid progs!

  663. How about the report about last winter being one of the coldest in years, last summer being the mildest in years, and this winter is bitterly cold? This all a bunch of BS to warrant these socialist governments to enact further job killing regulations and punitive taxes.

  664. With Obama as President, is there any doubt that a gov agency would say anything other than it is warming? Answer: NO! They would be looking for a job if they don’t come out with B.O’s propaganda and the rest of the left’s. This will only give the looney left a web site to refer to so they can argue on sites such as this one. Well we now have many to refer to and since they don’t have anything to gain by balking at the claims, at least I think they have more credibility. The left have been caught lying way to many times about this global warming fantasy. Its just a way to depart money from our pockets and into theirs.

  668. Most of these scientist get government grant money or grant money given to a university passed on to them.
    Therefore the government can dictate the results they want.
    To keep getting the money they comply and make up facts.
    The only people you can trust for the truth are those that use their own money with little to no outside funds and don’t work for a university.
    Until that happens we will never get true accurate results.
    This is typical of all studies done with tax dollars.
    Give the wrong results you lose funding thus your research work and job.
    As always with this corrupt government follow the money!

    1. There are many scientists that don’t believe in man-made global warming, or is it climate change, or is it climate disruption, or maybe climate deception. They don’t get the forum and the media time that the promoters get. In fact, one of the most telling aspects that convinces me this is all fabrication is the lack of public debate that is allowed. You have to search the internet to hear the other side of the story. Otherwise, you’re constantly bombarded with the government approved viewpoint. We know that the government has been trying to manipulate and control the weather for several decades. There is a good possibility that the odd weather patterns we are seeing have more to do with their forced influence. So, in that sense you could label it as man-made, but not industry and consumer driven.
      Follow the money – who benefits? That is always the primary question in cases like this.

      1. Maybe there are such scientists, but they’re not publishing anything. Or if they are doing research, it’s not passing peer review. In other words, you’re full of shit. This whole site is full of it.

        1. Unfortunately, they don’t have the taxpayer’s endless pool of funding for research. That’s the really sad part of this manipulation, the people get to pay to formulate the elitist’s carbon credit scam and then they get to pay more for less energy. I think you should calm down Will, the heat from your collar is contributing to the global warming.

    2. So where’s all the science funded by oil company money and coal company money? There’s no shortage of that money, and the scientists who managed to overturn AGW theory would be Nobel winners, sure.

      If the science on AGW was so clearly distorted by grant grubbing, and so clearly in error, why hasn’t someone who is honest and objective shown this? Is the entire scientific establishment of the planet one big conspiracy?

      Hell, the Koch Brothers even funded an expensive auditing of the global temperature record by a noted skeptic, Richard Mueller. He found that the global temperature record was statistically sound, that it showed that what AGW scientists said was happening actually was: record highs outpace record lows by 2/1.

      1. Here we go again the Koch Brothers and who they support.

        But nothing is ever said about the money coming from Soro’s and Hollywood and stolen from the tax payers to support the Global Warming lies.

        The money the Koch Brothers is private money given to private study groups that get no federal tax dollars.
        Besides if the earth is warming and life on this planet is in danger.
        What makes man so special he should survive.
        There have been dozens of mass extinctions on this planet since it was created.
        If it is our turn to perish so be it ! Live with it . If nature says we must go who are you or this government to say it should not happen.
        Regardless of what happens the earth will survive , it will start over.
        Man will die off and man will maybe come back .
        What we really should be praying for is when that happens no liberals return.

        1. The Koch Brothers funded the Mueller study. That’s all I’m claiming. Do you want to argue that they didn’t?

          And if they ARE funding climate research–as you seem to accept (I could care less)–then where are all the findings that are NOT corrupted by government grant grubbing?

          You seem to have a rather Olympian perspective on human extinction and the collapse of civilization. When I look at those things, I see hideous suffering, grief and horror. You don’t, I guess.

          It’s not entirely certain that “Earth would survive” anyhow: human action may be the cause of something along the lines of the End Permian extinction, when 99% of all life on Earth died.

          1. “It’s not entirely certain that “Earth would survive” anyhow: human action may be the cause of something along the lines of the End Permian extinction, when 99% of all life on Earth died.”

            Are you for real?

            At least two times this planet was covered 100% in miles of ice.

            It recovered then came life then the ice came back then went away then came live .

            For millions of years life came and went some, some survived some died off.

            Even if as you claim 99% die off and we caused it …SO WHAT!

            There will be no one here to say I told you so. So it doesn’t matter.

            You say I have a ” Olympian perspective on human extinction

            “…
            Good I could care less it is not in my control or yours or this or any government.
            If it happens we cannot stop it . Global warming or a comet or a deep freeze.
            There is nothing we can do anymore then previous extinctions.
            It is going to happen no matter what we do.
            .I suggest you build a space ship and get off this planet because the days are numbered.
            When the planet has had enough of one dominating life form it kills all life off. That is a fact of nature .
            We all eventually die nothing can stop that.

            Grow up live your life stop worrying about something 100 or more years from now you have no control over.
            As I said if man dies off so be it he is no more special then all the other life forms that went extinct.
            The fact that you believe man is, is your downfall.

            1. Look up End Permian extinction, bro. Life came back after that, but it took a long, long time. And it’s exhilirating to see someone with so little concern for human suffering and mass death. You’re really exceptional that way, psychopaths are the only ones who feel that way generally.

          2. “The Koch Brothers funded the Mueller study. That’s all I’m claiming. Do you want to argue that they didn’t”?

            Who cares it is their money .
            If they want to fund a research into if Minnie Mouse is banging Goofy. that is their right.
            Just don’t use my tax dollars on this junk science.

            1. Richard Muller’s 2012 study, funded by the Koch Brothers, found that manmade global warming was real. That’s one reason I mention it; it’s freaking hilarious.

              The other reason I mention it is because the whole “all scientists are in on it” argument assumes that grant money distorts all the science.

              So the Kochs–who are mega billionaries–should be able to fund science that showed the truth. Where is it? They tried, with Richard Muller, and it didn’t work. Why?

      2. That’s a thoroughly fallacious SkepticalScience argument, since the “entire scientific establishment” doesn’t subscribe to the rickety and unproven AGW hypothesis. You are skipping over hundreds, if not thousands, of legitimate climate scientists who question it, to stoop down and bring the Koch brothers, and a meaningless audit, into your argument.

        But since you are arguing from the lowest intellectual grounds, I will see your Koch brothers, and raise you Soros, Steyer, and Strong.

        1. Where’s the peer reviewed science that shows that there’s no scientific consensus? I mean, it should be easy to find, since so many scientists dissent, right? I ask because I study this stuff all the time and I never heard of one.

          And I’m referring to one, particular and very famous study of the global temperature record by Richard Muller in 2012. It was funded by the Koch Brothers and it found exactly the opposite of what they wanted it to find.

          And I thought that climate research was all funded by the evil federal government. If you want to “raise” me, why not name and date the high profile study funded by Soros etc? Where is it? Did Soros and Steyer buy all the scientific governing bodies in the world too?

          1. Science doesn’t work by consensus, and only improves by challenge. But certainly Cook’s “97% consensus” has been debunked as a fraudulently dishonest and unscientific attempt to create one.

            As for Soros, Steyer, and Strong, I am not aware that they have commissioned any studies. Their contribution, as far as I know, is simply putting their money where their ideology is.

            “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how
            smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
            – Richard Feynmann

  670. Morano’s sources mostly make arguments that are about language, not about data.

    Is the difference between say, +1.22F and +1.24F perceptible? Not to everyday perception. No. But that’s not the question. The question should be, how significant to the planet’s climate is a warming of that size above the 20th century average? The difference between 1998, 2005, 2010 and 2014 may seem negligible, but 2014 is warmer, according to the NASA, NOAA, JMA and Berkley Earth Sciences data sets. That much warming is real.

    These deniers, however, are not arguing that the warming isn’t real. They mostly admit that it has happened. Pielke, Michaels, Spenser and company have been reduced to making arguments about what that degree of change MEANS, about what the significance is. There are semantic and even political distinctions. Hell, they’re even literary distinctions.

      1. By your lights then, money can buy anything but the truth.

        There’s plenty of money out there–oil money, coal money, various billionaire conservative activists–to fund research that would reveal what you consider to be the truth, that AGW is not happening.

        Where is this research? If money “can buy any result”, where’s the research that billionaires and oil companies and carbon-soaked conservative pols like Inhofe and McConnell desperately want.

        Your reasoning is flawed, brother. It contradicts itself.

    2. Yes! Nuance! The difference is smaller than the margin of error for the methods of measurement and statistical analysis of the data; all within normal climate variance. The significance is that “warmest year on record!” means nothing when you include all the years that were not “the warmest”, because then the trend, since at least as far back as 1997, shows no warming outside of normal variance.

      Since the entire AGW hypothesis rests on the premise that continually rising CO2 causes warming temperatures, the hypothesis FAILS. So obviously CO2 is not what we should be looking at as the cause of any increase in warming. What do you do next, if you are actually following the scientific method?

      “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
      – Richard Feynmann

      1. You just made a semantic argument; every decade since 1980 has been warmer than the one before it. The degree of warming is important when you consider the rate and the trend, which is up.

        A few 1/10’s of a degree is only unimportant as a variation over a number of decades. What we have now is a year, 2014, which is 1.22F over the 20th century average. Except for 1998, the warmest years on the global record have all been in the 21st century. The trend is up.

        And no part of the AGW “hypothesis”–it’s really a theory, you know the difference, right?–ever included the premise that rising CO2 equates directly with rising temperatures. There is correlation between the two, but the relation is complex and the climate system is chaotic.

        If you have evidence that shows the flaws in AGW theory, why aren’t you publishing it? The answer is that you don’t, but you have imbibed a bunch of bullshit semantic arguments that are intended to confuse the unwary. But you can’t confuse the laws of physics.

  671. Funny how WMD’s and the crisis needing intervention technique has been used as Weapons of Mass Destruction and is now Weather of Mass Destruction…same old song. Produce phony “evidence” and “facts”, whip up the need for the government to step in to do something about it…oh, by the way, we will have to increase the debt by a few more trillion $ or increase regulations so we can siphon the money off the populace.

  672. Man-made global warming is real and really serious. Denial is an emotional reaction to uncomfortable and essential facts. Science has been the handmaiden of technological and economic “progress” for so long that it’s devastating to realize that “progress” has reached its limits.

    Most people have an implicit belief in the validity of science and the technology science creates.

    But now science is telling us that “progress” is undoing itself, that technology may be an evolutionary dead end. Nobody can admit that easily, because it means that our entire way of life is a mistake. But AGW is real, whether you can stand it or not. It’s real, and nature bats last.

    1. The script for this environmental scare hoax was written back in the 1960’s.

      “Al Gore’s book, EARTH IN THE BALANCE is nothing more than an expansion of the Iron Mountain Report’s environmental agenda for the world.” — BRIEFING PAPER THE REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN, Stewart C. Best

      1. Your dates and sources are way off. The script for man-made global warming was written in the Enlightenment, at the beginning of the industrial revolution.

        Environmentalism dates from the mid-19th century. The “script” was largely written by Henry David Thoreau, John Muir and John Burroughs.

        Global warming was first theorized then, by John Tyndall. Climate sensitivity to increased CO2 was first derived by a Swedish chemist named Svante Arhennius, in 1896.

        1. And the late Dr. Reid Bryson, recognized by most as the father of modern climatology, said before his death that “You can walk outside and spit, and you’ll have more of an effect on the climate than doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere right now”!

          But hey, what did he know anyway? His life’s work was only about how changes in climate affected civilizations and human migrations.

          1. He should have published his findings in Nature. That’s where the serious debate on climate science is conducted. Not in apocryphal anecdotes on braindead denialist sites.

            1. It wouldn’t matter if he had or not. Those who think, (And I use the term loosely.), like you would still have discounted it since it disagreed with the basic tenets of your “religion”.

    3. Man-made glowBULL warming is bu77$h!t and not a serious issue at all. Promotion of it is an emotional reaction to Algore’s “inconvenient truths”, the vast majority of which were debunked, and some even found to be outright falsehoods, long ago!
      +

      1. Good arguments! Dang! I stand corrected. Good thing I happened on here today. Otherwise I’d have been stuck accepting the data, which show a serious warming. What does NASA know anyhow? Bunch uh pointy head librul rocket scientists . . .

        1. Would this be the same NASA who made the error of using data from a September by mistake to declare that an October was suddenly the hottest one on record? Would this be the same NASA who at the time and for some time before and after that incident had their climate folks being run by a Dr. James Hansen who is now being derided because it was shown that he was personally profiting by promoting glowBULL warming and had to step down because of it?
          Is that the NASA you’re referring to?

          Yeah, I thought so!

  673. Interesting how the solar factor never enters the equation, Solar cycles, solar flares inherently affect global temperatures as well as the earth core. The sun has now passed its prime and is beginning to consume helium rather than hydrogen and that means going forward the sun will be getting much hotter, until one day when it consumes the earth.

  674. .036. Remember that. That’s the percentage of C02 in the World’s Atmosphere. The other 99.64% are apparently prisoner to this minority.

    This is an IQ test for Dumb Dems. If you believe this crap, then you are able to believe anything, and to the Democrat Leadership, that’s just fine. Blame the public schools and now Universities, too. If your kids repeat all this crap about Global Warming, then you are being screwed, royally, as these jokers think they are without blame for their actions. The Pharaohs of Egypt are dead. They did not make the Nile River rise in late summer as was believed by the masses back then. Kilimanjaro did, much to the chagrin of ancient historians.

      1. “AGW theory is rock solid”? Since when exactly?
        Was that before it was called “global warming”, or after it was called “climate change”?

        1. Since 1859, Baja. The impact of CO2 on infrared radiation was established by John Tyndall in 1859. We know more about this than we know about gravity.

          1. Yeah, yeah. I’m familiar with the history.
            Oddly enough this was about the same time as the end of the LIA event. Thank goodness we warmed up a little eh?
            Funny how you and your ilf called it “global warming” until it began to look to some as if the warming had stopped. Then you tried for a short while to call it “anthropogenic global warming” saying it had to be man’s fault. Now finally you all simply refer to it as “climate change” since the earth’s climate actually does change.
            Nice.

  675. LOL Bullcrap… “The claim of the ‘hottest year’ is simply a political statement not based on temperature facts; ‘hottest year’ claims are based on minute
    fractions of a degree while ignoring satellite data showing Earth is continuing the 18-plus-year ‘pause’ or ‘standstill’ [in warming.]” and the GLOBAL COOLING GOING ON RIGHT NOW, with Winter starting Earlier Each year, lasting longer, More Snow, and more and more extreme colds temps. LOOK UP Hegelian Dialectic.

    http://www.infowars.com/the-truth-about-climate-change/

  677. The mere fact that Obama, John Kerry and Al Gore are big proponents of the anthropogenic global warming theory is in and of itself near 100% certain proof and compelling scientific evidence the theory is a total crock.

  678. For all you fruitcake global warming believers please answer this.
    The day The Packers beat the Cowboys in Green Bay . That day it was colder in Green Bay than the temperature taken by the mars rover in the Hale crater on mars?
    How was that even possible?
    Is Mars global warming our fault too?
    If you don’t believe that then NASA is lying.
    So much for government truth right?

  679. Many so called “scientists” and university “liberal academic professors” have become totally corrupt and self-serving to prove their false beliefs about a number of topics that began with the acceptance by them of the theory of species evolution which they have yet to prove… They are as untrustworthy as are politicians!!! They regularly falsify data and evidence and persecute and assault anyone who disagrees with their lies and false manufactured evidence.

  680. Let me get this right.
    Al Gore claimed in his Nobel Peace price book that the sea would rise 20-30 feet within 10-30 years.
    So what does he do with his profits from all this?
    He buys a mansion on the beach facing the ocean.
    That is just brilliant and this guy is suppose to be one of our smartest.
    Thank god he lost the election in 2000.

  682. I don’t worry about global warming because of this known fact.
    The earth is flat and all the continents will fall off the edge long before the heat gets us.

  683. Man made CO2 emmisions in 2013 were 36.333 billion metric tonnes
    http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/global-carbon-emissions.html

    Currently, CO2 concentration is around 400ppm. Using calculations from https://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co2-by-weight-in-the-atmosphere/
    that comes to 3.13 x10^12 metric tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Now, we calculate the % of human contributions. (36.333 billion) / (3.13 x10^12) = .011
    Humans only contrinute to a 1.1% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is negligible.
    Humans are insignificant to the cause of climate change.

  684. Hell my weather station will get a temp increase like that or more when a cloud passes over my house on a winters night! Like most data their should be a range of error. Strict might be 1-2 % while worst could be 5% error in data.

  685. Con men never admit its a con….they only pile on more false information to confuse any real thought. The Network News is all over this and crying from the heavens that its “The end of the world”……Grab your wallet its going to be a bumpy ride.

  686. You deniers need to stop all your bellyaching and pay your taxes to Al Gore and surrender your freedom to Agenda 21. Just because he and his crowd live like kings with private jets an carbon footprints like small countries does not mean you should not live like a miserable carbon serf.

  687. The global warming cult likes to exaggerate, like showing the temp. graphs in the 100ths of degrees. Makes nice big spikes to scare the uneducated, but can they really tell the difference in 84 deg. F vs. 84.01 deg. F?

    1. Likewise, the entire biosphere would suffer greatly if the temperature dropped by a comparable amount of 1-2°C. This is especially threatening if our existing energy infrastructure is dismantled without a proven economically feasible and globally scalable alternative, leaving billions in energy poverty. One must wonder if this is the intention of crippling the world’s petrofuel infrastructure, when you consider the thoughts of some of our “progressive” minds.

      ________________________________________________________________________________
      “My three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the
      industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
      David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

      “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
      Ted Turner, Founder of CNN and major UN donor

      “The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
      Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

      “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
      Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies, Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”

      “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
      Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

      “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
      Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

      “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to
      offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
      Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, Contributing author UN IPCC AR-4

      “It doesn’t matter what is true. It only matters what people believe is true.”
      Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace

      “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
      Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

      “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
      Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

      “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a
      catastrophe.”
      Daniel Botkin, Professor Emeritus of Ecology, UCSB

      “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
      Maurice Strong, Founder of the UN Environmental Program

      “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-Development means
      bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
      Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies, Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”

      “If I were reincarnated I would wish to return to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
      Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, Patron of the World Wildlife Foundation

      “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other
      countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these third World countries right where they are.”
      Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

      “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
      Maurice Strong, Founder of the UN Environmental Program

      “…The world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”
      David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member

      “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis”
      David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member

      “I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
      Al Gore, Climate Change activist

      “The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level.”
      Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech

      “The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning
      too much oil.”
      Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

      “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We
      must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
      David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

      “…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”
      Ottmar Edenhoffer, Economist, Co-chair of IPCC Working Group III, and Co-Author of AR-4
      __________________________________________________________________________

      And then there is this message on the mysterious Georgia Guidestones. The first inscription on the granite stones, in several languages, is this entreaty:

      “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature”.

  690. Co2 is absolute crap! Anyone with a brain knows the changes on this planet are very complex and man’s impact on the planet is less than .005 percent. Such stupid sheep humans are. . .

      1. You might want to pull your head from where you have it stuffed and come up for air.
        Of course if you did that you’d be emitting more CO2 which would be bad.
        Carry on.

  693. How can you not think that burning millions of tonnes of oil a year isn’t affecting the environment? You know who benefits in telling us it has no effect? Companies that sell oil, you know how rich those companies are? Very, enough to pay off people just to protect their assets.

    1. It is affecting the environment. Carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is used in the process of photosynthesis by plants to produce oxygen.

        1. “Objectively measured” by who? The very same people that want you to believe the warming is real? The very same NOAA and NASA who have already made a great many mistakes that are known? The very same NOAA that has already been caught changing historical temp data to run through their faulyy computer models so they will say that there has been warming?

          Are these the “objective” entities you are referring to genius?

        2. Objectively? You mean those thermometers by the ac vents? Fail
          Hint… We (i am md/phd) measure intelligence not stupidity.

          Not one element of decent joke structure… Imbecile

    3. Isn’t it strange that the investors in the various carbon exchanges are the very same politicians who have been passing the laws while screaming about global warming for years? Of course, prior to this the same clowns were screaming about global cooling and how the ice sheets were going to flow down from the north again.
      The estimate first year take for the Chicago carbon exchange is $1B. After that they will get to split up some real money.
      Meanwhile, in Europe where the various carbon exchanges have been operating for about a decade now roughly 20% of the citizens have to live off the grid because they can’t afford the electric bills. Wood and coal stoves are once again the primary winter heat source while the politicians get to stuff their pockets with everyone else’s money.

  694. The intellectual level of the discussion on here is very low. None of you folks have a clue what you are talking about.

    What did J.S. Mill say about conservatives? Oh, right, “While not all conservatives are stupid, it it certainly true that most stupid people are conservative.”

        1. Nope. That most pompous asses in this particular argument are ultra left wing liberals who are content to lay reality aside as they worship at the alter of U.N. and at Algore’s feet so long as the grant money keeps rolling in.
          If you truly wish to raise the intellectual level of the conversation here you could easily do so by simply leaving it.

    2. funny, you make a patently false statement about stupidity. On average conservatives are better educated and better off.
      But hey, you can’t be blamed for you own stupidity, unless you ate lead chips as a child.

  695. Just thirty some years ago, they were talking about the world being the coldest in history. So which is it? The chicken little effect, huh? Run for shelter everyone, the sky is falling. ALL FICTION !!!!!!!!

      1. Just a little over the top with History and hottest. Climate is changing all the time, it never stays the same. Thinking that humans are causing disasters is just wrong. Remember CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere and humans contribute .05% of that. So if 400ppm = 400 dollars out of a million an humans add .05% of that it equals about 20 dollars. or 20 ppm

        1. Your right it was over the top, I was responding and quoting Jeremiah who doesn’t get it unless it’s over the top. Under 300 ppm before the industrial revolution, 400 ppm now, rising 2 ppm a year and accelerating, 500/550 ppm is considered dangerous levels, wait until the permafrost starts to melt and releases 10’s of 1000’s of years of stored Co2 in frozen plant matter in just a few years.

            1. You’re obviously unaware of what permafrost turns into when it melts, you can’t build roads and the ones there will buckle and sink, building will tilt and sink, mining equipment will be useless like your comment, educate yourself.

          2. That’s where denial comes from, Dave: they can’t face those facts. The planet is headed for a really dire climate shift, and the methane release from the Arctic will be the key contributing factor.

            1. Yeah, they just can’t see it until it’s in their face, which will be to late. I wonder what they’re kids are going to rename “glacier national park” since there’s no more glaciers there today.

          3. Permafrost is already melting and the sequestrated CH₄ will be an additional more efficient, non-condensing, heat trapping (CO₂ x 20) GHG problem albeit with a much shorter lifetime than CO₂ but then it breaks down into CO₂ ………

      2. We have been charting temperatures for maybe a littile over 100 years. We don’t have much evidence to go on before that, but we do know there have been hotter years and decades along with the iceage that would have been more drastic than anything we have observed over the years. So I would say,YOU, Get a clue, our govenment is crying foul on this, the natural processes of out living earth.

        1. Our government isn’t pushing this idea, you act like they want it to happen. The overwhelming majority of the world wide scientific community has agreed it’s real. Our government listening the the science community and making an effort to slow it makes sense, most repub’s were on board until obama was elected then it became a partisan issue, like every other issue. There’s lots of other ways to determine past climate events but they involve science which you guys laugh at now. All that stuff you mentioned happened but not in just over a hundred years, that’s not the natural process.

  696. I don’t understand how the anti-science denialist movement can argue that there’s been a “pause” in global warming. Every year since 1971 has been above average, dragging the overall average ever upwards.

    1. friggin idiot. read the quotes above from the “anti-science” scientists.

      that is pretty much your only argument, level charges of ‘anti-science’, ‘flat-earther’, etc …

        1. His veto pen will be the only thing keeping the country sane, and he’ll be using it a lot, sorry you didn’t get an education like that “Joke”.

    1. Actually, the article was occasioned by announcements of scientific data from NASA and NOAA, not political rhetoric. Are you sure you know what you’re taking about?

      1. And NASA has the final say cause they are the government? You do know the one who started this in NASA now has reservations, eh? You prob believe everything the gov tells you, eh? Even BLS dot GOV.

        Yeah I am sure about how the government is politicized. I worked with them for over 33 years. Now what are your bloody credentials?

  699. dumbocrat party radicals are using gov’t agencies to peddle their propaganda / bs

    i’m sic of it, their single variable co2 theory is moore-onic, they’re all about disinformation

    they prey on the terminally stupid and those who don’t yet know better (school children)

    1. Care to share how your CO₂ knowledge trumps nearly 200 years of settled atmospheric physics theory that is not in dispute even by well-versed skeptical climate scientists who have a universal acceptance for AGW as a result of GHGs.

        1. Obviously I don’t come for the science but rather to sometimes abuse morons because they know the evidence and yet deliberately lie to the undereducated and/or gullible and themselves to keep perpetuating a state of obnoxious ignorance in their wing nut denier echo chamber.

            1. You both come here to troll for your left wing masters to help them advance their Climate Fraud agenda., And anyone who doesn’t buy in to you your BS you call a Moron. Typical Alinski tactics. It’s not working.

  701. What a load of BS! This is even funnier than Obama taking people who stopped looking for work out of the unemployment numbers so he can claim unemployment is down.

  702. Would someone please expose how much government grant ($) these global warming pseudo climatologist get. My Daddy taught me long ago to “FOLLOW THE MONEY” and you will know from where they cometh.. The current pretty-boy president will open the purse to buy what he and his cronies desire!!

    1. Anyone who suggests climate scientists have been massively corrupted by federal funding and peer pressure does not consider the countervailing power of opposing financial interests that might lure scientists to question the scientific consensus such as the lucrative funding made available in the right-wing think-tank world and fossil fuel corporations. If it were only money why haven’t the scientists defected in droves? Because you discount the possibility that scientists would find the lure of eventually being proven correct to be a powerful reputational incentive, let alone that they would actually care enough about being right to disregard social and financial pressure. If you had any specific sense of how these social pressures survived the rigors of the scientific method and peer review, you don’t explicate them.

      1. Exactly. There is tons of money available to fund climate research from oil and coal interests. Where is that research? If the fact that AGW theory is so egregiously in error is covered up by grants from the climate mafia, why can’t it be debunked by scientists funded outside the climate mafia?

        The whole grant grubbing argument falls apart when you raise the points you raised.

  703. Man, the Progressive Humaphobes just can’t let the man made “Global Warming ” Bull sh&t go. They are like a broken record. No matter what the weather, it’s global warming/climate change. They keep telling us the oceans are rising, they aren’t, they keep telling us the polar ice is melting, it isn’t. They can’t prove a damn thing they claim, but they glom on to every “consensus” scientist who claims what they claim as if it is fact without once ever questioning how much money the so called scientists are getting to study and come up with these ridiculous claims. Science isn’t consensus leftist morons, it’s the search for truth, but you clowns ignore the truth when it doesn’t fit your idiotic preconceived notions. We all know you hate the fact you were born, but don’t include all of us in your hatred for humanity. If you feel you are doing such harm to the planet, take yourself out and leave the rest of us alone. Good God, you Progressives are pathetic!

    1. Science isn’t consensus leftist morons

      written by an obnoxious ignoramus who is clearly neither a scientist nor scientifically literate with much disdain and ineptitude for science probably as a result of not being capable to be a part of one of the world’s smallest minorities … those educated, knowledgeable and experienced people who are the brightest, most talented and smartest of humanity with the heft for careers in the most difficult of professions, science.

      Most of your comment is vacuous puerility. First, science is apolitical and secular. Second, in science, theories are never hunches or guesses but exist due to consensus within the scientific community. Third, a theory is an explanation and the validity of a theory rests upon its ability to explain phenomena. Theories may be supported, rejected, or modified, based on new evidence. Gravitational theory, for example, attempts to explain the nature of gravity. Cell theory explains the workings of cells. Evolutionary theory explains the history of life on Earth. AGW theory explains the recent and current unprecedented global warming (energy increase). There is no higher level of knowledge that scientific theory and theories often remain to be tested and modified for decades or centuries.

      I dare you to forgo the comforts of your quilting circle and publish your diatribe in science publications where it will get the treatment and contempt it rightly deserves.

      1. So am I supposed to be impressed? I have an masters in engineering from a top five university (THWG!!) and I’ve got to call BS on your pompous a$$… You lost me at apolitical–everything is political.

        1. I have an sic masters sic in engineering

          if syntax and grammar are an indication of your alleged education … then your advance degree is obviously the product of a pretend engineer using the anonymity of the internet to fabricate tertiary education credentials.

  705. The only thing that was “the hottest ever” was the bloviating from the global warming alarmists…… (and you thought Chicken Little was only a fairy tale…..)

  706. Just give up your birthrights. You must to save the earth… Total BS. Don’t give up your birthrights America, The globalists social engineers are not going to tolerate you. The tea party are the righteous. Stick with the plan of removing the progressives and RINOs for just a taste of freedom. Don’t be afraid. It is now.

  707. Global warming covertly describes the effects of iron poisoning. Rising CO2 levels is found in iron poisoned blood; the body’s defense mechanism to buffer the oxygen caused by iron. Iron attracts oxygen, causing free radicals, expediting the aging & death process.

    The iron poisoned blood types are A, B & O. (AB does not have iron poisoning.) The extermination plan, NOT natural extinction, is causing disease & deaths.

    So, when they provide proof of global warming: CO2 levels in blood, the timeline of blood types & changing blood type prevalence; you know this is false evidence to bring in the greatest fraud in history.

    http://www.unveilingthem.com/

    cab

    1. Seek professional help. Delusions of persecution can be treated. Just don’t ask rational people to take your delusions seriously. They’re all in your head.

    2. Please share with us where you source your silliness as it is self-evident that you’re neither a scientist nor scientifically literate or you would have cited the relevant science to support your vacuity.

        1. You’re way to dumb and uneducated to recognize any scam. If you weren’t you’d be able to formulate cojent arguments grounded in science rather than pithy screeds of vacuity.

  709. It’s time to wake up, people. High flying jets are spraying (and have been spraying for 15+ years) chemical aerosol desiccants ‘chemtrails’ into the skies over the ocean and the West Coast and around the U.S. ahead of approaching low pressure weather systems (storms) in the Pacific. These chemical aerosols spread out and create a capping temperature inversion layer which prevents convention in a low pressure system – which prevents precipitation / rainfall. The aerosol chemicals lower the humidity and Dew point drying out the atmosphere in a targeted area. Our weather instruments have confirmed this over and over and over again. What we have found after studying the specific timing of these jets’ spraying activities is they coincide EXACTLY with approaching storms. The spraying commences a couple of days ahead of the expected weather. In addition megawatt ionospheiric heating transmitters and ionization are able to create high pressure on-demand over any area in the U.S. to steer the jet stream and steer low pressure storm systems. Our barometers confirm the raising of barometric pressure artificially prior to large storms approaching as well as Baja hurricanes the past three seasons. High barometric pressure is created to deflect these large weather systems and chemical aerosols are dispensed to dry out the atmosphere (A two pronged approach). YouTube: Bernard Eastlund; he developed and patented the original HAARP technology which was later bought by Raytheon and is in use worldwide today in many countries. The bottom line is this: the California and West Coast ‘drought’ is a deliberate man-made disaster – by necessity, through apparent weather warfare with nations such as China, Russia and other countries. This may be a covert currency war in disguise, more or less. Also, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME Group) and other Wall St. gambling outfits are in the business of selling weather derivatives / options and coastal cities and cities all over the country may buy these derivatives – that is, weather options that pay off if the weather is sunny ‘X’ amount of days per month in a given region, or if it’s rainy ‘Y’ amount of days per month in a given region. Yes, its gotten this crazy. Take a look at the attached photo of today’s NOAA watervapor satellite shot of the West Coast and East Pacific, notice the large weather system moving toward the West coast poised to deliver rain; also note the dry (black & brown) areas in this photo which are the HAARP downbursts engineered to steer and deflect this system. Today in Los Angeles the skies were full of these long white chemtrail streaks – as predicted since plenty of weather is offshore. See http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/west/nepac/flash-wv.html for the full water vapor loops daily. You’ll see a direct correlation between approaching weather systems on the website link and chemtrail activity in your area.

    1. If there was any credence to the global warming deception the intentional weather manipulation for decades by the government would be the No. 1 suspect.

      1. Thanks to the hackers who hacked the University of East Anglia UK three years back we now know that scientists there were tasked with validating climate

        1. Something is seriously wrong with your comment. Copenhagen climate summit was over five years ago, the Chinese did not walk out. We now know thanks to Snowden in 2014 they and the US were spying on all the other delegations. Interesting that you find an email server hack three years ago was used as an excuse (as you allege) for an incident that happened two years before the hack. I’m sure you can see that your gibberish is just garbage so why anyone take note of the nonsense you spew?

          1. Right, December 2009. Pardon the inconsequential error. I should have double checked the date. But a wrong date does NOT invalidate these other facts. The Chinese did walk out of the climate summit – as did other countries. See link: http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-breaking-news-india-china-walk-out-of-climate-summit-report-1324981. The UEA hack is not ‘alleged’, you fool, it is a fact. The contents of the 2+GB of data is also a matter of public record. Get YOUR facts straight before you spew your hogwash.

  710. How do I get the Pope to pray for all that warm to come to upstate NY.
    One good thing is the lakes are frozen so no lake effect snow.
    All this talk about making it colder but the colder it gets the more greenhouse gas is made.
    I would not have to heat my house if it was warm and my car would use less gas does nobody understand that?

  711. …and yet, our NOAA friends have this as their lead story when you click on the website…almost as if they were promoting the Obama agenda, facts be damned. But no…they would NEVER do that.

    Or would they…?

  713. The mere fact that Obama, John Kerry and Al Gore are big proponents of the anthropogenic global warming theory is in and of itself near 100% certain proof and compelling scientific evidence the theory is a total crock.

  714. You deniers need to stop all your bellyaching and pay your carbon taxes to Al Gore and surrender your freedom to Agenda 21. Just because he and his crowd live like kings with private jets and carbon footprints the size of small countries does not mean you should not live like a miserable carbon serf.

  715. 97% of climate scientists agree on the reality of man-made climate change! When are you conservative simpletons going to get this through your thick, ignorant skulls???? Morons!

    1. Hey Rev, Where did this 97 percent figure come from? When you explore the lineage of this cliché, it appears about as convincing as a North Korean election.

        1. I don’t believe that in the US there is one current research climate scientist who does not subscribe to the theory of AGW so it would be almost unanimous. I’d be interested if you could list one with their most recent article in peer-reviewed science.

          1. Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

            These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

            David Bellamy, botanist.[14][15][16][17]

            Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[18][19][20][21]

            Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [22][23]

            Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University[24][25]

            Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[26][27][28][29]

            Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[30][31][32][33][34][35]

            Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[36][37]

            Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[38][39]

            Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science[40][41][42][43]

            Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[44][45]

            Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[46][47]

            Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [48][49]

            Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee[50][51]

            Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[52][53]

            Zbigniew Jaworowski, physician and ice core researcher.[54][55][56][57][58]

            These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

            Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[60][61]

            Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[62][63][64]

            Timothy Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg[65][66]

            Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[67][68]

            Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[69][70]

            Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[71][72]

            David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[73][74]

            Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[75][76]

            William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[77][78]

            William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[79][80]

            Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[81][82]

            Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[83][84]

            William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[85][86]

            David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[87][88]

            Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[89][90]

            Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[91][92]

            Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[93][94][95]

            Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[96][97]

            Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[98][99]

            Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University[100][101]

            Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[102][103][104]

            Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[105][106]

            Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[107][108]

            Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[109][110][111][112]

            Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[113][114]

            Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[115][116]

            Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[117][118]

            George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[119][120]

            Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[121][122]

            Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

            These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

            Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[123][124]

            Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[125][126]

            Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[127][128]

            John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[129][130][131]

            Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[132][133]

            David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[134][135]

            Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a Nobel laureate.[136][137]

            Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[138][139]

            Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[140][141]

            Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[142][143]

            Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

            These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

            Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [144][145]

            Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[146][147]

            Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[148][149]

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

            1. Nice list, impressive cut+paste without the references! All of the current climate scientists on your list support AGW theory. So you may want to try again and not segue off-topic and obfuscate about the IPCC when the topic is the theory of AGW.

                1. Not one has published a rebuttal of AGW so you seem stuck in a convoluted argument … you conveniently duck the obvious … which one of the US climate scientists in your list do not support the AGW theory? Can’t make it clearer than that … I know the answer … but you seem to be ignorant or purposely silent by choice perhaps!

  717. First it was Global Warming, then it was Climate Change and now they’re trying Global Climate Disruption. They want us to believe that Global Climate Disruption is something new. In 1274 and again in 1281 two Mongol fleets under Kublai Khan attacked Japan. Japan was saved by typhoons which were described as “divine wind” or “kamikaze”. I guess they had Climate Disruption way back then too. Who knew? Someone should tell the climate alarmists.

    1. I dare you to forgo the comforts of your quilting circle and publish your diatribe in science publications where it will get the treatment and contempt it rightly deserves.

  718. Is Al still flying around the world in private jets and owns multiple mansions.
    Isn’t this the same guy who took a 747 with a a few staffers to Kyoto for a signing ceremony and headed back the same day? Ya he’s real concerned about CO2.

  719. Any one out there remember the East Anglican Climate Gate mess over hacked e-mails proving the “climate scientists had been cooking the books and faking reading to continue the lie to bilk Billions $$ out of trusting Obama’s sheepeople , you know the ones Dr. Gruber said are too stupid to know what is good for them so just lie to them, yea that was Obama care but it applies to the same gullible half wits .

    2. You mean the same scientific peers that review their own hockey sticks that guys like LeftwithNoBrain like to tout as being the ultimate in scientific propaganda?

      1. Well thank you for sharing so succinctly that you’re obnoxiously ignorant and definitely neither a scientist nor scientifically literate. Good job!

  721. Climate change is a big lie! Only God is controlling the weather! He did not allow man to complete the Tower of Babel we are taught in His word the Bible and He is not going to allow us to destroy the Earth! Some day our Earth will be destroyed by God! It will be done by Him in His timing and nothing we do or don,t do is going to change that. Those of us who know Him have a much better home waiting for us.

    1. Yahweh didn’t like the tower of babel because yahweh lived in the sky and didn’t want people climbing up into heaven. Yahweh is a silly petty jealous barbaric god just like the ancient humans that made him up.

      Oh yeah trash the earth because jesus will be back any day now…..any day now…..

    2. Zeus and Ganesh have nothing to do with the weather. You’re an adult now, it’s time to grow out of believing in fairy tales. Why don’t you grow a pair and go and fight ISIS … you’ll soon find out if there is a better home waiting for you … at least the ISIS guys may get 72 virgins according to their fairy tale … what does yours give you … dentures for eternity?

  722. How exciting. A scientific report comes out and so do all the crazies’ opinions too. Instinct tells me there’s something in those reports that’s got the global warming/climate changers (gwcc) scared, really scared that the rest of the world is finally catching on to their enormous fib and not buying it. If I had the time to be a scientist, I’d be one, but I gotta eat and pay for my neighbors’ healthcare, so back to work I go.

    1. Sorry dufus no amount of money would make you a scientist. If you grew up in the US you had some of the world’s best education facilities and opportunities for free. So it definitely wasn’t money that prevented you from having a better paying career that you now occupy. I suspect from your comment that it is your disdain and ineptitude for science.

      1. That was too easy Leftwingrightbrain. hee hee. Couldn’t help yourself could you. Thanks for replying and removing all doubt. It’s really hard to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

      2. “free”? Maybe your parents (both petri dishes) didn’t pay taxes, but mine sure did and education wasn’t free. Anyhow, thanks for taking the bait and removing all doubt about which way you swing. Hard to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

  723. Solar CME can be seen…Coronal Mass Ejections through coronal openings
    spewing photons affecting all the planets, including Earth. Now, the
    Earth has a weakening magnetic field. Of course things may change. Don’t
    tell me a politician is going to solve this problem by taxing us more !!!

  724. Dannion Brinkley had three near death experiences where he foresaw the future in 1975. One of the 110 things he predicted… “A Climate Change Religion”. Was he ever right!!!

    1. Alex Malarkey (The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven) says Dannion Brinkley is still only ranked at #525 in the Encyclopedia of American Loons and that he is primarily popular with buffoons who have a tenuous grasp of reality and consequently is rather harmless but makes a comfortable living off the gullible. He forecasted in 1994/5 that there would be nuclear accident in Norway and a pre-2000 economic collapse in the United States – both never occurred …. ouch!!!!!

  727. If we approached climate change like we do medicine…. Does the earth have a fever? A change in hundredths of a degree? No, if the earth had a “bad diet” but it’s weight was stable, but for a hundredth of a kilo, or its cholesterol went up a hundredth of a point, would we change its diet drastically, at great cost add medication, such that it caused financial hardship (for those low income patients)? What if it’s blood pressure went from 138/85 to 138.05/85.1….would we greatly curtail sodium intake and demand it take medication because we must act now before it is too late, again at substantial financial injury? Who would do that rather than switch physicians? This is not a perfect analogy, but if the planet is an organism, it is pretty close… We need more sanity on this issue…
    We don’t really know how these changes will play out nor do we know what the best use of resources is to tackle the problem… Don’t just spend the poor into deeper poverty and starvation with increased energy cost because we have to do something

    1. When seen in context, the changes in the global temperature are highly significant, mainly because of the global scale of even slight temperature changes: the implications of even 2 degrees of warming are enormous.

  728. soooo, the govt employees/scientists are looking for MORE TAXPAYER MONEY to put in their pockets …………. how original for the …………… OBAMA CULTURE OF CORRUPTION government employees

    1. The Pentagon, NASA, every scientific governing body and institute on Earth, the leaders of the World Bank and Munich Re, the world’s largest insurer . . . It’s rather a long list, Noah, much longer than you or I would care to read.

      1. Except, of course, they know the truth… the truth of where their funding comes from and the truth of how to get more funding.
        The pentagon isn’t a scientific organization per se and their opinions are based on what they’re told to base them on.
        Leaders of financial institutions know where there is a profit to be made and will go wherever that happens to be.
        The list, Will, is of corruption and greed and yes, it is way longer than anyone wants to read. Presuming you could even obtain such a list.

        1. You asked a question and I answered it. Let me ask you one. If money is driving climate science research, why haven’t oil companies and coal interests funded research that shows the facts? I mean, the truth is obvious, right?

          They have a lot at stake and little conflict of interest, the way banks and hedge funds do. Oil companies are not going to even exist if global warming is real and the world acts. There’s little uncertainty about that.

          So if the entire scientific establishment is corrupted by grant money, as you claim, why haven’t oil and coal interests funded independent scientific research to show the truth?

          1. They have, and they have.
            You may not have taken notice but there is both “proof” that GW is not even happening and a great deal of evidence that the “science” behind the supporters is both corrupt and invalid. Fudging of data, etc.
            So there is plenty of ‘independent research’ out there. You just are unaware of it.

            1. OK. Name and date this research. Who found what? When?

              And please limit your evidence to peer reviewed scientific research.

              You’re right: I follow this topic. I should be aware of it. Help me out here.

                1. In other words, you haven’t got shit, as they say. Want to know why that is? Because very little, maybe 2-3%, of the peer reviewed research calls AGW into question.

                  My research assistant would know that. Actually she DOES know that.

                  Come on, Noah, you’re here on the most important climate denial website and you don’t want to help the holy cause of global warming denial? None of your cohorts appear to have their wits about them enough to do that.

                  All they do is spout brainless cliches, which you are sort of doing. Come one, show me I’m wrong.

                  1. So my dear Watson, you have no will of your own. Rather you just regurgitate the indigestible pseudo-science poop you are fed and then challenge the unformed to clean up after you.
                    Apparently your research ass…istant (if you had a research ass’t) does exactly the research you ask of her to get her paycheck. Exactly like the other supporters of your nonsense non-theory.
                    And what research do you do? Clearly nothing scientific. hyou won’t even do the research on what you claim to know. You ask strangers to do it. Okay.
                    Miller & Higgins, 2011; Drexel, White & Ryan, 2007; Lillian, 2009; Parker & Lindholst, 2012; Barret, Parker and Freund, 2013. Enough?

                    1. Nobody ever said there was NO research that rebuts some portion of AGW theory. And no, that’s not enough.

                      Probably 2-3% of peer reviewed science voices some skepticism; so what?

                    3. You think that’s funny? You children are not immune to the laws of physics either. Still think it’s funny?

                      I can’t find any of these studies except one and it was in German.

                      Google, Google Scholar and my University’s library: Academic Search Elite and Academic Search Premier, nothing.

                    4. I find YOU disturbingly amusing.
                      Yes. It is funny. It describes you to a “t.” Living in a science fiction world of self-delusion.

                      Get your research a55istant to do the research since you aren’t seem capable.

                      Manmade global warming is a wholly crafted lie.
                      You have fallen for it.
                      here, in the Northern hemisphere it will resume its inexorable advance in the Spring and continue through October when a cooling trend (as predicted by the theory) will set in. BTW- happens every year.

                    5. Those 5 obscure studies are the exception that proves the rule. Give me the titles, a full bibliographic entry, or a link. I won’t say ‘please’ because you are so rude.

                      The one study I found appears to be about the ecology of oyster beds, but it’s in German. Why don’t you tell me what the abstract says, since you find it so convincing.

                      Generally, any kind of scientific research that appears to contradict the consensus is trumpeted far and wide by denialist sites like Climate Depot and CO2 science. It’ll show up on NewsMax, Washington Times, Heartland Institute, CEI, and Heritage. It’ll be referred to in WSJ editorials. None of these articles has showed up that way.

                    7. Those articles are obscure if I can’t find them, your harebrained name calling aside.

                    8. It’s actually pretty good name calling and the articles about the corrupt practices and flawed theories of the leading MMGW scientists, on whose research everyone else’s is based, aren’t in the scientific journals but have gained major space in the news. Picking and choosing data, throwing out contradictory data, even making up what nature won’t provide. The only obscure thing about them are the IQ points of the ‘true believers.’
                      Only an idiot would accept all the balderdash these fakes put out.
                      And here I am corresponding with one.

                    9. If the AGW fraud is so widespread and egregious, and the science so shoddy, it should be easy for other scientists to overturn, especially when you consider two things:

                      First, the people who find the basic flaws in AGW theory and science will win the Nobel Prize and a certain amount of undying fame.Two, AGW threatens the existence of oil, coal and gas producing corporations, who have enormous capital to invest in scientific research, PR and advertising.

                      But these things are not happening. Every day the consensus grows more sound and well accepted. Why is that? It makes no sense, given your assumptions. Also, “idiot” is not particularly adroit name calling. “Harebrained” IS “pretty good” as you so eloquently put it.

                    10. How about “Bugs Bunny Brained” excepting that Bugs was actually quite the smart and clever fellow. As longfas we are talking MMGW Bugs’ opinion is as relevant as any.
                      So I suppose your response to “what’s up doc?” would be “Global Temperatures!!”
                      Bugs’ response to you would be, “what a maroon.”

                    11. You wanted to find an article that debunks your MMGW theory. How about the one you are supposedly commenting on here? I guess you don’t read the actual articles, given their length and confusing facts so you focus on the terse and easier to equally misunderstand (as you demonstrate) comments.

  730. it is a real shame that we have also allowed the politicians to ruin the reputation of scientists, because we could really use some science that we could trust this is very important if we would like to have a future Perhaps they could go back to peer review…that is the findings must be repeatable by other than secret computer models?

  731. It’s telling that those who are not jumping onto the global warming meme are called non-scientists by the experts who challenge their views. The mere fact that they have to attempt to demean legitimate and respected scientists may indicate a lack of confidence in their own opinions.
    The audacity of us poor humans, to think that we can massively destroy this earth which has endured events so horrific and widespread that no living thing could survive. Sure, work to make our air healthier, but stop tipping over into fantasy.

  732. Lobbyist Dennis Heller’s recent letter cites deaths from extreme weather and proposes carbon fees. The UN also proposes to “tax the West.”

    Both fail to take into account the profound influence of the Sun.

    Astronomy demonstrates that the outer planets are also heating up:

    National Geographic – “Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming”: “[T]he Mars data is evidence the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.”

    MIT – “Pluto is undergoing global warming”: “ . . . Pluto is moving further away from the Sun and continuing to warm . . . something doesn’t fit into ‘Solar Constant theories.”

    Space.com – “Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change”: “ . . . Jupiter is in a global change modify(ing) temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of [it].”

    MIT – “Researcher finds evidence of global warming on Neptune’s largest moon”: “ . . . Since 1989, Triton [is] warming . . . The 5-percent increase on the temperature scale . . . [is like] the Earth experiencing a jump of 22 degrees . . . ”

    Dr. Alexey Dmitriev, “Planetophysical State of the Earth”: “We must begin to understand that climatic changes on Earth are only one part . . . in a whole chain of events taking place in our Heliosphere.”

    Let’s figure out the science first, before we tinker with our atmosphere and our wallets!

    By LEE COVINO
    NEW BRIGHTON

    Al Gore and his types are using these changes to scare our kids and stupid liberal adults into giving them authority and create new taxes.

  733. The Gift that keeps on giving. How many fast release NEWS stories get filed without any rebuttal questions by liberal MSM questioning this stuff.
    But then again, currently the liberals have a greater ownership share of MSM outlets to spew this crud out.
    Its like the story of FOX New not being picked up by Cable Outlets. HUH? The NUMBER ONE News outlet Fox with millions and millions more viewers than all their competitors combined not being carried by Cable companies. You know, if Fox news was in the ditch with lousy ratings I could understand Cable Companies not picking it up. But the Number 1 Fox program being stiffed. That to me says, there is a war by Democrats to slow down counter information programming to consumers. Like the IRS was to slow down funding to conservatism.
    best that can be done with Climate Change is ride out the Obama storm, and once a new Administration comes in. Fire the lot of NASA and these boneheads scooping Grant Money for biased report submissions. NASA and these supporters are supporting an agenda and it isn’t Climate Science.

  736. Stop these attacks on wallet and freedoms:

    “The Establishment Academics are becoming just fascist Marxists hell-bent on manipulating society for personal gain and power.”

    “Global Warming is another hidden agenda. The politicians are eager to climb on board not to save the world, but to raise taxes. The academics are driven by the money so they can sit in their rooms collect welfare checks for totally worthless nonsense.”

    Google:

    Global Warming Fascist Movement & Academic Welfare | Armstrong …

    http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/ 2014/ 05/ 18/ global-warming-fascist-movement-academic-welfare/

    May 18, 2014

    ” Money pours into academia to create bogus studies to support the theory of Global Warming for taxing power as well as other agendas. So, Establishment Academics line up like those in the inner city on welfare check day to get their welfare checks to put out studies on all sorts of things with a predetermined conclusion.”

    –

    The Bullying of Bengtsson and the Coming Climate Disruption …

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/ 2014/ 05/ the-bullying-of-bengtsson-and-the-coming-climate-disruption-hypocalyp se/

    May 16th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

    “Lennart Bengtsson being bullied by colleagues is only the latest example of bad behavior by climate scientists who have made a deal with the devil. They have exchanged their scientific souls for research grants, prestige, and easy access to scientific journals to publish their papers.”

  737. Clueless greenies

    Google:

    United Nations | Who Owns the Environmentalist Movement?
    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/un/environment.htm

    Who pulls the strings of environmental groups? The establishment figures who fund and control it …

    –

    Climate change PROVED to be ‘nothing but a lie’, claims top meteorologist

    THE debate about climate change is finished – because it has been categorically proved NOT to exist, one of the world’s leading meteorologists has claimed.

    By: Jason Taylor
    Published: October 23, 2014

    “I have studied climate change seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid.”

    John Coleman, co-founder of the Weather Channel

    1. John Coleman is a broadcast journalist not a scientist. He doesn’t even have a BA in a science discipline, and has never done any actual scientific research.

      And where’s the grant money from other sources–not government, not UN, not liberal billionaire donors like Soros and Steyer–that reveals the truth?

      Opinion pieces by James Taylor and John Coleman ain’t it bro’, that ain’t it.

      1. With now all the mountains of evidence and exposed (and admitted) fraud, warmists are the real deniers and the new useful idiots.

        More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
        Challenge UN IPCC :Panel
        By Global Research News
        Global Research, September 21, 2014

        http://www.globalresearch.ca/m…

        1. If the fraud is this obvious, then those dissenting scientists should have no trouble doing the research that shows the world the facts, the ones obscured by the fraud.

          Why hasn’t this happened? There no shortage of privately provided research money–from oil, coal interests and right wing billionaires–to fund this research.

          Where is it? You guys think that the fraud is gigantic, that the facts are obvious. So why hasn’t some scientist won a Nobel Prize showing the facts?

  739. With now all the mountains of evidence and exposed (and admitted) fraud, warmists are the real deniers and the new useful idiots.

    Australian Scientists Caught Rigging Climate Number to Fake Global Warming
    Posted on September 30, 2014 by Martin Armstrong

  740. I wish you rightwing aholes would’ve cared as much about this topic as our loss of freedoms under Bush and Obama. When Bush was putting homeland security and the NSA on us you rightwing idiots kept repeating “america, 9/11, freedom” as our freedoms diminished. Thanks alot.

    1. I have noticed no reduction in freedom other than needing to take my shoes off and get scanned at the airport. I fixed that by getting a global entry card. What on earth are you talking about?

  742. They’re also comparing 2014 temperatures with the average for 1951 to 1980, conveniently avoiding a comparison that includes 1980 – to the present, and especially from 1996 – after which zero warming has occurred – to the present.

    1. Every decade since 1980 has been warmer than the one before it. Every year in the top ten warmest but one has come since 2000. And 2014 is the single warmest year.

      That’s what global warming looks like, Stu. the trend is up.

        1. That’s because, as I said, the decade 1980-89 was warmer than any decade before it on the global record.

          What do you think those earlier decades reveal? That it was much warmer 1880-1980 than it has been since?

    1. Then why haven’t other sources of research grants–say oil and coal companies and billionaire conservative activists–funded science that shows global warming is a fraud?

      1. The government won’t finance those with contrarian views [Yes, scientists do have views going in.], and they won’t continue to finance those with the “wrong” conclusions. Only government can force 216,000,000 people to pay for research, even when dubious.

        1. The NASA and NOAA data sets that show global climate trends are public information exactly BECAUSE they are publicly funded ; they are thus accessible to the public, by law. All scientists work with them.

          Oil and coal companies are spending billions of dollars a year on advertising and lobbying already. If they spent anywhere near that much on a couple of real scientific institutes they should be able to reveal the facts about global warming, facts that you say should be so easy to ascertain.

          But they don’t. Why? Don’t they see that their vital interests are at stake? What was the total budget of NASA last year? $9 billion? Exxon makes $40 billion in profits every year. BP and Koch Oil probably about as much. Where are the climate science grants?

  744. Do any of these people know that that if we take all of the people off the planet tomorrow that the Earth will eventually be burnt to a crisp by the Sun anyway? You would think they don’t.

    1. Yeah, but there are 7 billion people now and the changes that global warming is bringing will entail massive, hideous human suffering and early death. And it’s preventable, on a human time scale. Are you OK with that, Bruce?

      2. Since the sun is heating the planet, and since the sun will grow each day and eventually turn the Earth into a cinder….how do you plan to prevent global warming?

  745. Preach to me when you get China and India to reduce their amount of emissions by even 25% of what the U.S. had done… at great sacrifice to our economy

    1. If the US leads, the world follows. And the great damage done to our economy you cite was done by Reagan-style economic policies, not climate change mitigation.

  746. It would be interesting to note how many previous weather reporting stations have been deleted or omitted to show the ‘proof’ of this ‘record’ hot year.

  747. The global-warming phenomenon has in fact proved a scientific point; but it is a socio-economic one, not a meteorological one. Question: Will climate scientists modify temperature data and hide trend data (“hide the decline”) in order to support pre-conceived conclusions, provided sufficient peer-pressure, groupthink, and monetary reward?
    Conclusion: Yes, they will.

  748. Stop lying NASA. Just stop trying to foist this fiction on us. You can’t do space anymore, stop trying to do us.
    If you can’t say anything without lying, then just stop saying anything. Pathetic bureauhumps..

  749. You mean we’re supposed to believe the same people who told us the ice caps and glaciers should have disappeared by now… of oceans rising and countless other disasters; yet we’re still here.

    I’m amazed how the global warming believers can get lied to over and over again and still believe.

    Lies, lies and more lies. NASA is run by bureaucrats who are run by politicians who are run by the oligarchs. Same for all those other government organizations warning us of global warming.

    The rich get richer while the rest of us get screwed.

  751. The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Who knew Chicken Little was a cautionary tale about environmental wackos?

    My favorite takeaway quote from this article:

    “Top
    Swedish Climate Scientist Says Warming Not Noticeable: ‘The warming we
    have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have
    climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all’”

    1. This is ludicrous and dangerous. The difference between an interglacial and an ice age is 5 degrees C. Seemingly insignificant variations in temperature and atmospheric composition have serious impacts on climate, weather events, sea level, precipitation cycles, wild fires, agriculture, etc.

      Scientists estimate that the last time there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere as now, in the Pliocene, there was no ice at the poles and sea level was like 80-100 feet higher.

      Variations of a few tenths of a degree are “noticeable” to glaciers, ice caps and atmospheric phenomena.

      1. “Scientists estimate that the last time there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere as now, in the Pliocene, there was no ice at the poles and sea level was like 80-100 feet higher.”

        If their estimate (educated guess) were correct then we should have the same conditions right now. We don’t, which shows how flawed their estimates and modeling are.

        Al Gore, wrong again – Polar ice continues to thrive

        Guest Blogger / 4 days ago January 13, 2015

        Guest essay by Rolf E. Westgard

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/13/al-gore-wrong-again-polar-ice-continues-to-thrive/

        1. No, you misunderstand the inertia of climatic systems. We’re really in uncharted territory in terms of rates of CO2 accumulation. There’s no time in the geological record when CO2 concentrations have risen this fast.

          And there’s little controversy about the Pliocene. And Al Gore never predicted that polar icce would vanish by 2015; he merely referenced a Navy study that said this was a possibility, in the Nobel Acceptance Speech, I think.

          Do you know what constitutes “intact” sea ice? Come on, you have to know this, since you know so many other things about this topic. What is the definition of “intact” sea ice?

  752. I live in the south and it didn’t even get hot here last summer, WTH you people talking about. If what you say doesn’t coincide with whats actually happening, you look stupid.

    1. In fairness, you cannot really base the argument on a region being hotter or colder than normal. It has to be viewed in a global context and in that context, average temps have not changed in 18 year. What they do is anyones guess. They could trend down for 100 years and we could all be complaining about the cold. Anyone that says they know what the earths climate is going to be in 50 years is a liarObama.

      1. The data show that 2005, 2010 and 2014 were warmer than 1998. They also show that every decade since 1980 was warmer than the one before it.

        The warming appears slight when it’s described strictly in terms of fractions of a degree, but seen in the context of past temperature variations it’s not slight at all. Those fractions then become highly significant.

        That’s the problem I have with this article: it lies by omission.

        1. In geological terms it is meaningless to consider 30 year trends in warming meaningful. There are many cycles long term and short superimposed on one another. Good luck predicting anything. We are not advanced enough to have a prayer at predicting anything regarding climate.

          1. But it’s not just 30 year trends. Ice cores show similar trends going back some 650,000 years, always keyed to natural increases/decreases in atmospheric CO2.

            Today’s warming trend is extraordinary and it’s occurring in the context of CO2 levels that are much, much higher than they have been in a long time, over a millions years.

            Climate is more and more predictable. We have a very good idea of the mechanics of past warming and cooling cycles, regardless of what you read here on Marc Morono’s idiot denialist blog.

            1. That is precisely my point. There is no way currently to differentiate between global warming caused by human activity and that which is driven by natural cycles. If you ask any scientist how much of the warming is due solely to human activity, they really cannot tell you. They can only guess. The earth has had much higher CO2 levels in the distant past. Where did it come from and why did it reverse? Until we understand the mechanisms driving these events in detail any attempts to reduce CO2 will be like throwing darts.

              1. Actually, the latest IPCC concluded that ALL of the warming since 1950 is a result of human activity.

                As far as past climate cycles go, the source of natural CO2 is well understood. Sure the Earth has had much higher levels of CO2, but it has never had equivalent levels of human population.

                In other words, Cretaceous levels of CO2 would be a catastrophe for human civilization: maybe good for some life forms, but not our species.

                  1. The IPCC’s conclusions about human impact have been a long time coming, over 20 years. The AR5 is the first to say that ALL the warming in anthropogenic. I’ve been watching the IPCC AR’s since the first one. I have a good idea of the process.

                    In other words, science has questioned the extent of the human impact for a long time. The vast bulk of the science has finally concluded that the human impact is substantial.

                    1. The vast bulk of the science gets it’s funding from entities determined to blame all climate change on humans in order to justify a massive carbon tax. Ultimately, it is about control.

                  2. Science doesn’t have certainty as its best explanations for physical phenomena natural and human-induced are done by theory. In science, theories are never hunches or guesses but exist due to consensus within the scientific community. A theory is an explanation. The validity of a theory rests upon its ability to explain phenomena. Theories may be supported, rejected, or modified, based on new evidence. Gravitational theory, for example, attempts to explain the nature of gravity. Cell theory explains the workings of cells. Evolutionary theory explains the history of life on Earth. AGW theory explains the recent and current unprecedented global warming (energy increase).

                    The IPCC statement is the conclusion reached after testing current hypotheses that were not eliminated by the current research prior and up to the statement’s publication. A hypothesis is a testable idea. Scientists do not set out to “prove” hypotheses, but to test them. Often multiple hypotheses are posed to explain phenomena and the goal of research is to eliminate the incorrect ones. Hypotheses come and go by the thousands, but theories often remain to be tested and modified for decades or centuries.

                    1. In order to convince me, I need a climate model that accurately predicts global temperatures. The current model did not predict the last 18 years of stable global temperatures. This simply means they are missing something, probably multiple things, that are having a significant effect on global temperatures. I know their current conclusion is that the oceans are storing the heat. So my question would be why the current model did not take this into consideration and what other variables are they failing to recognize? Until these short comings are corrected I feel the need to remain skeptical.

                    2. You make a lot of bold statements none of which is found in published science. Avoid the denier blogosphere echo chamber and find me the published science which supports any of your vacuity. Your understanding of modelling is truly abysmal and clearly demonstrates that you’re illiterate on topics you pontificate about and consequently spew emotive and vacuous opinions that are meaningless with respect to science.

                    3. What I asked for is very reasonable. If you can not provide it, then you do not have a factual basis on which to support your statements.

                    4. What you asked for was not reasonable … you sound like a child wanting wings to fly … come back to reality and start again. Your superior ignorant attitude comes across as a disdain and ineptitude for science. Can you name me one modelling situation in the scientific realm that fits your infantile request yet we can land Philae from Rosetta onto a comet using the same modelling prowess that you deride. Please slink away in embarrassment. You’re a disgrace to the human race after yoy squandered so much of the educational facilities and opportunities afforded you in our society. afforded.

              2. There is no way currently to differentiate between global warming caused by human activity

                thanks for confirming that you’re neither a scientist nor scientifically literate … there are many articles in published science doing just that as scientists are interested in determining climate sensitivity … how did you miss them? Even IPCC reports have great summaries with all the underlying published science referenced. So your comments are just pure fabrication.

                1. I am quite scientifically literate, enough so that I can question statements passed off as absolute fact. I will repeat, the scientific community can not say with certainty how much warming is due to human activity. They also can not tell us with certainty, what caused the last ice age. What they do have is a model that has been to unable to accurately predict global temperatures 10 years in the future much less 100 years in the future. Until they fix their model, their predictions are like stock analysts trying figure out where the DOW will be in 2050.

                  1. Sorry cupcake the following from your screed of vacuity demonstrates that you do not even grasp science at elementary school levels:

                    accurately predict global temperatures 10 years

                    scientists don’t predict … we make projections and so far observations are proving that the projections may be a tad conservative … means the planet is warming faster

                    what caused the last ice age

                    we do … and we can project the next one … the onset of which is now being pushed further out due to a certain miscible GHG with long residency.The DOW is not a physical phenomena like climate so your attempt at a corollary was about as weak as your science knowledge.

                    1. Well, your projections have not worked out very well have they? Or we would not be having this debate. Maybe you should spend less time debating and more time making a model that works.

                    2. Tell me what climate model hasn’t performed to your satisfaction! Each one has a unique identifier as do the simulation runs which are all in the public domain. So please, oh learned one, pray do tell me where we have erred and if you succeed I’ll join you in publishing a rebuttal. before I can do that, however, you must lay out your thesis for us to review. Should I concur with your wisdom and insights that you find lacking among the world’s most educated, talented and knowledgeable humans I’ll join you in publishing rebuttals to current climate science. I suspect, however, a vast silence will be your answer or some inane puerile vacuity seeped in emotive opinion.

                    4. Guess you don’t understand what you linked to. Again, don’t go to sites that you think tell you something … just verify what model, each one has a unique identifier as do the simulation runs which are all in the public domain. So please, oh learned one, pray do tell me where we have erred and if you succeed I’ll join you in publishing a rebuttal.

                    5. Can you explain to me why climate scientists theorize that oceans are causing the 18 year lull in warming? Because you seem to be in denial. I can only guess that you derive income from AGW hysteria. That’s ok, Chicken Little, we all have to make a living.

                    6. First, there’s no

                      18 year lull in warming

                      can you show me the science (not links to the denier echo chamber blogosphere?)scientists theorize that oceans

                      Second, there’s observations and evidence. Third, return when you understand that science theory is the best knowledge available to humankind.

                    7. Ok, here is graph from NOAA. Look at the side. Notice how the blue line is flat starting around 2000? That is the lull in warming. If that were a stock chart you would not have made a nickel since 2000. There is no denier echo chamber and there are no tinfoil-behatted Teabaggers. There are only those seek who seek the truth and those who endeavor to hide it.

                    8. Where’s the graph? i also notice you silent on what science theory means … why? Did you look it up and realize that you’re buffoon? You’re not scientifically literate how would you know what the evidence shows?

                    10. You neither understand nor read what you linked to. Here’s what it says (up to end 2013) for global surface temperatures (and excludes ocean, etc.) which does not support what you have written:

                      “There are slight differences in global records between groups at NCDC, NASA, and the University of East Anglia. Each group calculates global temperature year by year, using slightly different techniques. However, analyses from all three groups point to the decade between 2000 and 2009 as the hottest since modern records began more than a century ago. Temperatures in the 2010s have been running slightly warmer still.

                    11. How accurate are these satellite measurements? Are they on par with land based instruments? We are talking 1/10s of a degree celcius. Even small deviations can skew the results.

                    12. Satellites are not more accurate than precision temperature instrumentation but cover the planet. However, it is not the accuracy but the trend that matters. Satellites are able to fill the areas where land and balloon data are sparse. Balloon data is used to calibrate the models that compute temperature from the satellite microwave data … two organizations determine the temperatures using the same raw data but different modelling and get different results with similar trends …again trend is important. No …small deviations won’t skew data … the reason why will be revealed should you take the time to get up to speed on how the global temperature anomalies are gridded to reduce to a mean global estimate. My suggestion that you read up yourself is that it will be a great learning experience for you and could clarify some of the issues that are of concern to you. It is interesting that you question the accuracy of satellite data most deniers worship the output from UAH as it shows the smallest trend but most are too ignorant to know that a model computes the end results and we all know how teh denier depends get filled when models are mentioned.

                    13. I was just wondering if the satellite data tends to over-estimate or under-estimate temps. They must adjust it accordingly or it would skew the average deviation.

                    14. Good question. First, they don’t read temperature directly it is inferred from microwave data that is recorded. Second, here are a host of known issues and hence the need for models to correct for them. In essence they probably under read as evidenced by the different results between UAH and RSS which is due to the models employed. UAH for years incorrectly modelled the data due to some algorithm problems and actually produced a cooling trend. Other researchers found the errors and the output is corrected but the lowest of all lines of evidence. The temperature anomaly is done by gridding which in itself will have some problems but it is the best science we have and the important thing is trends, and cause and effect. Also there are no straight lines.

                    15. Interesting. Thank you. Are the satellites measuring the surface temps or the troposhere? And is anyone allowed to study the UAH algorithms?

                    16. Go to RSS or UAH websites they have great summaries as does Wiki. And yes to the last question as errors were found by others.

    1. No, it’s not. Solar cycles have an impact, yes, but always less than orbital variations (see Milankovitch cycles), and the human impact is now greater anyhow.

      Solar forcing is easy to measure; the Max Planck Institute measures it constantly. There’s really nothing extraordinary going on in terms of solar input into the climate system.

    1. You’re insane as evidenced by your lack of education and gullibility. You’re obviously studying an online Tea Party Guide to Thermodynamics course which believes living in ignorance is just much easier than taking an hour or two to learn about basic science.

  757. 2014 was NOT the hottest year ever, nor was it even CLOSE. Whoever is the one “claiming” it was is a LIAR. Oh, was it the habitual LIAR ILLEGALLY occupying OUR White House that “claimed” this LIE?

    1. Bible school records don’t count in the real world Linda. Try studying at an educational facility that is not myth based you may have wiser opinions in the future instead of puerile vacuity.

  758. Earth has been a round for approx. 17 gazillion years……climate records, maybe a couple hundred.
    Just think about how truly mindless you have to be to fall for the climate change hoax. The “global warming” meme started to look silly, so the whackos had to come up with a catch-all phrase that neatly covers any hysteria they want to advance. End of argument. How convenient.
    A) climate changes
    B) climate change is not, and never has been a problem.
    Libs are so stupid….and dangerous.

    1. Geology, paleoclimatology, paleontology, glaciology . . . all extend our knowledge of the Earth’s climate back millions of years.

      In fact, that’s why exactly we know the current warming is unusual: in the prehistoric past, climate changed for reasons we understand, reasons that typically had to do with the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

      We also know from archaeology that radical climatic shifts caused civilizations to fail in the historic past. If you don’t know these things, then you’re the one who has the intelligence deficit, not the “libs”.

        1. Most of the scientists I know–and I know quite a few–are pretty much apolitical. A few are liberal, a few are conservative. None of them have strong political beliefs.

          I was speaking to giant clam there anyhow; he obviously knows very little–right or wrong–about the science.

          1. You don’t need a degree in the sciences (which I happen to have), or know much about climatology to know that the AGW hoax is just a political issue. There have indeed been large and small, rapid and gradual shifts in climate and weather in earth’s history which have nothing to do with the existence of man, or his activities. How do we account for those shifts before man arrived on the scene, or had any of the technologies that you people claim are causing those shifts today? Those who gain from the hoax (Al Gore and people like you), manipulate people (usually the young and idealistic – and leftists who are naturally outraged about everything anyway) for their own personal gain – political and financial.
            I’m sure you would agree that there isn’t a single scientist in the world who would argue that gravity isn’t a real physical force in the universe. That’s settled science. But there are, however, tens of thousands of scientists who disagree that the AGW/climate change meme is “settled science”.

            1. We probably know less about gravity than we know about the effect of CO2 on infrared light.

              As far as previous climate shifts go, I can’t believe that I have to explain this. What is your science degree in? Previous climate shifts were driven by greenhouse gasses from natural sources.

              You can’t understand much about past climates unless you know this. Humankind did not invent greenhouse gasses.

              1. Hey, Willy, you want to close your case? Point us to all the AGW research studies that show an actual causal link between man’s activities and temperature rising. Show us some studies that differentiate between natural greenhouse gas increase vs. man made increase. Then point to the research that proves that increase in C02 is a cause rather than an effect of warming. And finally, show us a study that proves warming temperatures will be an extinction level event for mankind.
                End the end all you’re talking about, even if the planet warms slightly, is modification of the climate to which humans will adapt.
                But in the mean time, send your tithes and offering to the Church of Gore because they know how to solve the problem and spend your money better than you while stomping their huge carbon footprint on your head.

                1. All that stuff has already been done; it’s basic. Hell, Tyndall showed how CO2 affected infrared light over 150 years ago.

                  And in any given climate shift, about 80% of the warming was caused by CO2, not by changes in solar insolation from orbital variations. In other words, changes in the ocean and the biosphere from increased radiation/heat jump start increased CO2 creation, which forces most of the warming. This is so basic, I can’t believe you’re even asking it. At this point, you’d have to show studies that concluded otherwise.

                  The planet is not warming “slightly”; it’s warming at a rate unprecedented in human experience. A study that “proves” AGW will be an extinction level event? That’s setting the bar pretty high; a lot of bad shit can and will happen well short of that. One scientific study doesn’t “prove” anything, anyhow. Plus, proof is a function of mathematics, not science. You have to know that. Or maybe you don’t . . .
                  There’s really no scientific controversy about any of this. There’s only what almost all climate scientists have concluded, and the disgusting lies and distortion on sites like Climate Depot. You guys are committing a crime; there will be a reckoning for it.

                  1. Just like I thought…global warming (or is it climate change “head scratch”) is caused by the hot air coming from the likes of you and Gore, because that’s all you’ve got…that and skewed, manipulated data…ala hockey stick graphs and confessional e-mails,,,oh, and bogus computer modeling guesstimates based on bad (and certainly incomplete) data.

                    This is the kind of income redistribution that comes from this ludicrous crap:
                    “Poor countries have demanded that the developed world give them $100 billion annually by 2020 to prepare for the impacts of global warming, such as heat waves and droughts. Brazil even put forward a proposal last week that would have made rich countries pay for historical greenhouse gas emissions.”

                    It’s slave reparations with twist. You can bet that your buddy Gore and others like him will get a healthy cut of the action.

              2. I agree – but you may have missed that I object to the anthropogenic part of AGW. I stated earlier:
                A) climate changes
                B) climate change is not, and never has been a problem.
                and I’ll add…..
                C) humans have NO impact on these processes
                And it’s this aspect that has the alarmist trying to control, tax, and manipulate people, and profit from the hysteria. It is beyond irresponsible to advance an AGW/CC/Polar Vortex scam the way that Al Gore, the IPCC, and various and sundry politicians do – including that mental midget in the white house.

                1. I object to the anthropogenic part of AGW

                  objections are opinion and if you have the science education you allege to have obtained how about explaining to us scientists who understand AGW theory why it fails from your research or scientific reading as it seems every comment you make is only emotive vacuous opinion devoid of science.

                  1. “There are no US climate scientists currently researching and publishing, including skeptics, who disdain AGW theory …”

                    That statement is either woefully ignorant, or a blatant lie. I’m not a research scientist, but I don’t need to be to recognize the obvious. Casual observation of the world around us is enough to see that today is like yesterday, and tomorrow will be like today. Seasons come and go, glaciers advance and retreat, lakes bottoms dry and fill, volcanoes erupt and oceans claim the shore……hurricanes blow, snow falls and the sun shines – all as it ever has been, and will be till the sun burns out. There have been cataclysmic events in the past, and there are more to come – and human beings have NO influence on them at all.

                    1. I’ll bite cupcake … care to provide the name of one current and active US climate scientist who rejects AGW theory and cite the associated article/s they published supporting those alleged conclusions. The rest of your vacuous screed is emotive puerile opinion from a person who obviously has disdain and ineptitude for science.

                  2. “>>There are no US climate scientists currently researching and publishing, including skeptics, who disdain AGW theory … “<<

                    Oh really?

                    Need I mention Dr. Roy Spencer for starters?
                    How about Dr. Richard Lindzen?
                    The there's Dr. Judith Curry
                    Add to that Dr. James Lovelock…….oh wait…….he's not an American. But he IS the one who primarily started all of the doomsday crap.

                    1. None on your list reject the AGW theory, they’re skeptics about certain forcings and feedbacks … why don’t you know that? Attempt to prove me wrong and cite a publication where they state their implicit disdain for AGW theory. You won’t. Why? Because they don’t exist. Your silence with respect to citations will show you’re obnoxiously ignorant.

                    2. They are skeptical about far more than that. But you’d argue if I said the grass was green and the sun rises in the east.
                      The biggest question here is; Why does anyone bother speaking to you at all?

                    3. Buffoons are so easy to school. Their crapola gets thoroughly rebutted so they segue off-topic pretending we didn’t know what they were skeptical about but yet they still support AGW theory. They also fail to mention that none on his list are widely cited, quoted nor followed in the scientific community because they are considered by us scientists to be baiters of the uneducated and gullible like yourself.

                    4. OK then smart guy, I’ll play your side for a change. Show me where they support AGW…….if you can.

                    5. This may be difficult for you to swallow due to your denial fervor but I suggest you read their websites where they clearly acknowledge the AGW theory … they are educated people who have a grasp of the simple basic physics of why the miscible, long residency GHGs drive the planet’s thermometer consequently they have not published anything to refute the AGW theory as you allege. You are free to peruse their many publications for yourself … you’ll find they are skeptical about methodology, forcings and feedbacks which every scientist is, the difference is they are misinformers who sucker the uneducated and gullible like you into believing they know something that may support your ideology but they sure don’t publish it as they know it would not withstand the scrutiny of their peers and get the treatment it deservedly would merit. I suppose you are not familiar that scientists take pride in having their work scrutinized especially if they can be shown to have erred. Why don’t you ask one of of your fav’s Dr. Spenser why he doesn’t advertise how he and his colleagues were found to be fudging UAH satellite results to show cooling trends for years which have now been corrected thanks to other scientists pointing out their (purposeful?) errors.

                    6. As opposed to you who has amply demonstrated that you are quite capable of and willing to swallow almost anything!

                    7. So mental midget why have you failed to produce a US climate scientist who has published a rebuttal to AGW? Your vacuity makes you fast on the draw but then you only open your mouth to change feet.

                    9. Fred Singer is not a current nor past US research climate scientist as his list of zero publications indicate. It is impossible for you to get anything correct; first he is not current and second he is/was not a climate science researcher. He’ll be 91 this year and is the epitome of a brilliant scientist who became a shill for the fossil fuel industry receiving a retainer of $5000/month from the Heartland Institute to issue propaganda for the gullible of you ilk. Before that he tried to sell his credentials to the highest bidder and went as far as to solicit $20000 from the Tobacco Institute to prepare a “research” paper challenging the effects of second-hand smoke, a field in which he had even less knowledge than climate science. So he decided to shred his professional career and reputation for greed, so sad. Wow you sure know how to pick losers … why are you so gullible. Thanks for the entertainment though … you’re providing lots of great material showing the ignorance level of deniers.

                    10. Are you for real? Neither are the overwhelming majority the “scientists” used to form your so called “consensus”. But Singer is an Austrian-born American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[1] Singer trained as an atmospheric physicist and is known for his work in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology That certainly makes him more qualified than the majority of your half baked “consensus”.

                      But as I predicted you simply dismissed the man out of hand, and for no more reason than you didn’t like what he had to say. Unless I miss my guess, you would also sit here and say with a straight face that no one on your side is “shill” at all, wouldn’t you? I’d also point out to you that “retired” does not mean stupid.

                      OK then, have fun with this as I’m quite certain you will. Here is a link to a rebuttal of the 2014 National Climate Assessment, which was nothing more than a political statement at best.

                      http://chemtrailsplanet.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/scientists-debunk-2014-climate-assessment-224538945-nca-rebuttal.pdf

                      The publishing scientists listed are as follows……..

                      Dr. Harold H. Doiron Retired VP, Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc. Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana – Lafayette M.S., PhD. Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston

                      Dr. Don J. Easterbrook Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University Ph.D., Geology, University of Washington, Seattle M.S., Geology, University of Washington, Seattle B.S., Geology, University of Washington, Seattle

                      Dr. Theodore R. Eck Ph.D., Economics, Mich. State U.; M.A, Economics, U. of Michigan Fulbright Professor of International Economics Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group

                      Dr. Neil Frank B.S., Chemistry, Southwestern College M.S., Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State Former Director of the National Hurricane Center

                      Dr. Gordon J. Fulks Ph.D., Physics, University of Chicago M.S., Physics, University of Chicago B.S., Physics, University of Chicago

                      Dr. William M. Gray Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University Ph.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago M.S., Meteorology, University of Chicago B.S., Geography, George Washington University

                      Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T. B.S., Physics, M.I.T.

                      Dr. S. Fred Singer Fellow AAAS, APS, AGU Prof Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, U of VA Ph. D., Physics, Princeton University BEE, Ohio State University

                      Dr. Anthony R. Lupo IPCC Expert Reviewer Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University

                      Dr. Madhav Khandekar Retired Scientist, Environment Canada Expert Reviewer IPCC 2007 Climate Change Documents

                      George Taylor Certified Consulting Meteorologist President Applied Climate Services Two time President of the American Association of State Climatologists B.A. Mathematics, University of California M.S. Meteorology University of Utah

                      Dr. James P. Wallace III Jim Wallace & Associates, LLC Ph.D., Economics, Minor in Engineering, Brown University M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Brown University B.S., Aeronautical Engineering, Brown University

                      Dr. George T. Wolff Former Chair EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University M.S., Meteorology, New York University B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology May 15, 2014

                      I left out the two meteorologists because their not having PhDs might have upset you more than you are already.

                    11. Nice long cut+paste … he has no publications and the above was not a publication but opinion by a bunch of retired folk who have about as many climate science articles published as Jerry Springer. I suggest you ask them to submit their report as it doesn’t appear in any publications. They won’t. Why? Despite being shills they still have sufficient feelings that would be hurt by the resounding rejection the twaddle would deservedly get and merit. Please quit, you’re a great embarrassment to our society and country.

                    12. Regardless of your infantile claims, it was a publication, not “in a publication”. That you don’t see that hardly comes as a surprise. It also contains the names of scientists who dispute what you claim as fact. It’s also no surprise that you would continue to call anyone who doesn’t see things your way a shill.

                      The only embarrassment here is the pompous ass with the holier-than-thou attitude. Sooner or later you might actually figure out what has been going on, although it seems unlikely at this point.

                    13. It was not a science publication, just because you say it is. It did not go through the peer-review process and has no DOI or similar references of authenticity. It is never cited and a fossil fuel bought and paid for propaganda exercise with zero impact on climate science or any science for that matter. It was meant to fool people like you. Why are you so gullible and ignorant to not know any better? Maybe you should buy some colloidal silver, I read on the internets it’s ancient Jewish medicine that cures everything and beats modern science hands down … it may help what ails your cerebral vacuity.

                    14. Excuse me? Please shopw me where I ever said that it was a “science” publication at all.
                      Back to telling bold faced lies are we? I suppose that’s better than the mild anti semitism you just exhibited.

                    16. Nice to know that you’re still a pompous ass.

                      So are you ever going to share exactly what these magnificent foreign scientific qualifications you say you have are? You know, the ones you allege would have gotten you an invite to this country if only………..

                    17. Wow! Four? Dang, who’d a thunk there’d be so few, or so many? And what have they published that calls AGW theory into doubt?

      2. “Geology”? Geologists have known for a very long time that the Earth was much warmer in previous periods than at any time over the last 150 years, which geologically speaking is only a very small drop in the bucket time wise.

        “Paleoclimatology”? Funny, but that has revealed that the earth has several times been warmer than now and that man had nothing at all to do with it. Recall the Medieval Warm Period? Wine grapes were being grown in the British Isles then. Something that had not been possible untill this last bit of warming we had.

        “Glaciaology”? As several glaciers receded there was found evidence of past human activity where there had been ice for as long as records were kept.

        “Paleontology”? Same thing.

        Thanks for mentioning them,

          1. I am very aware of it. So much so that it is a very large part of why I completely discount the unproven theory of AGW, while the theory’s adherents like you simply ignore that very same record as being practically meaningless in any way other than how you choose to twist it to suit your agenda.

            The LIA is hypothesized by these same scientists/disciplines to have take as few as 10 to 15 years to changed the way it did. That is “exceptional” change There is nothing “exceptional” about this last relatively infinitesimal bit of warming at all, and nothing overly noteworthy about the last 150 years of warming since the LIA ended. That is other than to say we’re fortunate not to be freezing our butts off.

            By the way, why do you suppose it is that this oh so earth shattering announcement of 2014 having been the hottest year on record, (By 1/100 of a degree? Please…..), was not accompanied by NASA’s scientist’s own admission that they were only 38% certain that this was true? If they are only 38% certain, then why make the announcement at all? Could it possibly be because they are already losing support for AGW and are trying to bolster their position?

    1. If government grant money explains skewed climate science findings, why hasn’t money from other sources funded science that reveals the truth? Your logic sucks.

        1. You’re not answering my question. Here it is again.

          If the science is so clearly faked–as you believe–why hasn’t independently-funded research show that its fake?

          If there are 20,000 e-mails showing the fraud, why haven’t other scientists, scientists funded by people whose economic interests are at stake, revealed the truth?

          1. What “independently” funded research? Other scientists have sounded the alarm to this leftist fraud! 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,including 9,029 with PhDs. duh! Global Warming Petition Project.

            1. A petition is not scientific research; it’s a political act. Look, you keep avoiding my question. Why?

              Think about it. How much money did BP and Exxon make last year? Their vital interests are at stake. They could spend billions to fund research that would reveal what you believe . . . if what you believe were true.

              If the fraud is so obvious, why hasn’t independently funded research revealed it?

              1. You are part of this fraud. What independently funded research? Please address the need to change the name of this massive fraud? Why is only the left behind this fraud? BP and Exxon earned every penny they made last year. How much did Big-Brother make last year? How much did big-brother earn? Why are you a shill for big-brother? Big Brother is not cool man!

                1. You’re still not answering my question. I could even name and date one attempt by big oil interests to fund climate research that would call AGW into question (Mueller 2012). It failed. The data all show warming.

                  You are avoiding my question: Exxon and BP will cease to exist if AGW mitigation is pursued; if there was any truth to your beliefs about AGW, they’d be working feverishly to fund research to show it.

                  Nobody “changed the name” of AGW. That’s an urban legend. Actually it was oilman George Bush’s White House that first suggested using the term “climate change”.

            2. If your petition is valid how did all the Doctors from Mash, a Spice Girl, Dr I. C. Ewe, Dr I. Jerk, Dr I. P Knightly, etc. appear on the list? Do you think it may have verification problem? Ooops, we have veracity and credibility problems that you were just to dumb to figure out so how would you ever understand the complexity of climate science? Fossil fuel oligarchs, will never let their profitable greenhouse gas producing industries be challenged. The billions they have poured into the denier community has brought them great returns and built a bulwark of reactionaries who hate all science and especially climatology.

          2. A group that hates capitalism comes up with a weather scam that won’t reach it peak for 85 years and the only cure is the elimination of capitalism and you aren’t even curious?

            1. Nope. What I’m interested in the research that shows that it’s a scam. Where is it?

              There’s plenty of big money interested in debunking global warming theory.

              I’m not sure who you mean by “a group that hates capitalism” either. Who do you mean? The UN? NASA? NOAA? The National Academy of Sciences?

  760. Marveling
    at the lack of import – the utter minutiae – under attack here: Who
    really cares if the .02 degrees difference make this year the hottest
    or not? It’s akin to arguing that this year’s heart attack is
    slightly worse than last year’s. The point is, our atmosphere
    is in the throes of a vast upheaval, one that has not been witnessed
    for many hundreds of thousands of years. Here are a few thoughts for
    those of you that may feel our climate is not in crisis.

    Firstly,
    see http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/9ri54o7Ranp5ZpYta9fRbg–/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD01MzQ7cT04NTt3PTM1Ng–/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/4d04603cb80f7218fd0e6a70670052d3.jpg
    This chart is depicting an upward trend in CO2 over the past
    half century. Further the jump in CO2 recorded in 2010, can be
    validated by in increase in total world economic output. As
    production increased worldwide, so did emissions. The more your
    factory builds, the more energy it consumes, therefore the more coal
    and oil your company will consume as a result. Analyses like
    these can be used to monitor and predict economic trends, as CO2
    emissions are highly related to economic prosperity worldwide.
    See
    http://peakwatch.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83452403c69e20120a8756dc2970b-pi

    So
    please understand that if you should decide to contemplate the
    veracity of claims made against climate change, you must also
    contemplate the mathematical and scientific data gathered
    forensically for over 150 years. Further, ice core samples which
    contain microscopic time capsules of ancient atmosphere in bubbles
    trapped deep within the core stand to build an edifice of provable
    scientifically gathered details that stretch back hundreds of
    thousands of years. See
    http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/wp-content/files/2007/06/last_400000_years.png
    This last image pertains to worldwide average temperature and CO2
    amounts, co-related. Note that the current CO2 indicator is fully
    30% + above any historic high for the past 400,000 years. That
    should set off a pretty loud alarm.

    As
    we embark into uncharted CO2 territory, it does stand to reason that
    our atmosphere’s overall temperature should be increasing, given that
    new coal-burning power plants that continue to come online as energy
    demand continues unabated. But to argue as to weather this year is
    hotter than another is ultimately irrelevant. Our world’s ecosystems
    are in great danger as a result of this shift. When a patient has
    cancer, the act of arguing over how greatly the cancer has
    metastasized one year to the next, instead of seeking immediate
    treatment is in the end, a sign that the patient is in denial. Just
    a thought. It’s ok to be afraid. Denial is the first step towards
    recovery. But now it’s time to see clearly the disease that has hit
    this planet, and to plan – in any way you can – to help fix this
    huge problem. Stop arguing and please get off your ass, turn off
    your computer and contact your state and local representatives.
    Demand that they address these problems. Our very future lay in the
    balance.

  764. Many long years ago it was way, way hotter. 98f degrees in Florida for weeks on end. The Gov went around handing out water misters so people would not die of heat stroke. It has not been that hot for many years. Last year we were lucky to see 92. These so called Liberal Government scientist are full of shit. They also said the last cold snap in Chicago was the coldest on record which is also a lie as I lived outside of Chi town in the late 70s through the early 80s and it was a solid 20 below at times with snow up to the roof. No wind chill BS, a true 20 bellow.

    1. Maybe, but it does need research and data that support its conclusions. And, David, global warming science has plenty of those; reams and reams of research and data support the conclusions of those “celebrity spokespersons”.

      1. What about the 20,000 emails where climate “scientists” admit to omitting numbers that prove no global warming and admit to fraudulently making up numbers to support this massive trillion dollar scam?

        1. OK. So what’s the truth? I mean, if the fraud is so obvious, it should be pretty easy to show the truth.

          The researchers who overturn AGW theory, or who can accurately account for the distortions in the data–such as you think was revealed by “Climate Gate”–will win the Nobel Prize.

          There’s a lot of money at stake here, oil money and coal money, hundreds of billions of dollars. If some fraction of this funded objective research it should show that AGW is a fraud. Where’s that research?

      2. The bulk of glowBULL warming “science” has been based on statistical analysis which has amounted to using cherry picked data and fantasy “what if” numbers being conjured up and run through computer models which themselves have to be constantly upgraded and tweaked, to continue to produced the desired results.
        That is hardly “scientific”.

          1. Hardly anywhere near “almost every scientist on the planet” agree with you, and making verbatim statements like this only serves to make you look foolish.
            In case you haven’t been paying attention there have been many scientists i n the last few years that have “jumped ship” from your side.

            1. And exactly what have they published that supports AGW denial? The fact is that the vast majority of climate scientists–and the leadership of every scientific institute and academy–concur with AGW theory.

              For the conspiracy argument–that the AGW consensus is a massive fraud–to work, millions of scientists would have had to observe something like the mob’s code of silence, the omerta. What are the chances? You know Occams Razor, right? What is the simplest explanation of the consensus? A vast, complex conspiracy involving millions of people, or the simple fact that the science shows anthropogenic warming?

              A conspiracy would also mean that the science was so fraudulent that anyone with PhD training could show where it was in error–the data sets are public information–and overturn the whole applecart. Given all the money spent on public relations and climate denial by major oil companies, there’s no shortage of money to fund that exact research: where is it?

              1. Answer me this; What has happened over the last 12 to 15 years to almost everyone who spoke out with a dissenting opinion that differed from the true believers? Since I doubt you’d answer honestly I’ll give you the answer. They were ostracized, even black listed and barred from employment. They were dismissed from teaching and research positions. Journals refused to publish any of their research when it was presented because many of them were extroted into not publishing them by people who led the AGW movement. This isn’t theory as AGW is. It’s fact, a lot of which was proven by “Climategate”.

                Please don’t hand me Occam;s Razor on this subject because in doing so you have already discarded it by your own beliefs! If the simplest answer must be the correct one, then which is the simplest to believe? Than man has completely altered the climate and damaged it to an almost unrecoverable state? Or that the changes we’ve seen and will continue to see are natural and always have been?

                Something else you seem to have ignored is that a lot of the incorrect and yes even fraudulent info and research done by your side has already been found and exposed. The real news flash for you is that it often didn’t take someone with a PhD to find it.

                My brother is the one with the PhD in our family, (A scientific degree, not a literary one.), and he doesn’t believe in AGW or glowBULL warming either.

                1. Who? When? “Barred from employment” where?

                  The examples I know of go the other way: attempts to silence prominent scientists, Hansen almost fired by NASA, Mann investigated by the Virginia AG, Chris Jones driven to near-suicide by a plethora of FOI requests and allegations of fraud. And those are just off the top of my head.

                  So there must have been plenty of deniers who got the same treatment. Who? When? Where?

                  1. Start with this, one of the more recent examples, and go from there.

                    >>”Climate Statistics Prof. Caleb Rossiter: ‘If people ever say that fears of censorship for ‘climate change’ views are overblown, have them take a look at this. Just two days after I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be allowed the ‘all of the above’ energy strategy we have in the U.S., the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) terminated my 23-year relationship with them…because my analysis and theirs ‘diverge.’”<<

                    After leaving NASA, James Hansen has been accused of using his position on glowBULL warming to enrich himself to the tune of around one million dollars ala Algore.

                    Michael Mann deserves what he gets after the long ago debunked "hockey stick" graph was exposed and Mann show to have used cherry picked data fro m the Yamal data set. A closer examiniation of a more complete data set from the same region showed that there wasn't anywhere near what Mann had claimed.

                    On top of that, both Mann and Phil Jones of the East Anglia CRU had the annoying habit of never being able to produce their original raw data for independent verification of their findings. Not a very good situation if you want complete credibility.

                    1. The hockey stick was never debunked; it’s been reaffirmed repeatedly.
                      Mann’s and Jones’ studies have probably been more extensively peer reviewed than just about any similar study you could name. What you’re describing were the endless FOI requests that were lodged with the intent of shutting down their research.

                      Hansen enriched himself? How? He published a book, Storms of My Grandchildren, that made some money. Enriched? Who accused him of this. Don’t use passive voice.

                      Rossiter is full of shit. He was never more than a contingent employee of the IPS, an adjunct associate. He’s grandstanding. Unless you cite sources I can’t verify any of this even happened, let alone evaluate your claims.

                    2. Yes, it and others like it have been debunked, whether you like it or not.
                      Has it ever occurred to you that if it were not subject to a great deal of doubt it would not be necessary to constantly reaffirm it?

                      Try this on for size…….

                      http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/17/climatology-sees-one-of-the-greatest-scientific-reversals-of-all-time-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick-charts/#sthash.6Ci1VjgX.sebrcK0C.dpbs

                      Funny how you want me to cite sources for things you seem unable or perhaps unwilling to look up for yourself. The matter of Hansen is a prime example. Did you know that he was sued for ethics and financial disclosure violations over using his position at NASA to enrich himself? It took me all of 5 seconds at most to find this…..

                      https://www.google.com/search?q=James+Hansen+acussed+of+enriching+himself+with+global+warming.&oq=James+Hansen+acussed+of+enriching+himself+with+global+warming.+&aqs=chrome..69i57.26391j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

                      But you and Leftrightimbecile want to talk about “shills”? Lovely.

  766. Hey, why not have the congress vote on whether 2014 was the hottest on record and then tell us if it was or not?

    Then, they can vote on whether the sun is really shining, or if the sun is really a 100-watt light bulb?

    Finally, vote to pass a bill (Which Obama will sign, he’s as delusional as anyone) ordering God to re-set the weather to whatever the congress orders? (They could order God to put a thermostat in the well of the house?)

    Idiots.

  767. When people use the “climate hiatus” as evidence that climate change science is wrong, they miss one VERY important piece of info. The relatively steady temperatures over the last 15 years have been steady at record highs. In other words, all the last 15 years or so would have been records earlier in the 20th century. The graph on this page conveniently glosses over this by omitting data before 1997. What is even more noteworthy is that this year was very warm without an El Nino; usually you need to be an El Nino to break global temperature records.

    1. You’re way to educated and knowledgeable for this denier echo chamber. Most on this site don’t grasp elementary school level science. Thanks for showing that there are a few in our society that are not scientifically ignorant.

    2. When people like you use absolutes like “record highs”, you do so while ignoring known and accepted periods that were indisputable warmer, and at a period in time where man was just ab afterthought in the overall scheme of things.

      1. As you seem oblivious to science, Peter is correct as he is very clearly referring to the instrumental record. Then you open your mouth to change feet with the incongruent statement about the paleoclimate record having warming periods when hominids had not evolved which is so incongruent that it bears no scientific meaning other than demonstrating your disdain and ineptitude for science.

        1. And you seem to be willfully ignoring known and accepted research that in fact shows such periods of time inside the last 10,000 years when “hominids” had alreadi infact evolved to their current physical state!

          1. Let’s assume that your false statement about the past 10KA is valid, then climate sensitivity is greater than we currently calculate and the planet is going to warm way faster than projected and our and many other extant are header for a faster premature extinction.

            1. OK numb nuts, please explain to me exactly how the comment regarding the last 10K years was false? “Man was certainly in his recognizable modern form by the. (Unless of course you with to argue with anthropologists!) The Holocene Thermal Optimum, ,(5k to 9k years ago), and the Medieval War Period are recognized as being warmer than any time in the last 150 years.

              1. As you provide no citations I will answer you generically as well. As for the MWP, no, a global and warmer-than-present MWP is not supported by the existing research (show me). However, let’s imagine that the MWP was global and was warmer. What would it mean? Sure, you could then claim that the current warming has occurred before. Ok, but it also means that the driver of that warmer MWP is solar variation (nothing else could force a global bump of that length and strength, other than the enhanced greenhouse effect, and there’s no evidence of spiked GHG during the MWP). Solar didn’t really spike that much during the MWP. A very warm MWP with a normal sun means that climate sensitivity is much, much higher than the current mainstream range. That means that we’re in for much, much more warming than modeling projects. The HCO was not global and there was no to little warming in the low latitudes where the majority of hominids were. Again the polar regions warmed about 4°C in the northern polar regions over hundreds of years which we are now observing over about five decades.

    1. The article says nothing about “man-made” climate change. It mentions climate change…the new mantra and throws in global warming, which if you look at the recent articles on this page shows that the data about the warmest year on record is being misrepresented…again. Do you honestly believe that “big oil” is scared of the government regulations on climate change? They will continue on making millions while the average American ends up footing the bill for unnecessary higher energy costs. The cost of any regulation they have to comply with becomes part of doing business and that cost will passed on to the user.
      Global Warming / Climate Change is purely based on Fear and Greed.

      1. If climate change is not being caused by human action, then there’s no REASON for the API to talk about the positive impact of clean energy on the problem of climate change.

        You’d have to be really in denial to read the article any other way, and the fear and greed you should worry about is that of dirty energy interests–oil and coal companies for instance, who are distorting the facts to protect their own wealth and power.

        This website is a primary source of that distortion and mendacity.

              1. Says the asshat who tried telling everyone that there were NO U.S. Climate scientists who disputed AGW. That wasn’t just a misstatement, that was a bold faced lie.

                1. There are none … you failed to provide any names with their associated published articles. The names you provided all subscribe to AGW but are skeptics about forcings and feedbacks but not the theory. Care to try again with names and citations?

                    3. You are obviously speaking from experience. I am assuming they were the source for what ails you mentally.

                    4. Hardly so. I simply saw what they deposited and buried them. Much like I’ve been seeing the same basic sort of material you’ve been depositing here.

                    5. When you finish your schoolyard pout consider the following example of atrocious grammar and syntax:

                      Much like I’ve been seeing the same basic sort of

                      from the Sarah Palin school of distorted English.

                    6. A very minor verbal faux pas when compared to the HUGE 1/100th of a degree in temperature that has you with your panties caught in your crack.

                    7. minor verbal faux pas

                      take that to your SPED aide/tutor and ask them to explain the difference between verbal and written. No one expects you to have the slightest ability to know science, so drop the pretense, you’re just providing additional material to demonstrate the pervasive ignorance in our society.

                    8. Now you are simply nit picking to be an ass and nothing more. You know full well that in this case the use of the word “verbal” was meant in the grammatical sense and not the written one. But you have fun with that. As for what I do or don’t know about science, you will never know.
                      Now go back to what you’re good at………swallowing.

                    9. Your supposed English strengths just vaporized and no, it has nothing to do with grammar or as you very oddly write … “grammatical sense”. Sh*t for brains can’t even clearly write what it means in its mother tongue and is schooled by me with English being my second language.

                    10. The one who has shit for brains is the one who has yet to figure out that he is being played like a violin for someone else’s amusement by being given small openings to exploit so he can get himself worked into a froth.

                      In any case I sincerely doubt that English is your second language, But just for conversation’s sake, and since you seem to value degrees so highly, what discipline is your doctorate in sweet cheeks?

                    11. I must assume that your education is in astrology as you tend to try to be a clairvoyant. Yes, English is my second language, so what? You’re probably unilingual as well as science illiterate. You struggle like many native speakers in the US … a reflection of your lack of diligence and decided you wouldn’t embrace the world class K-12 free opportunities and facilities afforded you. I have never stated I value degrees highly … that’s your astrological and inferiority complex issues rearing again. My qualifications are foreign and sound, if they weren’t I wouldn’t have been invited to the US so many. many years ago.

                    12. Having doubt is simply expressing an opinion while clairvoyance is the supposed faculty of perceiving things or events in the future or beyond normal sensory contact. For someone with such a self exalted command of their second language I’m frankly shocked that you don’t seem to know the difference. There was however no surprise at your ASSuming something else not in evidence. I am in fact bilingual as it is almost a necessity where I live, and certainly so where I work.

                      You didn’t need to state in so many words how you place a high value on degrees. But you have most certainly implied it by the way you constantly whine about what scientists have to say. The word “scientist” automatically implies a higher degree, usually a PhD. Again, I’m surprised that someone with your self proclaimed proficiency in the English language doesn’t seem to understand that.

                      Now then, please tell us all for the record exactly what your “foreign qualifications” are that make you oh so superior to us in your own estimation, and why they would have gained you an invitation to our so poorly educated society, so that we may bask in the light that is you.

                    1. You’re confused between science and politics. Science is apolitical … if you think my understanding of science gives me a political leaning then you’re dumber and sillier than I originally gleaned from your screeds of vacuity.

                    2. Oh there’s no confusion at all. I have yet to speak with a true believer that was not a flaming liberal.

                    3. You had already established a solid track record as being an ignoramus on science and people. There was absolutely no need for you to waste more of time to add superfluous reinforcement.

                    4. You have already established a track record of as being an overbearing pompous ass with delusions of grandeur if not god hood. There was no need for you to waste more time time adding superfluous reinforcement to your already more than ample demonstration.

                      You might also wish to consult your cohort here, the PhD of English, on your often atrocious grammar.

                    5. Aaah … the cerebral vacuum flatters its superiors with lame imitation …totally expected. An example of atrocious grammar (and syntax) to show your English tutor:

                      for you to waste more time time sic adding superfluous reinforcement to your already more than ample demonstration.

                    6. There was no “flat-tery” here at all.
                      The only flat-anything here is the flat-ulence that emanates from your oral sphincter every time you allow more of that same effluvium to spew forth.

                    1. Which do you find unreliable? Be specific, in a couple of short paragraphs. If you can’t do that, you can’t “debate” this topic.

                    2. You seem to be under the impression that you are able to dictate to me how I must respond to you. You’re sadly mistaken on that account professor. I am also not interested in debating you since I really don’t believe you care one way or the other why I hold the opinions I do on the subject. If I thought you were interested I might be inclined towards discussion.

                      However since you asked……..

                      The predictions of more and stronger storms.
                      The predictions that the sea levels would rise by several feet.
                      The predictions of how much temps would rise, which they didn’t.
                      The amount of warming predicted.
                      The debunked and discredited “hockey stick” graph.
                      The predictions that most glaciers would disappear.

                      The specific prediction that Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. (A large portion of them are now either stable or growing again!)

                      The prediction that snow would soon not be seen again in Great Britain. (This was said by senior research scientist David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, and was silly to begin with.)

                      The prediction that the North Pole would become ice free by 2013. (Made by that eminent man of science, the “Goreacle”.)

                      The “measurements” of sea ice that was only off by 93,000 square miles. (Discovered by simple laymen who examined the researcher’s own satellite images!)

                      The admission in the overly lauded IPCC’s last so called “report”, that they had over estimated the effects of atmospheric CO2 on climatic forcing by as much as 50%, (That is HUGE!), and that they had also underestimated the effects of the sun on climate.

                      I can go on but what is the point?

                    3. None of those “predictions” were actually made, per se. What, say, the IPCC or other climate scientists make are “projections”. These have a range of probabilities and outcomes. Projections are the products of model runs, GCM’s. They vary depending on the inputs.

                      The hockey stick has been reaffirmed–and its scope expanded– by at least half-a-dozen studies using other proxies. The Mann study was not a projection or a prediction anyhow. It was a proxy record of climate in the historic past.

                      Nobody ever projected sea level increases of several feet. Who did this? When? The same with glaciers “disappearing”, although several have. The prediction that the Himalyan glaciers would be “gone by 2035” was one mistake in an IPCC (AR4) of over a thousand pagesand it was publicly retracted when the error was detected. The question of storms has in no way been decided: Sandy was clearly strengthened by warmer sea temps attributed to AGW by leading hurricane expert Keven Trenberth.

                      Are you under the impression that any of these things are real? You are so misinformed as to make me incredulous. I can’t believe you think you know this stuff.

                    4. Every single one of those predictions was delivered as a verbatim statement at the time it was made, as part of the scare tactics that have been used by your side of the discussion since it began and you know it. That a statement was later retracted was retracted later when found to be (greatly) in error makes little difference. They were still made, and largely with no real research of any sort to back them up. And you wonder why you’re called “warming alarmists”?

                      The Mann “hockey stick” graph was in fact debunked, again whether you like it or not. had it ever occurred to you that if it had been questionable to begin with, that it would not need to be constantly reaffirmed? (I also never anywhere said it was a prediction as I know full well what it is/was. I simply said it was wrong, and you knew that too. You just didn’t like it.)

                      Concerning your comment: “People who study this are beginning to see denial as a form of neurosis”, many people who you and those like you have labeled and maligned for disagreeing with you, see your side of the discussion as a new “religion” with fanatical adherents. Comments like you saying: “I think that it registers a deep down realization that our way of life is not sustainable and that we’ve run out of time to adapt.”, do not help that view in the least. But thank you for your in depth psychoanalysis.

                      Now then, if you would truly like to know why I believe as I do, I’d be happy to show you, providing that you drop the condescending attitude and insulting remarks. (For my part I am trying to do so but you do make that difficult!) As I have tried to point out, I am not one of your students to whom you can pontificate from your lectern.

                      I’d also point out to you professor, that since your highest degree is not even in a scientific discipline, you are little more than a lay person yourself. You are simply spouting what you believe to be true based on what you’ve been told, read, and studied for yourself.

                      So how about it? Truce?

                    7. ah yes, ‘gish’ . A new term invented by rabid believers, which basically means that they are not competent to reply with any helpful evidence.

                    8. As I suspected. You have no interest in honest discussion at all.
                      Thank you for playing……….and demonstrating for all to see exactly what you are all about.

                      Between you refusing an honest and open discussion which you have apparently been feigning asking for but quite obviously don’t want…….

                      …….and your buddy Leftrightimbecile claiming a higher education which he refuses to comment on, and which he claims would have gotten him invited here but for something mysterious which precludes it……

                      …..this has been most enlightening as well as entertaining. Thank you.

                    9. You’re a freaking idiot. I’m not here to “debate” idiots.

                      I’m here to see what arguments naive and ignorant deniers use when confronted with the overwhelming reality of climate change.

                      You’ve been relatively valuable in this endeavor. But you are still a vicious idiot.

                    10. You haven’t yet even seen any real argument I have in support of the opinion I hold on this subject. I even asked you in a civil manner if you’d like to see and know why I think as I do. You’re oh so enlightened response was “Screw you”. I might have expected better or at least something more eloquent from a man with your education professor.

                      For my part, I was not here to debate with true believers like yourself. I found that to be a fruitless endeavor long ago. It should also be pointed out to you that calling someone you don’t know and whose knowledge of a given subject you cannot quantify “naive and ignorant” is making an ASSumption on your part and nothing more.

                      You have been of great value as well, particularly in demonstrating once again the exceptional pomposity, elitism, and arrogance of your side. Once again I thank you.

                    11. Maybe I was out of line, or more accurately, out of patience. There is no debate, with me or anyone else about the reality of AGW, though There’s only the facts and the lies.

                      The only possible debate is on the what and how of mitigation and conservation. How to transition to the next state of human development before the current one makes the planet uninhabitable.

                      You pretend to be rational about this, but the overwhelming length and obtuseness of your replies indicate an emotional commitment to distortion and disinformation that is kind of disturbing.

                    12. Yes, you were out of line, and judging by the last portion of your response here you continue to be so. (No surprise.) Your well demonstrated propensity for arrogant self proclaimed superiority and pomposity are very enlightening indeed. You say you want facts and I have on several occasions offered to provide you with the FACTUAL reasons for the opinion I hold, but you have yet to offer to look at them. Why is that professor?

                      I have seen you go on at length to your heart’s content both here and in other threads. But you criticize me for doing the same? My, how typically and hypocritically liberal of you professor. Your biggest problem with me would by appearances seem to be that you could not control the conversation in the manner you wished. To the best of my recollection I have nowhere distorted facts in this entire conversation, and certainly not on purpose. That comment from you brings into question your own veracity, not mine.

                      Lastly, your comment concerning the “only possible debate” is akin to the same “The science is settled” BS that your side has been foisting on everyone for far too long, even after it became obvious and widely known that it wasn’t settled at all.

                3. I must have missed it. Sorry. Help out here. What aspects of AGW theory and science do you find unconvincing?

                  I’m part of an activist/lobbying group that does community education on AGW. We’ve spoken to hundreds of people in the last couple of years. I actually know a good bit about this topic; although my PhD is in English, not science, I teach Environmental Writing at my Uni.

                  So, I can help you understand this topic, much more than you seem to now.

                  1. I might have known that you weren’t a scientist. Nice of you to finally admit that. (Neither is Algore who has done more to harm your side’s position than any other single person!) Given that you are a “community mouthpiece for the cause”, that makes you little better than a DC lobbyist on the matter. Would you try and tell me as Leftrightimbecile has that I’m confusing science and politics? The two are inextricably intertwined on this subject whether he, (Or you for that matter.), likes it or not.

                    Your expressed desire to “help you understand this topic, much more than you seem to now” also makes you sound like little more than another liberal elitist snob who is looking down on “the little people” who he has convinced himself know nothing at all. In point of fact you have no realistic idea concerning what I do or do not know.

                    Why do I find the as yet unproven theory of AGW unconvincing? It started with me long before it was even referred to as Anthropogenic Global Warming. I’ve been studying almost everything I could get my hands on for over 15 years now and I see nothing to convince me that the warming we had was anything but part of a natural and cyclical process as all such warming and cooling has been since this planetary body we call Earth has existed.

                    I’ve also seen and heard all of the dire predictions of doom and gloom that your side of the argument has made, and to date none of them have come to pass as we were all assured they would by those who also said that “the science was settled” when it was so obviously not settled. A large portion of those predictions have in fact actually gone in the complete opposite direction, making those who made them look and sound like a combination of Chicken Little and The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

                    The problem then is with those who have made such glaring mistakes time after time, and after having told all of us poorly educated souls that there was nothing left to talk about because it was all settled. They have not once had the intellectual honesty, much less the common decency, even over the more ridiculous of their verbatim statements, to say “We’re sorry, we screwed up”. They have never had the intestinal fortitude to say “We still believe as we do, but we realize that there is a great deal of research still to do until we can say with finality one way or the other”.

                    Then we have those screaming bug eyed idiots on your side who say asinine things like “You’re in favor of pollution!” and other such nonsense. Let me tell you; I would be the first to say that yes, we need to clean up the air, land, and water because we need clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and clean land to live on! We do need to clean up the environment and at various times in my life I have helped to do so because I am out in the “environment” as an outdoorsman a great deal and have been all my life. Yes, we need to clean things up, but for the right reasons. AGW is simply not one of those reasons.

                    I have already given you several scientifically based reasons why in my opinion AGW is not a valid theory, and have basically had them all either ignored or discounted, not discussed in anything resembling a reasonable fashion, particularly by Leftrightimbecile. I get the same thing or worse from other of the true believers. After years of this sort of thing, as well as watching the predictions which haven’t and likely won’t come to pass, why should I bother any longer telling you why I hold the opinion I do?

                    1. Be specific. There’s nothing specific in your response. It’s just kind of a formless rant. Limit your response to 2-3 short paragraphs describing some aspect of the science on AGW that you find unconvincing. IF you can’t do that, I can’t take you seriously.

                    2. You may tell your students how to write in response to you professor, but I am not one of them and you have no stroke with me.
                      It’s OK that you can’t take me seriously./ Turn about is fair play and I have never given a single though to taking you seriously.

                    3. Can also spot the scientifically illiterate and uneducated who are definitely not scientists when they write a screed of emotional puerility with ignorant statements such as:

                      unproven theory of AGW

                      First, science’s best knowledge is theory there is no higher status. Second, proof is required for liquor, math, and the law not science theory is an explanation for physical phenomena. In science, theories are never hunches or guesses but exist due to consensus within the scientific community. Theories may be supported, rejected, or modified, based on new evidence. Third, science probably knows more about AGW theory than gravitational theory.

                    4. Firstly, by using the twisted logic you just spouted, we can deduce that say perhaps the science of physics has never offered up any “proof” of any of it’s theories before they were taken as fact? Wonderful.

                      Secondly, theories arrive after a proposed hypothesis and in general have no basis in consensus UNTIL research has started to PROVE said theories.

                      Thirdly, gravity is a fact, not a theory. Universal gravitation is a fact, not a theory. In fact there isn’t a whole lot any more concerning gravity that is not taken as fact. AGW is still a theory and nothing else whether it is “supported, rejected, or modified, based on new evidence”. That is the point. Thank you for helping to make it so.

                    5. Put the online Tea Party Manual of Thermodynamics aside and spend a few hours at the very lowest levels of science possible to gain some knowledge. You’re making a laughing stock of yourself now with elementary school faux paux. Try Wiki it may aid you to see your nonsense. I don’t know if you’ve ever been to school with gravity is a fact, not a theory. You are an embarrassment to our society. The only clarity you provide is that it is blatantly obvious that you have little to no education when it comes to science. Get someone to show you how to use a web search tool … you’ll be surprised how grossly ignorant you are. Theories are never “proved”. Theory precedes hypothesis by ranking of order of knowledge. I suppose you have fun just making up stuff … see your comment above … I’ll add to my collection for class that demonstrates the pervasive science ignorance in US society.

                    6. “Tea Party Manual of Thermodynamics”? Lame at best.
                      Who was it that said politics has nothing to do with this? Was that you or the good English professor?

                    10. What an easy thing to say when your side has no real proof of anything it has said.
                      I’m sure Oppenheimer would be pleased to know that he didn’t “prove” the bomb worked with the Trinity blast.

                    11. There’s a difference between technology–like weaponized fission reactions–and science. With the latter, there’s a delicate dance between healthy doubt and the desire for certainty. We call this “probability”. Or at least rational people do.

                      Technology comes into being when probability is greatly diminished. The only thing Oppenheimer “proved” with the Trinity test was that the technology of the fission bomb was viable. That the light bulb would illuminate when the switch was thrown.

                      The physics that underlie fission reactions are still, even now, 70 years later, subject to the dance between doubt and certainty I described earlier. Oppenheimer wasn’t aware, for instance, of the possibility of fusion. So, no, Oppenheimer demonstrated a new technology, but I doubt he’d have claimed to have “proven” anything beyond that.

                    12. Sorry professor, but that isn’t what you said. You’re comments were very clear.

                      >>””Proof” is a function of mathematics, not science.”<>”Science deals in probabilities, not proof.”<<

                      The only question here is whether or not "science" and the "scientists" involved in the Manhattan Project "proved" that the bomb actually worked. The only real answer to that question is quite simply "Yes".

                      They were sent to work on specifically designing and building a device that was at the time solely based in theoretical physics, or to "prove" that such a thing was unworkable. They had to decide on the best fissile material(s) to use, how best to accomplish causing it to reach critical mass, if causing it to reach critical mass was even possible, etc.

                      In the end they unquestionable "proved" that the bomb worked.

                    13. That’s what I said; the bomb was applied science, technology, not theoretical physcis.

                      Quantum mechanics and particle/wave theory, were still far in the future. And these offer a much more advanced description of the various nuclear phenomena than Einstein’s theories of relativity, with which the Manhattan project worked.

                      The Manhattan Project was not charged with expanding the reach of knowledge, merely with making a weapon. They made it. Period. There was still a lot that was unrevealed by E=MC2 after Trinity.

                    15. Science deals in probability, not proof. The Trinity bomb was an experiment. You don’t know exactly what it showed and didn’t show.

                      By your logic, every time you flip a light switch, it “proves” particle/wave theory.

                    16. A poor analogy professor.

                      Electricity and it’s conductive flow was an established fact long before the light bulb was ever invented to take advantage of the fact.

                      However the Trinity device known then as “The Gadget” proved beyond any doubt that the theoretical use of nuclear fission caused by achieving a super critical mass through the hypothesized means, and to then use that as a weapon was in fact possible. Until it was “proven” by the detonation of the device, it was only a theoretical idea.

                      Until this was actually done they didn’t know if it would even really work, or even if they might end up setting the atmosphere on fire.

                    17. You just don’t get it. Only a “theoretical idea”? Like E=mc2? And a “gadget” is not really even an experiment. That’s a metaphor for an odd piece of technology.

                      Your own language even undercuts what you want to argue; “to use (fission) as a weapon was in fact possible”. As I’ve said, science deals in probability, or as you put it, “the possible”.

                      It’s true that some theoretical physicists at the time hypothesized that a fission explosion could ignite the atmosphere. Did the test “prove” that this couldn’t happen? No. All it showed was that, in the given test, it didn’t happen. This establishes probability.

                    18. “Probabale” and “possible” are two different thing professor. You’re now playing semantics games to cover a weak argument and a poor example/analogy.

                      I never mentioned the hypothesized possibility of setting the atmosphere on fire in any fashion other than to say what they did not know at the time. But since you brought it up again; have the hundreds of atmospheric nuclear blasts since the first one established any proof that it won’t happen? Or is it that is just “probably” won’t happen?

                    19. No. It’s not. The probability that it will happen has decreased, but there’s no absolute certainty in science.

                    20. Well, I suppose that it might become possible……….if say there were ever enough cow farts to produce a sufficient amount of atmospheric methane to become flammable.
                      But after so many atmospheric nuclear detonations even you would have to say that the “probability” of a nuclear blast igniting the atmosphere is an extremely remote one at best.
                      I’d say however that it not happening after so many is still proof enough.

                    22. A response like this four days later? Why bother? Did you get your doctorate from a Cracker Jack box?
                      In any case I was responding to your cohort Leftrightrimbecile, who has by all appearances taken his ball and gone home pouting.

                      By the way, I’m curious as to whether you are in any way compensated or paid for your activist/lobbyist activities on behalf of Anthorpogenic Global Climate Warming Change?

                    23. Paid on behalf of ACC? That would make me an oil company lobbyist or publicist. They’re the ones who are paid to advance AGW. You’re confused.

                    24. Oh come now professor, it was a simple question. I didn’t ask “who” might be compensating you at all. I simply asked “if” you were being compensated for your efforts. But rather than providing even a simple yes or no answer, you choose to offer evasion and obfuscation as your answer when you know full well there are a great many sources of funding for your side of the argument.
                      Well done professor.

                    25. Nice . . . I like that line about “proof” being required for liquor. Here’s something similar I read recently.

                      Deniers always argue that CO2 is a “trace gas”, which they think means that it’s present in concentrations too low, a few hundred ppm, to be significant.

                      But the relatively low volume is not necessarily proof against its signficance: Hydrogen sulfide, for instance, will prove lethal to humans at a concentration of about 500 ppm, the approximate level of atmospheric CO2.

                    26. Will, I have to confess … none of what I write came as a result of my original thought … I had too many great and sharp peers, teachers and professors … I just regurgitate what I found funny from them. As to trace … ask the buffoon who suggests/writes crapola about how insignificantly small or minute the quantity is … we on Earth (like the moon) only receive 0.0000000005% of the sun’s energy … how about that for a tiny, tiny number and if it changed by 0.00000000005% neg or pos … we’d be history along with 99% of currant extant. While their noggins are spinning ask them why the moon, which for all intents and purposes is like Earth wrt the sun cannot support the planet’s extant.

                    27. That number is cool. 5 trillionths, right? I’ll remember it. It makes me think of the view of Earth from Voyager that’s one of the closing images in the film An Inconvenient Truth.

                      Voyager is out beyond Jupiter and they train the cameras back at Earth, like about a billion miles away, and it’s about the size of a pixel amid all this black space and starlight, just a totally insignificant speck.

                      But that’s where everything human has happened. This fragile, insignificant speck in all that darkness.

                    28. The number is one two billionth which as a percentage should be 5 divided by 10^6 so 10% change would by 5 divided by 10^7 or 5 (for ±) … I may have too many zeros in my original comment … should put my glasses on! Keep up the good work challenging the deniers … I do it to keep my old brain agile.

              1. No, genius, you just didn’t read my original comment closely. If Climate Depot isn’t “the” primary source of denialism, or even “a” primary source, what is?

                I’ll go there and rattle the simpletons’ cages instead. You folks are a bit uninteresting here.

        3. Water vapor…there’s a nice article on the NASA website that explains why it has far more impact on atmospheric temperature than C02, but then you can’t scare people effectively with man-made water vapor.

          ” I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth’s most powerful greenhouse gas– water vapor. ”

          Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
          Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
          lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union’s
          spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.

          1. “Changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes” in water vapor? And exactly what would those initial atmospheric changes be?

            Your source is 20 years old, but, even now, no climate scientist misses the impact of water vapor on temperatures, but water vapor–as your source shows–is an EFFECT of increasing or decreasing temperatures. Hotter temps mean water evaporates faster, and in greater volumes, both oceanic and on land. The increase in water vapor further warms the planet.

            Scientists call this a “positive feedback”. Atmospheric CO2 growth CAN be a feedback–as when orbital variation increased solar insolation in the prehistoric past–but now, human activity has added just enough CO2 to throw off the global carbon cycle. Now CO2 leads warming, and growth in water vapor volume is an EFFECT of the warming.

                1. That process is far more complex than your simplistic characterization. Are you saying there is a direct correlation between the increase (or decrease) of C02 and water vapor in the atmosphere?

                  1. Direct correlation? No. That WOULD be a simplistic claim. I sense a semantic argument here, a kind of quibbling over terms. Let me reprise.

                    It’s a simple fact that warmer surface temperatures mean faster evaporation and more water vapor. But that’s not the same thing as saying that there’s a “direct correlation” between CO2 concentrations water vapor concentrations, as if CO2 in the air created water vapor or something. It’s the warming–not CO2–that causes the increased water vapor, which, in turn, leads to further warming, as you freely admit.

                    So although there’s no “direct correlation” between CO2 and water vapor, neither is their no connection between them: CO2 causes warming, which leads to greater evaporation, more water vapor, and more warming because of the water vapor. This is a classic positive feedback.

    1. I fought fascism and am keenly aware of the dregs of humanity who support denialism. Why are you an adherent? Do you disdain science? Is your lack of heft an impediment that results in ineptitude towards science? Do you have an inferiority complex for not being among one of the world’s smallest minorities who happen to be the best educated and most talented of humans to follow a career in science? Like you, fascists despised the intelligensa, so you’re akin to two peas in a pod.

  770. The other conveniently dishonest phrase here is “…on record.” This makes it sound like “…since forever.” It should say, “…in the past 135 years.” In fact, there is conclusive evidence that the earth has been significantly warmer – during the middle ages. The honest restatement would then be, “Global surface temperatures where 0.4 degrees C warmer than they have been since the year 1880, but about 1 degree cooler than in the year 1500, and unchanged over the past 18 years.” Not very scary? Too long for a headline? In most REAL scientific endeavors, we would consider this deviation to be “within the norm”. Considering the significantly higher temperatures during the middle ages, I believe that global warming alarmists, who assume that humans are now causing the earth’s warming, can only conclude that the scientific data of the middle ages points to the existence of now-extinct fire-breathing dragons. Just think how hot it would be today if those dragons hadn’t had a compulsion for collecting princesses!

  771. The conveniently dishonest phrase in NASA’s relase is “…on record.” This makes it sound like “…since forever.” It should say, “…in the past 135 years.” In fact, there is conclusive evidence that the earth has been significantly warmer – during the middle ages. The honest restatement would then be, “Global surface temperatures where 0.4 degrees C warmer than they have been since the year 1880, but about 1 degree cooler than in the year 1500, and unchanged over the past 18 years.” In most REAL scientific endeavors, this deviation would be considered “within the norm”. Considering the significantly higher temperatures during the middle ages, I believe that the global warming alarmists can only conclude that the scientific data points to the existence of now extinct fire-breathing dragons. Just think how hot it would be if those dragons hadn’t had a compulsion for collecting princesses!

  774. All I can tell you is for the last week here in the Tampa Fl. area, my backyard temp. in the sun has been over 100, but all the weather channels say we had a high of 91!
    Hottest damn summer yet down here!

  775. Global warming is such a load of rubbish we have the feds with their chemtrails trying to make it rain where it never intended to rain and then they try to tell us that we have man made weather change. You federal scumbags can take your agenda driven global warming and shove it where the sun don’t shine.

  776. Why you people are so hell bent on destroying humanity is beyond me. Beyond comprehension. Well, I guess you get what you pay for and judging by the comments below we shortchanged our education system.

  779. Temperature or what? the air? that’s less than 1% of the world heat content. Heat content is all that matters. That’s been going up steadily mirroring GHG levels. “World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010”

Leave a Reply

Support Climate Depot

Social Media

Facebook-f Youtube Twitter Instagram

Most Popular

Stay in the Know

Sign up to get updates.

Facebook Twitter Google-plus Pinterest

Copyright 2024 © All rights Reserved.