Coldest Year On Record So Far In The US

Screenshot at May 08 08-50-30

YearTDeptUS (10)YearTDeptUS.png (688×531)

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
Image | This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

305 Responses to Coldest Year On Record So Far In The US

  1. Psalmon says:

    Snow in the air in Rapid City SD.

  2. ozspeaksup says:

    put the aircon on to warm up?

  3. tom0mason says:

    As the WH prognostications were sanctioned by the fool-in-chief what can you expect? Wisdom?

    • Arminius says:


      • tubaman says:

        you got it!!!!!

      • Randy says:

        Your kidding of course!!!??? OR………..Are an idiot???

        • David A. says:

          Chill, Randy – they just didn’t include a /sarc tag :-D

        • stu says:

          While you’re whining in fake indignation Randy the heads of states of many countries think he is no more than a ill trained, globe trotting, golfing monkey. That counts a great deal in how you do your job, which he doesn’t do at all.

        • _Jim says:

          “Your kidding ”

          No, He’s kidding ..

          (Maybe you meant “You are kidding”. Free advice: Stick to fully spelling things out and avoid using contractions.)

      • tom0mason says:

        But I haven’t raced in years!

      • Cato the Younger says:

        Isn’t it amazing how the Leftists have infantilized the thinking process by corrupting the language and turning television into non-stop nonsense-spewing narcotic? CNN spends six non-stop weeks on an airplane crash, then pivots to non-stop coverage of a rich old geezer’s private racial slurs, and then moves on to the White House’s authoritarian cause du jour! This country is unrecognizable from what it was just 50 years ago.

        • tom0mason says:

          The problem is that the new generation haven’t the attention span of ….
          Oh! Look squirrels! :)

        • Winston says:

          It’s not the same country it was 50 years ago. I’m glad I can remember America. This is not America anymore. It’s Babylon and Sodom & Gammorah combined.

        • Greatmag says:

          At the risk of maddening the PC crowd. AMEN

      • Steve Hill says:

        Yeah right. The default response, when your side of the issue is vaccuous.

      • Joey Haston says:

        you obviously dont even understand the definition of the word!!!

      • john says:

        Grow up,his policies suck! Has nothing to do with race.You are the racist.

      • IMPEACH OBAMA says:

        Well, considering Obozo is Half-White, would that be White racism or what’s Left racism…

        BTW, according to one of Obozo’s goons, he claims we’re experiencing “global warming”…

        One thing for sure, every time one of these Liberals “breaks wind”, they confirm to the rest of the world what Lenin called them, “Useful Idiots!”

        • IMPEACH OBAMA says:

          John Podesta…that’s the genius, who says congress can’t stop Obozo on “global WARMING”…I guess we’re supposed to ignore the fact that we just had the “coldest year on record!”

          NEWS FLASH for Podesta…

          Anything that Obozo does while POTUS, can be reversed by the next POTUS…

          Facts…they, just keep getting in the way of Liberals line of BS!

      • Robert says:

        ABSOLUTELY AS AM I YOU DAMN IDIOT. So is everyone else in the world, against another group. I guess you don’t study history since you are one of those f-ing guilt ridden liberals who takes it up the rear. And yes mr/ms liberal I live in downtown DC right behind the archive (off the Mall if you don’t know the location). Liberals have become SO boring with their emotional attacks with no intellectual or any form of factual response. I always have fun with them in DC because when the bitch session of emotions is over I usually approach with a few facts. Run home little liberal and complain about the world. Boohoo.

      • MirandaAnique says:

        Sarcasm, right!?!

      • Erastus says:

        North Korea just said it all.

    • lloyd lee says:

      Don’t expect much from you.

    • Jesus! Jesus the Lord and Savior!! I’m a Republican Jesus Jesus Jesus!!! Oh yea Benghazi.Jesus is Lord and King!! Science is the Devil!!!!! Common Sense wtf is that Jesus Jesus Jesus….Fags…some more Jesus and Electric Cars are also the Devil!!

  4. But its the coldest year because of global warming. Cold is Warm, Freedom Is Slavery and War Is Peace

  5. Arminius says:

    But but but: Global Warming, ‘n stuff!
    Algore said we’d be roasting polar bears at the North Pole! How can this be?

    • Shazaam says:

      You neglected to observe one tiny detail….

      Al’s lips were moving when he said that.

      Just like with the laughingstock-in-chief, when Al’s lips move, the statements that issue forth have no resemblance to the truth.

  6. atthemurph says:

    The Warmunists aren’t going to like this.

    • Bob Smith says:

      lol “warmunists”! It would all be hilarious if the idiots didn’t have the capability to cause so much harm with their foolish world view!

    • David A. says:

      Actually, ATM, I think “Warm-ist” is more appropriate (similar to “Islam-ist”)

      • Louis Hunt says:

        Except they now say that climate change also causes extreme cold weather events, so maybe “alarmists” is a better name for them.

        • Louis, lern something before it’s too late! Your embrace of ignorance may leave you feeling chilled, but the measurements (data) from around the world speak to the overall warming, and the worldwide disruption of weather patterns.

          you’re stuck in the bubble so it is understandably difficult for you to view a clear picture of the world, but the biggest moneyed interests are investing in your confusion, while the scientists (greedy bastards) are attempting to let reality shine through.

          may you and your fellow cult-of-conservatism followers awaken in time to realize your own folly.

        • philjourdan says:

          “lern something”

          lern[sic] something? :lol: Can you talk intelligently?

        • There isn’t one shred of evidence that the climate is any worse than in the past. Your belief system is based on superstition.

          In the 16th century, climate alarmists burned 30,000 witches for “cooking the weather.” You are just as dense as they were.


          Please, prove me wrong as you’ve so inaccurately proven your other assertions.

          I am not murdering witches, but you are spreading lies without the technical background to make sense of them. Not to mention your outrageous comparison of a true internet comment with murder — good on ya.

          You should be ashamed of distorting reality to spoon-feed your confused, under-educated readership.

        • _Jim says:

          A link to material at the SS website; by the moons of Saturn, it’s got to be true!

        • jimmie boy, the “www…” part just shows you WHERE to look — the good stuff is in the details.

          Details, of course require that you read them, *think*, (and here’s the big one) COMPREHEND.

          In this case, Mr. Goddard was so eager to show an ice increase, he woefully distorted what the data shows (an ice decrease). And those who know more than the people on THIS WP page, showed him that he was utterly wrong.

          But for you, ignore the details! Back to worldnetdaily, where the juicy stuff resides!!

        • philjourdan says:

          The WWW does not to that. Many sites (the one you are on) has no “www”. The WWW is a hold over from the creation of the (wait for it) WORLD WIDE WEB. It is not a requirement.


        • _Jim says:

          … and still, by the moons of Saturn, it’s got to be true!

        • _Jim says:

          chuck H (@Tapasap) says May 9, 2014 at 5:18 pm

          Back to worldnetdaily, where the juicy stuff resides!!

          You can head back there. I’ve not yet finished going completely through “Radiation in the Atmosphere” by Zdunkowski, Trautmann, Bott.

          This book presents the theory and applications of radiative transfer in the atmosphere. It is written for graduate students and researchers in the fields of meteorology and related sciences. The book begins with important basic definitions of the radiative transfer theory. It presents the hydrodynamic derivation of the radiative transfer equation and the principles of variance. The authors examine in detail various quasi-exact solutions of the radiative transfer equation and give a thorough treatment of the radiative perturbation theory. A rigorous treatment of Mie scattering is given, including Rayleigh scattering as a special case, and the important efficiency factors for extinction, scattering and absorption are derived. The fundamentals of remote sensing applications of radiative transfer are presented. Problems of varying degrees of difficulty are included at the end of each chapter, so readers can further their understanding of the materials covered in the book.

          You can educate yourself, too, by reading a copy from here or buy a hard-copy from:

          But I know you prefer the spoon-feeding they do at the SS site, so I guess you will be headed back there shortly rather than the WND site …

      • Gore SChakra says:

        My favorite is Warm-monger.

    • Al D says:

      Did you notice that the globe began cooling the moment carbon copies started being phased out?

    • Winston says:

      Can’t wait to hear their spin on it. They’re good for a laugh.

    • Jeff Crowder says:

      They will simply ignore it.

    • Stan Lippmann says:

      Warmunist Greenos!

  7. philjourdan says:

    Until they fudge the numbers.

  8. Sue says:

    I think we are lucky to have global warming. Think how cold it would have been without it

  9. cico says:

    But, but the ” scientists” who receive 2.6 billion dollars in Fed Grants are claiming global warming…grrr I mean climate change ..grrr I mean climate dysfunction

  10. David says:

    It was so cold this winter, the Democrats had both their hands in my wallet pocket.

    • Al D says:

      And when they pass that carbon tax, they’ll also have a foot where the sun don’t shine. That still leaves them with another foot to jam down our throats to shut us up for good.

      • Robis says:

        If the climate is truly under assault as is implied, we won’t be able to tax our way out of it. consider this: some experts claim man has been adversely impacting the climate for 250 years. So lets look at things 250 years ago, back about 1765. The world population then was about 600 million about 1/2 of China alone now. And these 600 million must have had a lower carbon footprint than folks today. With the world population pushing past 8 billion carbon hungry humans, we’d need to cut average carbon footprint 10 or maybe even 20 fold just to get to the beginning of the problem. Taxes won’t solve anything, only population control. So imagine a US population of say 10-20 million because that is where we might need to be.

        • R. de Haan says:

          Nope, carbon footprint is total BS.
          This carbon planet with a massive carbon cycle during an interglacial can easily feed and support a population of 20 billion.
          We have sufficient resources and (real) new technology and trade will enable comfortable lives for all.

          The reality is that we never reach a population of 20 billion.
          Most nations suffer from population decline and that’s the problem for now, too many older people relying on a relative small group of working people and an elite who believes the garbage from the Club of Rome stating we require Global Governance to centrally control all our resources, our lands, our financial systems, our economies and human kind as a species. Maybe your world, not mine.

          Now if you really think (believe) we have too many people on the planet, get a gun and shoot yourself.

          But realize we now have the technology to to grow foods, generate power and live comfortably even through an ice age.

          All we need is to do is to generate wealth because poverty is what turns life on this planet into a hell.

        • Robis says:

          But de Haan, even if your right, who wants to live in a world like that, seeing how many we can cram in ?

  11. Cold is the new warm

  12. earnst says:

    The Algorythms said we’d have extreme weather.

  13. Steve M. from TN says:

    You obviously have not massaged and tortured the data to get it to tell you what you want to hear…that this is the hottest year on record

  14. Sojourner Truth says:

    Who would have thought that “progressives” could even politicize the weather? Sexual perversion will probably be next. Oh, I that’s right, they already did that.

  15. I remember reading an article on Global Warming in the Washington Post on Earth Day 1970 – and the author predicted that by 2000, the temperature would rise 7 to 10 degrees, the polar ice would melt and half the country would be underwater :-)

  16. Me NotYou says:

    Burning American embassies contributed to global warming which caused this cooling which will kill us all

  17. you-awl in the coast area– is giong to drowned by high sea waters caused by burning coal– that made them ole polar caps to melt– this flood of waters ran back up rivers for 200 miles– NY city shall be under water by 2013– you-uns in the center parts of america shall be scorched-n- dried up and blown away—— dad-gum-it– I forgeets — now that it is climate change– you-yuns is going to freeze to death cause polar vortex is going to swoop down and get you— sorry fur my mistake– I be not real smart likens you fellers that trust science– who jobs depend on research funds to solve a problem— I’sss be dumb enough to look out the winder at the weather– anyways all you-yunes need to worry all you kans– ok !!

    • 40 years ago, I was born at around 1200′ above sea level. Now I’m only 200′ above sea level. That’s 25′ per year of sea-level rise. Obviously this is caused by global warming, & by the time I’m 15,000 years old, I’ll be more than 70 miles under water.

  18. Dave D. says:

    I was on a ranger tour in Yosemite in 1973. The ranger told us that because of human-caused global cooling, we could see glaciers advancing back into Yosemite Valley within our lifetime.

  19. Steve McFadden says:

    Please don’t tell algore about this.

  20. fhjohnsonjr says:

    Interesting comments and shows the degree of trust and belief in global warming. Send the comments to the serial liar obama.

  21. paprtowl says:

    caused by global warming , climate change , minimal contribution from man , of course china is exempt from the kyoto treaty

  22. David Bollig says:

    You drudge report idiots go to the NOAAA site and look at 2013 world temperatures. Drudge never show anything that reinforces global warming.

  23. Eagle0841 says:

    Climate cultists and religionists must have read 1984.
    “War is peace.
    Freedom is slavery.
    Ignorance is strength.”
    Cold is Warm
    Warm is Cold

  24. naughtonjj says:

    Buy some property a couple hundred miles inland in Siberia. AlgoreObama say it will be valuable beachfront property in 5 five years.

  25. Richard_Iowa says:

    Still running the furnace at night here in Iowa.

  26. Eagle0841 says:

    Cold is Global Warming
    Hot is Global Warming

    “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
    ― George Orwell, 1984

    • IThinkIReadILearn says:

      A Japanese TV show in the 1960s had a thief named “Goodbye-Joe” who would chant:

      “What’s mine is mine, what’s your’s is mine.”

      Not too far from the doublethink of today…

    • FreedomFromFacts says:

      Like many many things and out of control car may careen in a ditch and also swerve across the median. It isn’t doublethink to accept that the car is both going into the ditch and crossing the median the opposite way. This destabilization causing extremes has nothing whatsoever to do with what Orwell was saying which can only be applied to beliefs which the laws of the physical universe are oblivious to.

  27. JJR67 says:

    I have been driving the gas guzzling carbon emitting suburban just to help with the cold temperatures and introduce some global warming to the USA.

  28. David Bollig says:

    Wood for trees graph, huh, they warn you of cherry picking data but you don’t give a shit as long as you can create a graph that supports your claims. I bet Rush Limbaugh is your chief scientific source.

    • Bob says:

      And, Al Gore is your chief scientist?

      • D.A. Terry says:

        Al Gore was barely a C student at Yale and the FLUNKED OUT of both Law School and Divinity School at Vanderbilt. He is a moron with ZERO intellectual credibility. The only people more stupid than Al Gore are the people who have made him richer, believing his unsubstantiated and easily refuted alarmist nonsense.

    • RSS satellite data is the most accurate source of global temperature data. You are completely clueless.

    • Dave N says:

      “they warn you of cherry picking data but you don’t give a shit as long as you can create a graph that supports your claims”

      Alarmist irony abounds.

      Having said that, it would be nonsensical to support a claim of “no warming for 17 years” with a graph that shows anything other than temperatures for the last 17 years. That’s also the thing about it being “the last 17 years”; the graph can’t extend beyond that, since future temperatures haven’t happened yet, unless you’re an alarmist.

    • Tom says:

      Ah the pavlovian response of the warmmonger when faced by a graph. is simply an online database that houses all the major climatate data sets. Satalite temperature data like UAH and RSS, and surface data like CRU and GISS. I also has other data sets like solar, CO2 , the PDO index, arctic and ant arctic ice.

      There no bias to it its just a queryable database. If you want to act like a dog and attack something when you don’t even know what it is then the rest of us will treat you like an ignorant dog.

      • Dave N says:

        “Ah the pavlovian response of the warmmonger when faced by a graph”

        The irony being that many alarmists use the same source, typically cherry-picking a start date of the 70’s, or leaving out RSS, HADCRUT etc, etc.

        • Tom says:

          Actually if you have noticed that have pretty much stopped using the interface. They still grab the data from there but the instead choose to make the graph in house. With how long “the pause” has continued its become harder and harder to message the data using the interface to get the “right answer”. The interface clearly tells the reader everything that was done to the data in the upper left hand corner.

          This is too much transparency for your average warmmonger.

    • IThinkIReadILearn says:

      David, deal with the facts. The alarmists are paid to say what they say. The alarmists are falsifying data and calling it “true”. The alarmists are statistically wrong. The alarmists are trying to gain political power as their primary goal. The alarmists don’t respect the Constitution or the rule of law or the social contract we already have. Where does that leave you?

    • philjourdan says:

      I bet a vegetable is yours.

  29. Tom Swift says:

    I for one am not afraid to use the “N” word. Narcissist, there I said it. Exactly what our beloved Obammer is.

    • _Jim says:

      That’s actually a subset of sociopathic (and pathological?) behavior; which I think is a better fit for a clinical diagnoses overall …

  30. David Bollig says:

    This is my last post as there is no one here who might actually look up the facts behind this RSS anamoly and will actually find a reason for it. But that would not work for the same reason there are like minded individuals who believe dinosaurs roamed the earth with early man. There are so few data points supporting deniers claims that what few there are are endlessly repeated, long past the point where they have been shown to be skewed, erroneous, or used in a missleading fashion. It has been depressing. Good luck in your continued bliss.

    • Spamf Roming says:

      Good-bye to you then, sir.

      If you want a minimum of data points then please look to Mann’s hockey stick. This total fraud, which kicked off the entire AGW nut job factory was a collection of loosely-cobbled-together proxy measurements, consisting of a few tree-rings in Siberia, a few ice-core readings, and a lot of made-up numbers. Then this was attached to actual temperature readings from the first half of the 20th century, which of course were not as thorough or accurate as modern-day satellite readings. And throw in some fudged numbers from East Anglia (you know, where the ClimateGate emails said they would “hide the decline” using a “trick”), and voila! You have the entire Global Warming theory summed up for you using almost no data at all!

      But you go off and have your self-righteous hissy fit. You won’t be missed.

    • _Jim says:

      RSS anamoly?

      What about UAH?

    • _Jim says:

      There are so few data points supporting deniers claims that what few there are are endlessly repeated,

      And _your_ claims (for CAGW et al) and the underlying basis for making them are _____ ???


      Is that it?

    • Robert says:

      Another exacerbated Believer, where the data does not support is Belief system.

    • Does cutting and pasting mindless alarmist nonsense make you feel good about your intellectual void?

    • Wyguy says:

      Thank God, bye.

    • Dave N says:

      In case you decide to stay:

      “This is my last post as there is no one here who might actually look up the facts behind this RSS anamoly and will actually find a reason for it.”

      I guess you mean “anomaly”, but alarmists often find it hard to spell. What anomaly? Between RSS and datasets like GISS?

      “There are so few data points supporting deniers claims that what few there are are endlessly repeated, long past the point where they have been shown to be skewed, erroneous, or used in a missleading fashion. It has been depressing.”

      You might like to look up Einsteins comment about how much it takes to prove something to be wrong.

      • Gregg W says:

        One. Basic theorem testing fundamental. A theory, remains a theory, however long it takes to identify one reproducible exception. At which point the theorem is proven false.

    • philjourdan says:

      And the coward runs with his tail tucked between his legs.

      Part of your problem is your lack of intelligence. You do not think, you merely assume. And when shown to be wrong, you present no facts, you whine like a spoiled child.

      Typical liberal.

  31. pedro fatagras says:

    Nooooooo. Algore says its hot!! And to send more money.

  32. willys36 says:

    it’s all George Bush’s fault.

  33. Must be all that Global Warming, oops, I mean Climate Change, oops, I mean Climate Disruption. It’s hard to keep up with the correct terminology with this Administration.

  34. efeteam says:

    Snowing right now in Laramie, Wyoming with a 70% chance of snow for the weekend.

  35. Linda G. says:

    it doesn’t matter weather to democrats is climate change same thing , but Democrats figured away to make money off the weather and fool the chicken little’s and sheep.

  36. biglouie15 says:

    According to our version of Kim Jung Il (the smartest person that ever lived), we must not believe our own eyes but believe whatever he says is true. He has proclaimed a war on MMGW and nobody must disagree. This pathological liar will not stop until he has destroyed America.

  37. m says:

    Put Al Sharpton on his own network and the hot will keeps us nice n toasty in the Winter.

  38. Al D says:

    When we look at all the information related to the earth’s early atmosphere before and after cyanobacteria spread throughout the globe, we begin to realize how powerful an influence CO2-breathing bacteria alone have had and will continue to have on the planet. Bacteria and plant life will continue their balancing act with CO2 and methane levels. Don’t let short term spikes in these gases alarm you.

    Most “warmists” sucked in by Al Gore and Bill Nye will smarten up after a few brutal winters and data showing yearly increases in the thickening of polar ice caps. They’ll begin listening to warnings about the climate changes the upcoming mini-ice age will bring. A few decades from now, we’ll be wishing we never made such a rapid transition from fossil fuels to cleaner, safer energy sources like solar panels, thorium reactors, and perhaps fusion reactors.

    The Vostok ice core data is cyclical and stretches back over 400,000 years. It reveals that we are on the verge of a long-term cooling trend. The data also reveals the effects of the earth’s axial wobble as well as its varying elliptical orbit around the sun.

    Add up the complexity of the earth/sun relationship, the sun’s varying activity, volcanic activity, water vapor, bacteria activity, plant life, meteor strikes, and you can see how little effect the burning of fossil fuels has had and will have on both warming and cooling trends.

    • Gregg W says:

      :). Basically, when I was a kid growing up, we called it “the weather”. Sometimes it rains. Sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes it’s beastly hot. Sometimes it’s not. Leave to control freaque egomaniacs to believe they can control the weather of the world…

      • Gregg W says:

        Good heavens… I’m being moderated. Let me try a sanitized version.

        Basically, when I was a kid growing up, we called it “the weather”. Sometimes it rains. Sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes it’s beastly hot. Sometimes it’s not. Leave it to individuals with a high need to control their surroundings to believe that they can control the weather…

  39. James the Elder says:

    David Bollig says:
    May 8, 2014 at 9:04 pm
    This is my last post as there is no one here who might actually look up the facts behind this RSS anamoly and will actually find a reason for it. But that would not work for the same reason there are like minded individuals who believe dinosaurs roamed the earth with early man. There are so few data points supporting deniers claims that what few there are are endlessly repeated, long past the point where they have been shown to be skewed, erroneous, or used in a missleading fashion. It has been depressing. Good luck in your continued bliss.

    Enjoy the cold, you Mokele-mbembe denier.

    • Paulus says:

      What, pray tell, is an anamoly? Some kind of extinct animal, killed in ancient times by global disruption? You believers are insane.

  40. Al D says:

    Why is “climate change” suddenly THE priority of the left? They want that carbon tax before enough of us wise up to the FACT that we are now in a COOLING trend. They’re panicking!

    Look at it this way: There has been zero warming in the last decade or so. If not for man, that chart would better show the natural cooling trend we have been in for quite a while. Well, in the near future, that cooling trend will show up despite man’s release of greenhouse gasses – despite all those cow farts. By the year 2050, we’ll probably be looking for ways to warm the planet. Climate change is funny that way.

    • _Jim says:

      Why is “climate change” suddenly THE priority of the left? They want that carbon tax before enough of us wise up to the FACT that we are now in a COOLING trend. They’re panicking!

      They (the left) needed a ‘wedge issue’ to drive otherwise top-tier (a lot of ppl in different scientific arenas buy into it, for instance, since the idea is just palatable enough on the surface to win a ‘sale’ … just don’t dig too far beneath the surface!) people apart. It has been somewhat self-propagating now that Billions in government has been spent in one-sided studies considering only ONE outcome (WARMING) given what they think are all variables.

  41. This is all due to global cooling that they harped on in the 1970’s. No, wait, I mean global warming. I mean climate change (since we are dealing with cooling now)… and the latest term I heard just yesterday… ‘climate disruption’. So pay up people… one of these problems is YOUR fault. Feel guilty RIGHT NOW and PAY UP!!!!

    • _Jim says:

      Yes … ‘pay up’, regardless. There is no end to our profligate spending, our insatiable appetite for the good things in life (French wines, Russian caviar), and our ultimate desire to control each facet of your life. So we can have more. Resources are not a zero sum game you say? We can make it so, through control and regulation, through licensing and permitting, and ‘leases’ let on public lands.

    • tom0mason says:

      Your SUV sins are forgiven ….
      Papal indulgences anyone?

  42. Photos of Colorado’s recent “Global Cooling” can be seen here –

  43. Andrew says:

    I guess no one showed the weather Obama’s global warming report.

  44. Al D says:

    In all seriousness, warming and cooling trends aren’t problems that can be solved. All we can do is adjust to them. Excessive pollution, on the other hand, is a problem we can and must solve.

  45. Alert!!! Alert!!! Alert!!! From Democrat Headquarters: All democrats and supporters here and abroad, we must flood the media with hysterical global warming alarms to take the heat off Dem candidates in the November 2014 and 2016 elections due to the train wreck of Obamacare! Shout, scream, cry, make outlandish claims and don’t stop till after the elections!!! Alert!!! Alert!!! Alert!!!

  46. muzikjock says:

    It is incredible to me that anyone believes this fictitious phenomenon. As being in the HVAC industry, I have noticed illogical and contradictory thought processes in the way the science is reported. On the one hand, as of 5 years ago, on a 30lb bottle of R-22(Chlorodifluoromethane ), it stated that Freon was heavier than air, posing a health hazard if inhaled, even death. On the same bottle, in another panel on the same package, contained another warning listing Freon as believed to destroying the upper ozone atmosphere, therefore being a potential environmental hazard…i began to think….how can a substance that is heavier than air destroy the UPPER ozone? hmm…lets depart from that logical anomilee for a moment, and address this contradiction: so then dupont rolls out R-410A(a combination of difluoromethane and pentafluoroethane), marketed by Carrier as “Puron”…the environmentally safe refrigerant…hmmmm. I then was forced to be certified to handle this new refrigerant, and upon the end of the certification class, i posed this question to the instructor: “If 410A is so environmentally safe, why then do we still have to recover it? why can’t we vent it if its safe? …I got laughed at and patted on the shoulder and they walked away…not answering my question…so…in conclusion, though i didn’t get an answer, by their not answering, i got my answer: IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENVIRONMENT….DUPONT NOR ANY OTHER CORPORATIST GIVES A DAMN ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT…ITS ABOUT THE MONEY!…PATENTS ARE ONLY GOOD FOR SO LONG..AFTERWARDS, ANYONE CAN PRODUCE THE CHEMICAL AND SELL IT…SO, PAY SOMEONE TO DO SOME R&D TO PROVE THAT THE STUFF HARMS THE ATMOSPHERE, PERSUADE THE GOVT THAT IT IS HARMFUL AND THEN YOU HAVE CONTROL AND ELIMINATION OF AN OBSOLETE CHEMICAL(IF YOU PAY SOMEONE ENOUGH MONEY YOU CAN GET THEM TO AGREE TO ANYTHING). DUPONT LOST THEIR PATENT ON R-12 , GOT IT BANNED FOR PRODUCTION IN THE US, THEN PUMPED OUT THE NEW R-134A. SAME THING HAPPENED TO R-22. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENVIRONMENT, ITS ABOUT THE BENJAMINS!….ITS CONTROL, BABY…THIS GLOBAL WARMING BULL CRAP IS MUCH THE SAME…ABOUT CONTROL AND THE STEALING OF PROPERTY AND WEALTH FROM THOSE WHO HAVE IT TO THOSE WHO WANT IT. ITS WEALTH REDISTIBUTION. CALL IT WHAT YOU WANT…ITS A LIE. ONLY, IF YOU CALL IT GLOBAL WARMING, YOU CAN FEEL HONORED AND WILLING BEING TAXED FOR IT WHILE YOU ARE GETTING SCREWED IN THE ARSE.

    • Gamecock says:

      You are a liar, sir. Dupont was pushed into ditching Freon. I know; I was there.

      • Bradenton Bob says:

        If you were there then you must be able to answer the first question posed. If R-22 is heavier than air how did it reach the upper atmosphere and destroy the ozone. Waiting for you answer.

      • muzikjock says:

        yeah, i believe that….the most powerful corporation in the world, pushed into something…lol..unbelievable. what ever…believe what you want…i happen to know, if 410A was so environmentally friendly, we wouldnt still have to recover it… tell it to someone else who believes you? the only answer that makes sense is “follow the money”

        • Shazaam says:

          I hear ya….. Fascinating how 17 years after R-12 was ditched for eating upper atmosphere ozone (and I also thought that was a bogus claim for such a heavy gas), suddenly R134a is now “bad” and we need a newer, greener refrigerant.

          And it’s likely only a coincidence that refrigerants suddenly become environmentally “bad” only after their patents have expired…..

          Just a coincidence, nothing to see here, move along and pay-up.

        • _Jim says:

          And it’s likely only a coincidence that refrigerants suddenly become environmentally “bad” only after their patents have expired…..

          You will find, if you actually do your research, that the common “R-12″ (dichlorodifluro whatever) refrigerant patent expired, long, long ago.

          And I’ll bet you 100 dollars that you can’t locate the original R-12 patent (or patent number) either … (few people can)

        • Shazaam says:

          I was referring to the newer stuff. R134a forward. And it could be a coincidence after all….. Since no one really knows…..

          R-12/FREON was indeed a very stable compound that operated at relatively low pressures (compared to the short-lived R410 stuff anyway) resulting in less expensive refrigeration equipment that lasted for ridiculously long times…..

        • muzikjock says:

          ok, here’s the truth: 410A is crap. it has an operating saturation temperature table at about twice the pressures of r-22, which makes it more suseptable to leaks, and it also is a blended refrigerant which makes it less efficient a refrigerant… much so, that in order to charge a system properly, you have to charge it in a liquid(invert the bottle) so that it blends well enough to start working. it takes roughly 20 minutes of running an a/c with r-410A before the system starts stablizing well enough to even know if you got a proper charge on the system…and i havent even begun to talk about the refigerant oil that it comes charged with…..which is known to be a moisture magnet….something you DO NOT want in a refrigerant system….so you also have to vacuum the system for quite a bit longer than r-22 just to make sure you arent contaminating a system with non-condensibles… short 410A IS A BUNCH OF CRAP…ANYONE ELSE WANT TO CHALLENGE ME ON REFRIGERANTS?

      • muzikjock says:

        and…if you were there, you would also know they weren’t forced into ditching Freon…Freon is still alive and well…..Freon is a trade mark and patented name for refrigerant….which is still used….but of course you knew that…you were there lol

        • _Jim says:

          ” you would also know they weren’t forced into ditching Freon ”

          That’s not correct; explain why the alternatives are now used in automobiles for instance …

      • muzikjock says:

        dude i work with the stuff every day. Freon is a patented name by Dupont for one else can use that name for refrigerant but Dupont. lol. “…. The trade name Freon ® is a registered trademark belonging to E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (DuPont)…..” from “”. if you need a source…but again, you don’t …CAUSE YOU WERE THERE! LOL

        • _Jim says:

          When was so-called ‘freon’ originally patented?

        • muzikjock says:

          @ jim….freon was patented in the 20’s and 30’s ….it was a collaborated work between GM, Dupont, and carrier. it was originally patented as a replacement for refrigerants that were deadly….mainly ammonia and the like….so they came up with cfc’s as an inert replacement. i guess you can say it was the “environmentally clean” alternative of the time. lol. i guess 60 years had to pass before the corporatists and the tree huggers decided it wasnt good enough anymore, wonder why? lol. im just sayin.

        • muzikjock says:

          i just can’t wait for them to decide that “puron” is not all that pure, and out of the clear blue……they need another refrigerant …..but by then, the ones who remember the “puron” slogan will be dead or won’t remember the propaganda that was pushed to get everyone on board for 410A lol.

        • from “”. if you need a source

          You’re sort of a self-refuting kind of idiot, aren’t you? I mean, I normally use something reliable like or … just saying *wink wink* *nudge nudge*.

        • _Jim says:

          re: muzikjock says May 9, 2014 at 4:52 am
          @ jim….freon was patented in the 20′s and 30′s

          Just seeing/checking how ‘sane’ you are, and if you are in possession of at least a bare minimum of fact on this issue …

          Now, are you able to point to the specific patent involving the invention of ‘freon’? (I can)

          Simply ‘working’ with the stuff daily doesn’t mean diddly.

        • _Jim says:

          re: muzikjock says May 9, 2014 at 4:52 am
          … it was originally patented as a replacement for refrigerants that were deadly …

          This is not the ‘settled’ science you make it out to be. You have read the ‘pop’ or popular culture reasons that were attributed years after the fact, but, in the contemporary (during the time) years around the invention of freon that was not the sole, lone reason (again, that is your claim) for the invention of freon.

          REFRIGERANTS: IT AIN’T NECESSARILY SO By Carmen J. Giunta, Le Moyne College

          This generally applicable paragraph buried towards the end of the above document is particularly applicable regards the misconception you have been ‘taught’ regarding freon being designed solely to replace the other gases used at the time:

          Getting the facts correct would seem to be an uncontroversial prerequisite for writing history, whether for a scholarly or a general audience. Without factual accuracy, judgments and interpretations will be suspect; and even factual accuracy does not guarantee correct interpretation. What is one to do when the facts are complicated or uncertain? Many writers for a general audience are not expert historical researchers. They have little choice but to rely on the most reliable products of such researchers, distilling and condensing as appropriate.

      • muzikjock says:

        AND ….WHILE YOU ARE HERE, any other “truths” you wanna clear up? lol or did i pretty much cover it?

        • Yeah, did you eat paint as a child, or did you do so as an adult?

        • muzikjock says:

          @ stark Dickflussig: dude, you are talking about freemasons coverting freon into thermite to take down the wtc….and you are asking me if I ate paint ? lol. wow….i don’t know about paint, but i would like some of that stuff you’re smokin…must be good chit

        • No, you’re just stupid, but thanks for playing. Your going-away prize is a hamburger made of paint chips, you idiot.

        • _Jim says:

          Stark Dickflüssig, muzikjock is providing a wonderful example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

          We should thank him for the effort in this avenue of behavior.

    • The Freemasons converted freon into thermite to topple the WTC. Dude.

    • _Jim says:

      ” As being in the HVAC industry ”

      Being in the HVAC industry and having any awareness of the intricacies of the patent and trademark systems are two entirely different things.

      As are having any accurate knowledge why certain freons where phased out for use in the US.

    • _Jim says:

      re: muzikjock says May 9, 2014 at 12:38 am

      As subsequently determined, the patent involving “R-12″ expired long ago (in the 1950’s). There were also some number of follow-on patents concerning processes for the manufacture of ‘freon’, but these do not preclude the sale or use of ‘freon’ by others as was described in the original patent once that original patent expired.

      Please, don’t propagate this myth about “R-12″ any longer.


  47. Ratbite says:

    What about 1816, the year without a summer??

  48. Danthree says:

    Where is “THE WIZARD of GORE”??? Where is THE WIZARD???

    • Shazaam says:

      Your best chance of siting “big Al” would be to hand around the $1000 a plate fundraisers in Mordor-on-the-Potomac.

  49. iambicpentamaster says:

    “Coldest Year On Record So Far In The US”

    That’s one inconvenient truth.

  50. voiceofreasonoriginal says:

    the coldest year on record must be due to global warming, right?

  51. Jack Frost says:

    Don’t fret folks. When “common core” kicks in we’ll all know what to think and when to think it. Surely there’s a “common core” section dealing with “politically correct science”.

  52. Chris Long says:

    Like, does this mean the scientific debate is over?

  53. Dave says:

    It’s a good thing we have that global warming going on….. Otherwise it would be really cold!

  54. Ralph says:

    It’s just fine here in beautiful Camarillo,Ca.. usual weather is 70 and sunny. That hasn’t changed at all.

  55. Mike Herman says:

    This is why “global warming” morphed into “climate change”. Whatever happens lets the Gore-bies say “See? I told you so.”

  56. SP Looker says:

    I carry a nice rotten piece of fruit in a tupperware container so the next time i hear or see a climate
    liar, no matter where we meet, im going to honor that person with a piece of fruit that sends the respect i have for greivous psychotic liars

  57. tlarremore says:

    Reblogged this on Head Space and commented:
    Climate Disruption Assessment

  58. Gary Novak says:

    Scientific Fraud at the Origins of Modern Global Warming Science

    From Gary Novak
    Independent Scientist

    All foundation publications for global warming use modeling, because real science cannot be applied to the complexities of climate. This means there is no data. Modeling does not produce data. It takes measurements to produce data.

    At the origins of modern global warming science was a request in by the Office of Science and Technology Policy to create a study group for answering questions about global warming. The result was a publication by Charney et al, 1979 (1), determining the expected temperature increase upon doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. The group used modeling for the determination.

    Modeling is not science, and the results were not described in an honest manner. Mockeries were supposedly modeled, such as “horizontally diffusive heat exchange.” There is no such thing. Snow cover and light reflected from it were supposedly modeled for the next century, while weathermen cannot predict snow cover two weeks in advance (As Atlanta showed).

    No Starting Point for Heat Produced by Carbon Dioxide

    Modeling requires a concept of how much heat carbon dioxide should produce. A number for heat must be fed into the model, or there is nothing to model. But that quantity was the end result of the modeling by Charney et al rather than the starting point. What can be modeled without the influence of carbon dioxide?

    A Mechanism Could not be Described

    This occurred because there is no concept in climatology for a mechanism that produces heat from carbon dioxide. Early on, a mechanism near ground level was assumed, but it didn’t stand up to evaluation, so the concept shifted to high in the atmosphere, which is even more absurd.

    There is no way to get heat radiated back to the surface from high up. Half of the radiation would go upward rather than downward; only 30% of the radiation, at most, would go around greenhouse gases to get to the surface; and about 70% of the radiation would be absorbed into the oceans, where heat accumulates for thousands of years between ice ages. All in all, at least 24°C temperature increase would be required high in the atmosphere to heat the lower atmosphere by 1°C, while no temperature increase high in the atmosphere due to carbon dioxide has been detected. (

    What Really Happens

    Global warming does not exist and is not scientifically credible. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is so low that all biology is on the verge of becoming extinct due to a shortage of CO2 which is needed for photosynthesis. There was twenty times as much CO2 in the atmosphere when modern photosynthesis evolved. Oceans continuously absorb CO2 and convert it into calcium carbonate and limestone. The calcium never runs out, and the pH of the oceans never drops below 8.1 for this reason. It’s the pH which calcium carbonate buffers at. If not, why hasn’t four billion years been long enough to get there?

    The planet is cooled by radiation which goes around greenhouse gases, not through them. Cooling results in an equilibrium temperature which is independent of how heat gets into the atmosphere. It means greenhouse gases have no influence upon the temperature of the planet.

    The Erroneous Assumption

    The primary error is the assumption that global temperature is determined by how the planet is heated rather than cooled. Not so. The heat is everything that the sun adds to the earth. How the heat is moved around is irrelevant. A jar of pickles will absorb radiation, but it doesn’t heat the planet.

    If the rate of heat leaving were the “delicate balance” which is claimed, nothing about it would be stable. To think life lucked out at 180 or 280 parts per million CO2 is stupidity. The temperature changes by at least 5°C between each ice age, which occurs every 100 thousand years.

    All major forces in nature equilibrate. They change until they can’t change anymore, which is equilibrium.

    Science Requires Measurements and Standards

    Science isn’t just anything that complex studies can do. It must achieve an expected result of reliability in determining basic reality. The reliability is totally dependent upon the procedures and standards. Why are we told the science is settled, when there was no reliability in the methods used? Reliability is not in the virtues and infallibility of scientists. Charlatans could provide plenty of that. Science is a more credible way of creating reliability.

    Only measurement of evidence in reproducible form will produce the reliability that science is expected to have. Achieving this result in the complexities of supposed global warming is so far removed from existing science that no attempt has been made along such lines, while modeling is used as a substitute.

    Climate Science cannot achieve the Claimed Results

    Real science cannot be produced for climatology beyond miniscule effects. Science is unreachable for climatology due to the infinite complexity and randomness. Weathermen cannot predict more than a few days with the most rudimentary concepts of temperature and precipitation for the same reasons. Climate is weather extended farther into the future. Climatologists cannot reach into the distant future any more than weathermen can.

    Yet modelers pretend to have every detail which influences temperature evaluated for the next hundred years. This includes such effects as the amount of snow cover and light reflected from it. They didn’t know how much snow there would be this winter (2013-14) more than a few days in advance. How then can they predict the same thing for the next century? Their claims are nothing but fakery.

    The pretense/assumption is that long-term averaging is totally subject to analysis. Wrong. Long-term effects include as much complexity and randomness as short-term effects, as shown by historical graphs which include endless up and down spikes. The fake hockey stick graph showed a straight-line history, which did not include a “Medieval Warm Period” and “Little ice Age.” Rationalizers said those effects occurred only in the Northern Hemisphere. To get an unchanging average, the opposite would have had to occur in the Southern Hemisphere. Implicit is something holding the average constant, while nothing but CO2 induces average change. Long-term graphs show there are no straight lines. Are repeated ice ages every 100 thousand years an unchanging average?

    Modelers Start at the End Point

    Modelers of global warming start at the end point with a desired result of 3°C temperature increase upon doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They then pretend to have a scientific method of arriving at that result. But complexities are so far removed from their analysis that they cannot produce a consistent explanation of how they derive the result.

    The publication of Charney et al, 1979, vaguely describes various elements of atmospheric effects which were evaluated with no explanation of actual methodology. Without a methodology being described, no scientific criticism of procedures is possible. All real science requires at least enough methodology being describe to allow other scientists to evaluate the results. In climatology, such standards do not exist in foundation publications.

    For example, Charney et al listed endless atmospheric effects which they modeled, while most of the effects are nonexistent and incoherent, such as “horizontally diffusive heat exchange,” which doesn’t exist in the atmosphere. Heat balance was supposedly entered into the model, while heat balance does not exist in the atmosphere, because heat is transformed into other forms of energy such as radiation in varied ways, while total energy equilibrates through radiation.

    Historical Temperature was Used by Hansen et al

    Later modeling by Hansen et al, 1984, 1988, (2,3) attempted to start with a concept of how much heat carbon dioxide should produce, while the modeling was then used to evaluate secondary effects, mostly water vapor which would supposedly increase and add twice as much heat as the primary effect by carbon dioxide. Hansen et al stated that “empirical observation” was used to determine the primary effect by carbon dioxide, by which they meant the assumed historical record. One problem is that the historical record would include secondary effects, which means they compounded the secondary effects. Another problem is that real scientists would never assume that historical temperature records are free from natural influences other than carbon dioxide.

    Yet Hansen et al arrived at approximately the same conclusion as Charney et al, that the expected temperature increase upon doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would be about 3°C. This result is always given for hundreds of such studies with widely varying procedures, which shows that it is nothing but a contrived end result with nothing but fakery for a method of deriving it.

    Watts per Square Meter in the Atmosphere

    Another problem with all such attempts to determine how much heat carbon dioxide should produce is that the results are given as watts per square meter. There is no surface in the atmosphere to evaluate in terms of square meters. The result should be stated in terms of cubic meters of mass. Not doing so shows a total lack of concern for scientific legitimacy. In other words, the studies were such a misrepresentation of science from beginning to end that fixing one highly visible problem was not assumed to be relevant.

    Radiative Transfer Equations were Used

    Eventually, Myhre et al, 1998 (4), pretended to make a direct attempt to determine the primary effect of carbon dioxide. They claimed to use “radiative transfer equations.” Those equations were not designed to show heat. They have the purpose of showing how radiation is depleted as concentration of a gas changes. An additional study might evaluate the heat resulting from the radiation, but it would be impossibly complex and was not mentioned. Worst of all, Myhre et al added modeling of atmospheric effects to their study. The obvious reason for including modeled atmospheric effects was to muddle the subject beyond accountability, since radiative transfer equations were vulnerable to criticism. Then they said their study showed earlier studies to only be off by 15%, but their study could not be compared to other studies, because earlier studies could not separate primary effects from secondary effects.

    Where is the Science?

    Wherever global warming is promoted, the pretense or claim is that an underlying science is beyond question. Where is that science? Why aren’t we told what it consists of, if it is so unquestionable? It doesn’t exist.

    It isn’t that global warming has to be there, and scientists have to find a way to represent it. Global warming is not scientifically credible.


    1. Charney, J. G., Arakawa, A., Baker, D., Bolin, B., Dickerso, R., Goody, R., Leith, C., Stommel, H.M. & Wunsch, C.I. 1979 Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. Washington, DC. National Academy of Sciences Press.

    2. Hansen, J., A. Cacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy, and J. Lerner, 1984. CLIMATE SENSITIVITY: ANALYSIS OF FEEDBACK MECHANISMS. Geophys. Mono. 29:130-163.

    3. Hansen, J., I. Fung, A. Llacis, D. Rind, S. Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone, 1988. Global Climate Changes as Forcast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Three Dimensional Model. J. Geophys. Res. 93:9341-9364.

    4. Myhre, G., E.J. Highwood, K.P. Shine, and F. Stordal, 1998. New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25:2715-2718.


    Home Page: Global Warming Contrived from Fraudulent Science (

    This Page: Scientific Fraud at the Origins of Modern Global Warming Science (


  59. Serket says:

    If this is the coldest year through May 6th, was 2012 the hottest year through May 6th?

  60. Ralph says:

    Why hasn’t anyone told the President and his scientists? He said he was going to let science rule more in his decisions, remember? They need to factor this new data into their models for more accurate conclusions? I know, I know, he is busy playing golf, taking multimillion dollar vacations with his family, campaigning and doing everything he can to improve jobs (what is it, for 5 years now?). Hey! He is trying, isn’t he? How many times has he said that he is always ready to talk to anyone with new ideas! What are we waiting for?

  61. Mr. Wright says:

    My $10 million dollar Federally Funded Grant to study Climate Change only allows me to produce data that indicates man’s activities on this planet are causing dramatic swings in the climate.

    If I don’t produce skewed data then I will lose my ability to use Tax Payer money to live large and party like a rock star.

    This week I am flying my chartered jet to a private resort Island to discuss man’s effect on climate due to excess access to commercial jets by the masses. My other colleagues are also fling on their chartered jets, in all total 125 private jets will be arriving at the conference.

  62. B says:

    Guess they were WRONG about global warming! LOL

  63. Lee Weinfurtner says:

    From the graph it is easy to see that the average temp stays the same throughout the years. No ‘Climate change’ to see here. Take it from the Creator of our universe:
    Gen 8:21 And the Lord was pleased with the aroma of the sacrifice and said to himself, “I will never again curse the ground because of the human race, even though everything they think or imagine is bent toward evil from childhood. I will never again destroy all living things. 22 As long as the earth remains, there will be planting and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter , day and night.”
    Thank you Lord Jesus.

  64. Tyler says:

    I blame the cold weather on an Internet video, but really, at this point, what difference does it really make?

  65. Matt In Texas says:

    It’s all that global warming – and it’s George W. Bush’s fault. Someone call Al Gore – limp wristed pansy to the rescue!


    When a president leans over and says wait till my second term you really think he cares what Putin does? He has no clue or cares what the rest of the world does. Wait till RUSSIA and CHINA INVADE US and the libs are hiding in their bath tubs asking themselves why did this happen?

  67. Kylre88 says:

    “Coldest Year On Record So Far In The US”

    What does this have to do with a long term climate trend?

    • Look at the graph. There isn’t any long term trend.

      • Kylre88 says:

        You’re using short term trends, a few years, to apparently pass judgement on a long term process. Natural systems aren’t linear and don’t work that way, especially when subjected to numerous feedbacks. It’s like putting a square peg into a round whole — it won’t fit unless you shave off the parts you don’t want. Short term trends are irrelevant. It’s exactly the same as people who use one or two storms to illustrate ‘climate change.’

      • Kylre88 says:

        “There isn’t any long term trend”

        You aren’t using a long term trend. The data you present is short term, not long term.

        Even worse is looking at short term trends over a specific area, while ignoring the rest of the system as a whole. Again, science doesn’t work that way, and the global system doesn’t work that way. You are expecting some sort of statistically valid trend to show up over a specific geographical area over a short 20 or even 50 year period of time? Given that the oceans absorb 80%-90% of any warming, and only a few % goes into the atmosphere, that really would be alarming. The atmosphere is relatively slow to respond — temperature trends over a human lifespan are more meteorology than climatology. All these discussions over short term temperature variations, especially locally, are irrelevant to climatology. I’m sure they provide you with great talking points and headlines, but they are humorous to those of us who know better.

        • _Jim says:

          I didn’t learn much from your post; can you explain ‘the why’ next to the various assertions?

        • TSZodiac says:

          Aaand since the IPCC, and every other climate scientist related to this whole AGW scam uses less than 200 years of observable data (with the rest being extrapolations) then the entire AGW scam is exposed as non-science. Thank you for making our point for us. By the way, the Farmers Almanac – that primarily uses solar cycles as the basis for their predictions – continues to be FAR more accurate than the so called AGW “climatologists”…and the whole “the ocean ate the warming” argument only arose when the IPCC needed an excuse for the complete and total lack of warming in their data post 2000….gee, maybe you remember the “PAUSE”….curious as to why the oceans weren’t hungry for warmth in the years that the IPCC showed spikes in warming….oh, right – that’s back when they were caught by hackers cooking the books on their data….

        • 117 years is too short, you need to use a better number like 1979-2012.

  68. tngilmer says:

    Unfortunately you cannot refute a religious belief (and that is what “climate change” has become) with objective facts.

    • Rex says:

      Can’t refute Climate change? lol

      Of course not, because Climate (THE WEATHER) has always changed!

      So why have democrats now started calling it CLIMATE DISRUPTION? WHO exactly do they think is interupting the weather????

      Talk about being stuck-on-stupid!

  69. John Trapp says:

    Coldest year on record yet ABC news with Diane Sawyer opened every newscast this week with stories about global warming. Absolutely amazing. When scam artists like Al Gore who have made 100s of millions of dollars from this scam have their credibility threatened by facts, thank God the main stream media is there to bury it.

  70. not drinking the Koolaid says:

    Wooly worms got it right! Ground Hog got it right! please name one thing this administration has gotten right.

  71. Steve says:

    Such a new strain of STD running rampant in the liberal newsrooms over this Global Warming Hysteria. They are calling it “CLI-MEDIA” becauase of the inability to know the real truth about what happens when you come in close intimate contact with those affected by this disease!!!! Can”t treat this one with antibotics, but maybe a lobotomy on some of these growling buffoons might just stop all of this hot air from reaching our atmosphere!!! There is a cure here. It is called KNOWLEDGE of World Climate Patterns, both now and in the past, and you can get it anywhere, but not at the Pharmacy!! Oh, those of you that have “CLI-MEDIA” if you choose the correct cure, you will be PAIN free within 7-10 days!! Read this once every 6 hours and call me in the morning, if the PAIN does not subside!!!

  72. Rex says:

    Global WARMING makes it COLDER!!!!!

    That’s why democrats put trays of water into their ovens when they want to make ice cubes……

    Seriously, how stupid does one have to be to vote democrat?

  73. Rich Rochester says:

    God 1, Liberals 0.

  74. richard says:

    awh- it’s just cooler global warming !

  75. Doug Nusbaum says:

    God must love stupid people. He made so many of them Global warming rests on statistics. None of you have the knowledge of statistics required to begin to understand this. You may as well be a 10 year old Chinese child in a collegs class on Shakespeare. And here is evidence. (Note that I did not use the word proof, since nothing positive is EVER proved in science. Of course, since you are also ignorant of basic science you think that proof and truth are part of science. They are not.) But I digress from speaking of statistics. I doubt that a single one of you can follow the proof of the gausian integral (proofs ARE valid in math)
    Gaussian integral Since this is one of the basic tools of statistics your ignorance renders you unqualified to comment on GW. However it is an example of the Dunning Kruger effect.

    I bet none of you know what ‘e’ is, why it is important or how it is derived.

    • Does OFA train people to make stupid comments?

    • _Jim says:

      ” I bet none of you know what ‘e’ is, why it is important or how it is derived. ”

      More importantly, do you know of any practical uses for “e” (hint: they lie in the engineering areas of the hard sciences)?


    • tom0mason says:

      ‘e’ is the letter between ‘d’ and ‘f’ which unlike all others in the alphabet has the properties of growing in importance depending on how important it has become.
      This strange property allows some that are innocent or foolish in the dark arts of mathematic to feel that they too have this property. The truth is that these foolish charlatans only have egos with the property.

    • philjourdan says:

      You have no idea of our backgrounds, but your assumptions highlight your ignorance on the subject. You have no clue what you are talking about. You think statistics are ERA and RBIs.

  76. Gamecock says:

    This just in:

    It’s not “Climate Disruption” anymore.

    Hey have moved on to “Climate Incontinence.”

  77. Red Blues says:

    Lost in the whole discussion of climate factors is the effect that just two of the completely natural process of solar heating and volcanoes have on the planet. If we were able to control those two sources, then there might be reason to add Carbon tax credits or propose major legislation like Agenda 21…

    Somebody got a really huge beach umbrella that can be placed over the equator? … or a gigantic vacuum that would be needed to suck up all the sun blocking volcanic ash and soot?


    Well, then I guess we’ll just have to muddle our way through times when the planet experiences extreme weather… still not as hot as it was during the Cambrian Era nor as cold as the last ice age… and when it does get to one of those extremes, no amount of taxation or alarmist rhetoric will make a tinker’s damn worth of difference.

    Go ahead and rebut this statement… with logic and critical thinking but not name calling… go ahead… double dog dare ya!

  78. naughtonjj says:

    Climate disruption is a joke. The comments in this session are funny and show what how funny the “warmists”

  79. Frank Grillo says:

    Algore what up?? …………… I know, I know, global warming causes global cooling.

  80. Vince says:

    We MUST do something about this global warming…er…global cooling…er…climate change…er…climate disruption…yeah, that’s it….climate disruption.

  81. Eric says:

    IF you people had the intellectual faculties, you would realize that the global cooling is a directly correlated result of global warming which is a direct result of excess CO2 and we’re all going to die soon, just like the polar bears which are now extinct the only hope we have is to capture cow farts, compress them with wind turbine and solar powered compressors and send them into outer space with methane powered rockets (fitted with CO2 extraction/conversion adapters) otherwise we are all dead meat any day now. Also we need to recycle. Wake up people. The planet’s survival is at stake.

  82. Erastus says:

    I don’t mean to argue with statistics but it seem that it was colder when I was a kid.

    • FreedomFromFacts says:

      At this point deniers are utter adult children who lack the courage face the overwhelming consensus on the results of real science using real scientific methodology. The dangers of climate are now independently acknowledged by the military brass as being a grave concern to our future security. Hell is for those who hide in extremist echo chambers where spin, cherry picking data, denial, delusion and petty politicalization can keep you from feeling scared and losing a little pride. Get some courage to face reality in the eye and do something positive. Things don’t look good and you can’t take it like adults. Get your heads out of the sand stop the noise and do something to help future generations have a inkling of a chance to thrive with clean renewable energy sources. Don’t sit in a pool of bitterness at the changing world and tried to suppress the truth. The internet is forever so don’t let all this bullshit be your legacy. Everything I see on this page can be shot down with common debunking such as this and many other sources.

      • I would say that you are a complete moron.

      • philjourdan says:

        According to Holdren, the only thing you can do is die. YOur existence creates CO2. Ergo, the alarmists are hypocrites for not dying. And there are not many mass murderers among the skeptics so they do not “do something”. You are welcome to “do something”. Try baby steps. Get off the computer! You are wasting CO2 and energy.

  83. harry says:

    The cold temperatures are caused by global warming. Unfortunately only our highest paid scientists are able to understand how this is even works. Everyone else is an ignorant flat earther for even question this theory. The computer models are accurate the science is settled the program is sound! Submit!

    • naughtonjj says:

      Everything is caused by GW even the IRAQ war. Birds sing because of GW. People poop because of GW. Everything happens because of GW. The universe was created by GW. GW is the religion of its advocates. But God created and sustains the earth.

      GWites are very confused, they have dismised God as the Creator and sustainer of the earth and universe. They are making fools of themselves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s