Coolest Summer On Record In The US

The frequency of 90 degree days in the US has been plummeting for 80 years, and 2014 has had the lowest frequency of 90 degree days through July 23 on record. The only other year which came close was 1992, and that was due to dust in the atmosphere from Mt Pinatubo.

ScreenHunter_1349 Jul. 26 16.57

About these ads

About stevengoddard

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

696 Responses to Coolest Summer On Record In The US

  1. Jerry Moore says:

    global warming is working great or is it cooling? drying? wetting? WTF IS IT PEOPLE?!

    • Tangair says:

      “It” is the ever convenient catchphrase, “climate change”. You know, like the climate is always changing anyway, so let’s now demonize level-headed science with the passing of each season.

      • porchhound says:

        Catch up man! It is now Climate DISRUPTION!!! Can’t you see it, feel it, taste it?

      • Rick says:

        That’s exactly it. If it’s too hot, it’s climate change. Too cold, climate change. Drought, climate change. Flood, climate change. Too many hurricanes, climate change. Not as many hurricanes as predicted, climate change. Anything that happens in nature at all, as if there is ever a “normal” in global climate patterns, well, climate change and we should be taxed to death and live off windmills and solar power and stop farming cows.

        • philjourdan says:

          No one said there was no climate change. It has been changing for 4.5 billion years! What planet are you on?

        • George Senda says:

          I never said there was NO climate change. My issue was the contention that it was the coolest summer which I doubt. I’m on Earth. I’m not sure wher in the hell YOU are at or on.

        • philjourdan says:

          T comes out of the closet!

          Or there actually is climate change. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/temperature.html

          You said “or there actually is…”. That indicates a revelation. As in WOW, really? I never quoted you as saying “no climate change” indeed I said NO ONE said that. And that includes skeptics.

          Don’t “J’acuse” when you do not know what was said.

        • Which summer do you believe had fewer 90 degree days?

        • Gail Combs says:

          I completely disagree. There IS NO “CLIMATE CHANGE”!

          Why do I say that? Because the politicos changed the meaning of the phrase “Climate Change” to confuse the sheeple. A tactic the progressives have been using for years.

          The USA ratified the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change on 21/03/94 and they came up with a brand new definition. Now “climate change” is 100% caused by humans, AND THAT is what I do not agree with.

          Here’s the official definition:

          “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

          That’s from the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2536.php). The term specifically excludes all natural climate change, end even excludes any caused by humans due to, for example, land clearance or city building, considering only atmospheric changes.

          So you’ve been hoodwinked thoroughly. Of course that’s the idea. They can make all sorts of horrendous claims about “climate change” (assuming their definition), which people like you assume to apply to, not “climate change”, but to a change of climate (meaning any change, whatever the cause or mechanism). So if they say, “climate change” is 1000 times more than it was 100 years ago, that may be true, but it might still be that the change of climate is negligible.

          Do you see now how the hoax is perpetrated?

          The fact that the UN has pulls such an underhanded trick on the general population should be a BIG CLUE that they are scammers.

      • Big2Tex says:

        “level-headed science” now there is an oxymoron for you.

      • woodNfish says:

        Actually, I think the climate is pretty stable – summers are warm, winters are cold, spring and fall transition between them, and overall we have weather mostly consistent with whatever time of year it is. All this BS about AGW and climate change is noise to continue the AGW fraud.

        • pesce9991 says:

          I’m surprised you can type this gibberish with your head in the sand!

        • _Jim says:

          pesce9991, are you a loving, kind, compassionate and understanding liberal or a conceited, vicious, rug-chewing, ankle-biting liberal?

          Just asking …

          .

        • pesce9991 says:

          The former, Jim. Of course.

        • Ron says:

          And your credentials are…?

        • lectorconstans says:

          Obviously, no-one can say anything about weather or climate unless they have the requisite credentials.

          How about yours?

          In the meantime, the Earth’s temperature has been fairly constant over the past 15 or so years,

          No, you go find it. we shouldn’t have to do your homework.

        • Donald Olson says:

          I’m thinking that pesce9991 voted for Obama 5 or 6 times.

        • Elfguy says:

          Pesce, go watch Christopher Monckton’s lectures and the documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (Which, Ironically, was originally going to be about scientists who could verify the scientific basis of Al Gore’s film…but the producer couldn’t find any reputable scientists who agreed, and to save the money he’d already spent in research and conducting interviews, he made it about what a big fraud the AGW movement was.)

          Note that both Monckton and the scientists in TGGWS say to NOT just believe them, but look up the facts for yourself.

          Now who is more trustworthy? A politician who claims that human activity and CO2 production is catastrophic, yet lives a lifestyle in direct contradiction to that (I especially appreciated how he left the engines on his private jet running on the tarmac in the San Francisco airport while he got a haircut), or scientists who lay out the facts and tell you to draw your own conclusions?

        • pesce9991 says:

          No thanks, Elfguy. I’ll leave the honor of being deluded by him to you.

          http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-lesson-for-monckton-and-co.html

        • That is not proven but if so then compassionately and lovingly.

      • rho1953 says:

        No, lets demonize agenda driven science that is based on the desire of government to justify taxation, regulation, and control.

      • Albert says:

        Its whatever TF we say it is. Pay us for carbon credits and nobody has to get hurt, see?

      • Truth Is Bad Mmmkay? says:

        Stop being a truther. Always trying to find the truth in things. Why can’t you just let the government do what it needs to do: swallow every dollar we all make?

    • J Tyme says:

      Nobody really knows… There are those that pretend to know for money or to defend the indefensible.

      • Ron Bonner says:

        Some are Al Gore Climate Change proponents who if given the chance will end the coal industry, put up more wind farms that kill birds, and continue claiming we are doomed by global cooling.

        Gore is just lining his pockets with money as his motivator.

        • …don’t forget the Gore’s family made money mining a specific type of coal…the one opposite they type he and his followers are trying to ban….moneytrail anyone?

        • philjourdan says:

          tom steyers too.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Erik Von Guido ….moneytrail anyone?
          >>>>>
          Oh Al Gore’s Money trail is truly funny.

          Not only do you have Al Gore Sr. on the board of Soviet spy Armand Hammer’s Occidental Petroleum. Al junior was also a “friend” of Occidental Petroleum.

          FORBES: The Greening Of Gore’s Bank Account

          ..Al Jr. received the favor and patronage of Hammer’s successor, Occidental CEO Ray Irani, throughout his political career. He was one of the campaign contributors who slept in the Lincoln bedroom upon writing a $100,000 check to the DNC. When Al made illegal fundraising calls from the White House, a memo unearthed during the investigation revealed that Irani had ponied up $50,000. It appears that Al may possibly have made that generosity worth every penny… and a lot more.

          At least 100 sacred burial sites gave historic testimony to the fact that Kitanemuk Indians had made their homes in the Elk Hills of central California for thousands of years, land that was surrendered to the U.S. Government through an 1851 treaty. Rich in oil that Occidental sought to gain drilling rights to develop, the region was also inhabited by a rare species of fox, lizard and kangaroo rat which environmental groups fought to protect through a lawsuit filed under the Endangered Species Act. Accordingly, Occidental’s plans were perceived as a threat to both the grave sites and the critters.

          Fortunately for Oxy, they had an influential friend. Yup, you probably guessed who. Congratulations!

          Vice President Gore recommended that Elk Hills be sold as part of his “Reinventing Government” National Performance Review program. Tony Coelho, his confident, Democrat super-fundraiser, and later, campaign manager, served on the board of directors of ICF Kaiser International, the private company hired to assess the sale’s environmental consequences. As Peter Eisner, director of the Center for Public Integrity, observed: “I can’t say that I’ve ever seen an environmental assessment prepared so quickly.” And, perhaps not entirely surprisingly, it worked out in Occidental’s favor. They purchased the 47,000 acres of land from the federal government for $3.7 billion, tripling the company’s oil reserves….

          However as the CAGW scam has run it’s course Al Gore is heading for ‘greener’ (the money shade that is) pastures. No fool he, he is dumping his green energy stock.

          Al Gore Walks Away From Green Energy
          When Al Gore talks, people listen. Just ask the folks who hand out Academy Awards and Nobel Peace Prizes….

          if Al Gore has any message for investors today, it might very well be this: “Stay the hell away from alternative energy!”
          …Reading through the promotional materials he puts out through his company, Generation Investment, it is hard to tell whether his “Client Update” is selling investments in his Climate Solutions Fund or memberships in the Sierra Club.

          “Scientific fundamentals continue to point to a need for urgent action on climate,” Gore says. Just like his Oscar-winning movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” it has lots of cool charts and graphics.

          Climate policy is still firmly on the political agenda and corporate climate-related activity is increasingly strategic. Innovation is driving costs down and improving the business case for low carbon and high efficiency solutions.

          This goes on for 20 pages. But even Gore does not seem to be listening anymore.

          Gore’s company files a quarterly report with the SEC that tells a different story about the 30 stocks in its portfolio. His company’s public investments in wind, solar, biomass and other alternative energy to combat climate change are practically non-existent.

          …He is also big in China, with stakes in a big Chinese travel agency, CTrip, and China’s largest medical equipment manufacturer, Mindray Medical.

          And if you want a piece of the natural gas pipeline game — heavily dependent on the environmentally suspect fracking — you can find that in Gore’s portfolio as well with Quanta Services (PWR_)…..

          Given all of Al Gores blatant moves that are anti-environmental and show he doesn’t believe a word of the bull he is spewing I find it completely jaw-dropping that any one with half a brain listens to the ‘sex-crazed poodle’

      • stevesmitty79 says:

        There’s obviously a clear pattern of unpredictability.

      • It just isn’t climate commenters, it seems to be everyone, who just won’t say “I don’t know”. The real lesson of the Butterfly Effect, presented by E Lorenz, is that even a small difference at the beginning, such as a very small rounding of a data set, has a very dramatic effect later on for down stream predictions and results. Since it is impossible to be exactly precise in the beginning, or even to know where to begin, it is not possible to make exact predictions. So if anyone says, the rise will be 1 degree C or the decline will be 1.5 degrees C, you must immediately know that he/she doesn’t have any credibility.
        My prediction: I don’t know.

        • _Jim says:

          re: Tom (@Templar8) says July 27, 2014 at 12:53 pm
          It just isn’t climate commenters, it seems to be everyone, who just won’t say “I don’t know”. The real lesson of the Butterfly Effect,

          The so-called Butterfly Effect ignores the concept of balance in nature; the natural skeptic in me has always had problems whenever someone mentions that ‘effect’. Rather, I think the chaotic nature of ‘nature’ balances out ANY imposed perturbation (by man or things like volcanoes) and a ‘reversion to the mean’ (as in: all energy flows are eventually out to 2.7 K ‘deep space’) is the result.

          .

        • BoilerVette says:

          Chaos Theory is the reason that NONE of the computer “climate models” are worth a damn. The models all linear/deterministic and the Earth’s climate is a complex, non-linear, non-deterministic system. When frauds like Hansen point to the “accuracy” of their models for the past 30 years, what he really did was fudge variable coefficients until he got the desired result.

        • lectorconstans says:

          The Butterfly Effect applies quite well to ” deterministic nonlinear systems”. You can see the effect quite clearly in fractal pattern generators.

          Whether the physical universe is one of those systems is questionable. The effect probably entered the mass culture’s consciousness with Ray Bradbury’s story “A Sound of Thunder”: ” As of 1984 it was the most re-published science fiction story up to the present time.”

          But for Lorenz’s thought experiment example is just that – a thought experiment, intentionally exaggerated. There’s no possible cause-and-effect relationship to the butterfly’s wings and anything more than a meter or so away.

          In other contexts, there may well be a cause-and-effect. The most striking example is the “For want of a nail, a kingdom was lost”, and that story spells out the connections.

          As far as long-term climate goes, I believe that nobody knows for sure.

        • _Jim says:

          lectorconstans, to quote the Zerohedge website motto: “On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.” also applies to everything a Butterfly’s wings could possibly affect; in the end thermal energy (from the sun, which will one day extinguish or the earth’s core) is radiated out to space, with the resulting local temperature approaching that of 2.7 K space temperature. I do not see where a Butterfly flapping or not flapping it’s wings affects this outcome (verily, it is just part of the overall energy in the system, either potential or kinetic at the time).

          Also the ‘for want of a nail’ would seem to be limited to the environment or world built by ‘puny’ mankind; nature and overall plant and animal life does not seem to have an equivalent. That ‘we’ build such critical system is a reflection upon us, and not nature.

          .

        • Andre Paquin says:

          What about the butterfly effect of the bat and bird kiilling windmills disrupting wind patterns? Same deal with the bird incinerating solar power plants and the vast solar panal farm waste lands that are sprouting up everywhere, what is thier butterfly effect?

        • Gail Combs says:

          Tom,
          you might want to read what physicist Dr. Robert Brown has to say on chaos. It is his field.

          My take away from several of his comments is that the climate stays relatively stable around one strange attractor until enough factors change and it tips into ‘orbiting’ a different strange attractor.

          rgbatduke says:
          March 7, 2014 at 12:02 pm

          It might be an interesting student project if you could get the code for one of the models and see how many different “Water Worlds” there are. – paul linsay- [I did research on nonlinear dynamics, aka, chaos theory, for nearly twenty years and from my experience, these guys are pikers.]

          This is, of course, the point of the Perturbed Parameter Ensemble application of the models (which is statistically one of the few bright spots in the attempt to model the insanely difficult N-S system. As you say, from any given (neighborhood of) a starting condition they do indeed get a substantial spread of future climates, and then attempt to reduce that spread to some sort of mean future climate. This per-model PPE mean is then super-averaged into the Multi-Model Ensemble mean.

          All of which is enough to make me want to just beat my head against the wall. You can dress all of this up in as many learned publications as you like and it will still be deeply suspect methodology with no theoretically defensible predictive force. At least per model, you can look at the spread of future PPE climates and see if the real climate is decently represented by any of them, although even then one has to look at and compare the entirety of EACH trajectory to reality and not whether the PPE “envelope” of a given model “contains” reality (between five or ten models that sometimes descend to it, briefly). That’s the fundamental sham of figure 1.4 in the SPM — just because the envelope of all of the GCMs barely contains reality doesn’t make one single model in the entire ensemble plausible.

          But yes, I sometimes wonder if the climate modellers have ever heard of strange attractors at all, let alone put any effort into trying to understand a NON-microscopic decomposition into large scale climate modes that are likely associated with long-lived attractors in the actual Earth climate system. Everything is linearized. Turn the CO_2 crank, up goes the temperature, and let’s throw in some H_2O linked positive feedback for good measure.

          One can put together a decent non-linear argument for the assertion that rapid warming could trigger the next ice age. Ice melt in the arctic freshens surface waters, slows and shifts the north atlantic turnover in the global thermohaline circulation enough to cause it to phase lock to a new pattern further south. Heat stops being transported to the Arctic and northern Europe, which consequently cools. Whatever governs the tipping point into the known, major cold phase attractor dominating the Pliestocene ice age, the climate tips and the Holocene ends. We know from the Ordovician-Silurian transition that glaciation tips millions of years long have occurred in the past at CO_2 levels 10x or more the current level, so we have no good reason to think that they are impossible now. This freshwater blocking of the thermohaline circulation is one of the explanations offered for the Younger Dryas return to glaciation shortly after the Wisconsin glacial era started to end.

          I just don’t think people appreciate either the depth of our ignorance, the impotence of our computational capability to solve problems of this complexity with anything like predictive force, or just how completely strongly nonlinear systems can confound your simple linear response expectations.

          But we might eventually find out

          More on Strange Attractors from Dr. Brown:

          “There’s an interesting contribution on HK dynamics (Hurst-Kolmogorov model) by Demetris Koutsoyiannis “Stochastics and its importance in studying climate” over at Climate Dialogue, well worth reading:”

          http://www.climatedialogue.org/long-term-persistence-and-trend-significance

          Let me second this. Koutsoyiannis is the HK “man”.

          Let me also comment on the connection between HK dynamics and statistics and chaos. Complex nonlinear multivariate systems often exhibit “strange attractors” — local fixed points in a set of coupled nonlinear ordinary differential equations — that function as foci for Poincare cycles in the multivariate phase space. In classical deterministic chaos, a system will often end up in a complex orbit around multiple attractors, one that essentially never repeats (and the attractors themselves may migrate around as this is going on). In a system such as the climate, we can never include enough variables to describe the actual system on all relevant length scales (e.g. the butterfly effect — MICROSCOPIC perturbations grow exponentially in time to drive the system to completely different states over macroscopic time) so the best that we can often do is model it as a complex nonlinear set of ordinary differential equations with stochastic noise terms — a generalized Langevin equation or generalized Master equation, as it were — and average behaviors over what one hopes is a spanning set of butterfly-wing perturbations to assess whether or not the resulting system trajectories fill the available phase space uniformly or perhaps are restricted or constrained in some way. We might physically expect this to happen if the system has strong nonlinear negative feedback terms that stabilize it around some particular (family of) attractors. Or, we might find that the system is in or near a “critical” regime where large fluctuations are possible and literally anything can happen, and then change without warning to anything else, with very little pattern in what happens or how long it lasts.

          The solutions in question are usually technically integrodifferential equations with a non-Markovian kernel, which makes them damn difficult to solve. To simplify them, one often uses the Markov approximation and simulates them as e.g. a Markov chain rather than necessarily as a non-Markovian integral. A very reasonable interpretation of HK dynamics in climate science is that each distinct regime represents a period where a particular local attractor is stable and some specific pattern of climate holds (one which might be net warming or net cooling or stable, as all three are clearly visible in even the LOCAL record of just over a century in e.g. GISS, most of it without the help or influence of CO_2).

          This sort of time evolution is evident in the longer term — 5 million year — climate data. The Earth entered precisely this sort of multistable regime at the beginning of the Pliestocene, with a clearly evident bistability between dominant glaciation punctuated by comparatively brief interglacials (for all that the whole of recorded human history fits into half of ONE such interglacial). There is no evidence of a stable, still warmer multistable phase — even when the Earth has spiked up to much warmer than it is today, negative feedback has quickly driven it first back to interglacial behavior, then (usually quite abruptly) back into the dominant glaciation mode. This behavior is NOT truly chaotic, but rather has only a few distinct frequencies associated with it, frequencies we can identify (weakly) with various orbital periods and changes in the solar system.

          Given this natural history of dramatic, game changing swings in the Earth’s climate across at least a slowly varying pair of bistable regimes acting as primary attractors, attempting to analyze the Earth’s behavior over the last 30 to 50 years (where we don’t yet understand and cannot predict its gross behavior on all of the timescales longer than this and hence have no real idea what the climate “should” be doing) is a bit of a joke. Or if you prefer, a grand challenge problem, arguably the most difficult problem in science we might have today, more difficult than finding the Higgs or unifying field theory or detecting gravity waves or building a stable exothermic thermonuclear fusion reactor. This isn’t settled science — we haven’t even finished doing the preliminary work, the groundwork, needed to make serious progress in it.

          In fifty to a hundred years, we might have enough, good enough, data to make some real progress in the field — if people would take the damn thumbs off of the scales and leave politics both ways out of the science. Yes, the Earth could experience catastrophic warming, catastrophic cooling, or could have a catstrophe unrelated to heating or cooling in between. No, we do not know enough yet to do more than hint at which one(s) are likely, or how likely. If the Earth exhibits this behavior, it might or might not be “our fault”. Or perhaps it is the fault of a Brazilian butterfly. Or the fault of goats turned loose in what became the Sahara, 9000 years ago. Or the fault of the Earth’s inexorable orbital progression. Or the fault of as yet unknown solar dynamics.

          What we do know is that politics and science make poor bedfellows, and that confirmation bias is the bete noir of all scientific research. We also know that the measures proposed to combat an unproven possibility of catastrophe in fifty or a hundred years are themselves causing a directly provable catastrophe today. Even if the catastrophists are right, this is a cost-benefit problem, a risk assessment problem, and we have to trade off the certain damage caused by energy poverty that afflicts some 1/2 of the world’s population now against the possibility of (probably lesser, quite frankly) damage in fifty years, in a hundred years, should the catastrophists prove correct.

          Anybody who forecasts a chaotic system with more than one forcing more than 5 days ahead is either a fool or very courageous. – Climatologist

      • KayFlyte says:

        One thing is certain: Al Gore will NOT log in and post here.

    • cjt says:

      It is a mechanism for the political class to scare the uninformed and dupe them into giving a STIPEND ……oops i mean money .. stipend, um… tax….to the ruling class. We are now watching the ruling class retarding us down to make a slave class. The new working class.

      • Tiny says:

        Americans as a whole deserve everything they are now getting from the political class. They are completely ignorant, uninformed, and gullible. Their maturity level politically is similar to a small child’s. The people have been completely corrupted and gladly exchange freedoms for the false protections offers by their nanny state. The last 8 years has caused me extreme disappointment in the electorate for being completely blind to all logic.

        • Bob NotMyRealName says:

          Perhaps one of the best posts I have seen in weeks. The dependency class will be the death of us all.

        • Gail Combs says:

          This dumbing down of the general population was done over more than a 100 year and it was done with Malice Aforethought by John Dewey (Fabian Socialist), the Father of American education.

          Dumbing Down America by Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld
          I am often asked to name those educators responsible for the change in primary reading instruction which has led to the decline of literacy in America. People ask this because by the time they understand the history of the reading problem and of the dumbing down process that has been going on in our public schools for the past forty years, they recognize that all of this is not the result of a series of accidents but of conscious, deliberate decisions made by our educational leaders…

          In 1894, Dewey was appointed head of the department of philosophy, psychology and education at the University of Chicago which had been established two years earlier by a gift from John D. Rockefeller. In 1896, Dewey created his famous experimental Laboratory School where he could test the effects of the new psychology on real live children.

          Dewey’s philosophy had evolved from Hegelian idealism to socialist materialism, and the purpose of the school was to show how education could be changed to produce little socialists and collectivists instead of little capitalists and individualists. It was expected that these little socialists, when they became voting adults, would dutifully change the American economic system into a socialist one.

          In order to do so he analyzed the traditional curriculum that sustained the capitalist, individualistic system and found what he believed was the sustaining linchpin — that is, the key element that held the entire system together: high literacy. To Dewey, the greatest obstacle to socialism was the private mind that seeks knowledge in order to exercise its own private judgment and intellectual authority. High literacy gave the individual the means to seek knowledge independently. It gave individuals the means to stand on their own two feet and think for themselves. This was detrimental to the “social spirit” needed to bring about a collectivist society.….

          What is interesting is Stalin tried Dewey’s methods and found them horrible so Soviet children were not subjected to Dewey’s deliberate sabotaging of their education.

          Another prominent figure in destroying US education was George Count.
          From the book Willing Accomplices: How KGB Covert Influence Agents Created Political Correctness and Destroyed America by Kent Clizbe

          As Kent points out Americans were naive trusting Amateurs going up against seasoned professional covert operatives. The Bolsheviks spent their lives as covert operatives before coming to power and their thinking never changed. America never really had a chance against them.

          ..One who observed and understood was the Creel Committee foreign educational section member, and future dean of Teachers College, William R. Russell. He was in Russia soon after the Bolsheviks seized power and spent considerable time there, working on Creel propaganda against the Germans, for the Bolsheviks, and later against the Bolsheviks. Russell described how he saw the communist tradecraft:

          The way they worked their way to the seizure of power was as follows: Talk about peace, talk about social equality, especially among those most oppressed. Talk about organization of labor, and penetrate into every labor union. Talk on soapboxes. Publish pamphlets and papers. Orate and harangue. Play on envy. Arouse jealousy. Separate class from class. Try to break down the democratic processes from within. Accustom the people to picketing, strikes, mass meetings. Constantly attack the leaders in every way possible so that the people will lose confidence. Then in time of national peril, during a war, on the occasion of a great disaster, or of a general strike, walk into the capital and seize the power. A well-organized minority can work wonders

          Russell’s spot-on understanding of how the communists worked, based on his own on-location observations in Russia during the revolution should have been useful to him during the next two decades of his work at Columbia. Yet, under his nose, communist covert influence agents like George Counts, who was under Russell’s supervision at Columbia’s Teachers College, used the exact tactics he described—talking, publishing, orating and haranguing, breaking down democracy from within, attacking the leaders, making people lose confidence—to destroy American society….

          In 1931 Houghton Mifflin published New Russia’s Primer: The Story of the Five-Year Plan, by M. Ilin, translated from the Russian by George S. Counts, Associate Director of the International Institute and Professor of Education in Teachers College, and Nucia P. Lodge, Research Assistant in the International Institute.

          We see that Anna Osipovna has transformed herself into Nucia Lodge. And we see that the dapper professor Counts modestly claims that he translated the book, while grudgingly crediting his KGB handler. The payload of this unbelievably brazen covert influence operation is straight out of Muenzenberg’s manual.

          Muenzenberg’s payload: “You think the capitalist system is corrupt…You’re frightened…by the oppression of the working man…You think the Russians are trying a great human experiment…”
          Counts’ New Russia’s Primer:

          In America the machine is not a helper to the worker, not a friend, but an enemy. Every new machine, every new invention, throws out upon the streets thousands of workers. In glass factories one person now makes three thousand bottles an hour. In former times such a task required seventy-seven men. This means that each machine for the making of bottles deprives seventy-six men of employment. And the American worker despises the machine which takes away his bread.

          But how is it with us [Russians]? The more machines we have, the easier will be the work, the shorter will be the working day, the lighter and happier will be the lives of all.

          We build factories in order that there may be no poverty, no filth, no sickness, no unemployment, no exhausting labor— in order that life may be rational and just…We build in our country [the U.S.S.R.] a new, an unheard-of, a socialistic order.

          The newly-minted “Russian expert” from Columbia delivered the KGB payload directly into the cultural heart of America. “Capitalism is corrupt! Russia’s experiment is working!” screamed his text.

          The Primer was a selection for Book-a-Month Club members in May 1931, and 46,000 members chose it. Counts’ first influence project was a best-seller for seven months, and ranked eighty-first on the list of nonfiction bestsellers from 1921-1932. Cloaked in his non-partisan, academic-research cover, Counts delivered the anti-capitalist payload into schools, universities, and living rooms across America….

      • cjt, you are exactly right. I’ve said for years now that if someone approaches you and tells you of a problem you weren’t really aware of or concerned about, then tells you that if you just give them money they can fix the problem, run. Just run, it’s a scam and they’re nothing more than a snake-oil salesman, like Algore.

      • Dave says:

        well said cjt and don’t forget these elitists stand get very, very rich as they decide the winners and losers based upon the control of abundant, cheap and relatively safe carbon based energy.

      • samuel cross says:

        Absolutely this is the case; any old reason to get more money from the producers to the takers to get a vote.

    • genetics73 says:

      All of the above – it is a religious cult, not science

    • genetics73 says:

      Actually, global warming is caused by women’s menopause.

    • Mary ann says:

      Weather… Mother Nature … Plain and simple….

    • Sweetheart I love making fun of you “simpel-folk” who don’t understand science. Are you busy????

      • _Jim says:

        Richard, this proposed (I saw proposed, because, AGW has not been demonstrated EXCEPT through adulteration of the temperature record WHEN plotting the data USING government-adjusted ‘figures’) “global warming” scenario will be seen in later centuries as a hoax and a scam the size and magnitude Great Dutch Tulip Bulb craze, or on a smaller scale Pokemon & “beanie babies” fads.

        Another ‘popular delusion’ fed by those in a frenzied search for money (Carbon Trading ‘markets’ anyone?) and power (isn’t that always the case? “Follow the money.”)

        .

        • Roberto says:

          Its like technical analysis of financial markets where “technicians” try to predict future stock movements by using historical data and charts. It has never worked in finance and it won’t work in climate science either.

    • Grizz Mann says:

      WTF, Winning The Future with global warming.

    • Jerry sweetheart is seems that science is too difficult for you “simpel-folk” to understand. The koch brothers will be very happy. They love “simpel-folk” that vote. Any questions????

      • MrSalmonDaze says:

        Hey Dick,
        Obviously, you have no grasp of the scientific method. So, yes; entertain us with your nonsensical interpretation of the data presented in the graph in this article.

      • Kenneth Jones says:

        Yeah, I have a question: how do you spell “simple”. Oh, you spell it “simpel”. Twice. Until you can pass second grade spelling I suggest you don’t post comments about how simpel (sic) other people are.

    • Sam Huston says:

      It’s cold because of global warming because Al Gore and pResident Obama said so. So stop asking questions.

    • SickupandFed says:

      Now it is called climate disruption whatever in #€|| that is supposed to mean.

    • Somehow you know this is going to wind up Bush’s fault.

    • Dave says:

      “The People” know it as weather. The elite lefties who stand to profit immensely from convincing the gerbils that their activity causes “weather” used to call it Global Warming but since all the cooling statistics have been revealed they now call it “Climate Change”. That fits in their playbook perfectly.

      • Dawson says:

        Did you mean gerbils or lemmings?

      • Ron says:

        And your climate science credentials are…?

        • tom0mason says:

          And you IQ is?

        • BigFish92672 says:

          And here’s your question: It is example of the logical fallacy, Appeal to Authority.
          Correct.
          Liberal nonsense for $200

        • philjourdan says:

          And your climate credentials are?

        • And your climate science credentials are…?

          Ron, thank you for asking this question, repeatedly, unfailingly and without hesitation. You could not have given a better example of thinking that is both a classic fallacy and a festering problem of modern times, as identified here more than 80 years ago:

          “For if knowledge became too great for communication, it would degenerate into scholasticism, and the weak acceptance of authority; mankind would slip into a new age of faith, worshiping at a respectful distance its new priests; and civilization, which had hoped to raise itself upon education disseminated far and wide, would be left precariously based upon a technical erudition that had become the monopoly of an esoteric class monastically isolated from the world by the high birth rate of terminology.”

          Will Durant
          The Story of Philosophy
          Preface to the Second Edition, 1933

        • _Jim says:

          I would like to have Ron riddle me answer to the question: “Where the very first “credentialed” person get his degree?

          Very simply stated, which came first, the chicken or the degree?

          .

        • _Jim says:

          re-try (correct missing verbiage)

          I would like to have Ron riddle me an answer to this question:

          Where did the very first “credentialed” person get his degree?

          Very simply stated, which came first, the chicken or the degree?

          .

        • lectorconstans says:

          That’s practically the classic definition of a Ph.D.: the man who knows more and more about less and less, until eventually he knows almost everything about almost nothing.

          The “credentials” argument is a standard tactic when somebody has run out of facts. I don’t have a Ph.D. in physics, but I can tell you with great certainty that a rock is going to fall if you drop it.

    • Get with it, Sir. It’s climate change or climate disruption caused by man. Algore who invented the internet told us so. Messiah IRS-Smidgen said he was going to heal the planet and he did. We are so lucky to have a jackass as our leader.

    • Indiana Mike says:

      Just give your money and obeyance to Politicians or else Mother Gaia will die. And YOU will have killed her. You don’t want that on your conscience do you???? So just shut up and do as your Green/Communist comrades TELL you to do.

    • Marc says:

      “What is it?” It is the statist desire to impose Socialism and hopefully North Korean Communism; by any and all means. i hate them.
      oh btw record levels of Antarctic ice. lol.
      OK, so to most people it would look like going out on a limb but I feel solid ground: CO2 is good for this planet and makes life better! We will know this conclusively in the future and those future statists will conveniently forget that their brethren were flat earth wrong.

      (meanwhile I go on a statist list somewhere as an undesirable in need of Camp training or worse)

      • Marc says:

        WAIT!!! Ice build up in Antarctica, did they measure the sea levels drop?

        Was this not a central tenet?

        • Gail Combs says:

          Acually yes they did measure the seal level drop. The sea level has gone down since the highstand during the Holocene Optimum.

          Mid to late Holocene sea-level reconstruction of Southeast Vietnam using beachrock and beach-ridge deposits

          Abstract
          Beachrocks, beach ridge, washover and backshore deposits along the tectonically stable south-eastern Vietnamese coast document Holocene sea level changes. In combination with data from the final marine flooding phase of the incised Mekong River valley, the sea-level history of South Vietnam could be reconstructed for the last 8000 years. Connecting saltmarsh, mangrove and beachrock deposits the record covers the last phase of deglacial sea-level rise from − 5 to + 1.4 m between 8.1 to 6.4 ka. The rates of sea-level rise decreased sharply after the rapid early Holocene rise and stabilized at a rate of 4.5 mm/year between 8.0 and 6.9 ka. Southeast Vietnam beachrocks reveal that the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand slightly above + 1.4 m was reached between 6.7 and 5.0 ka, with a peak value close to + 1.5 m around 6.0 ka….

          Another paper:

          http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/ericg/kap_paper.pdf

          CONCLUSION
          We have constructed a new Holocene sea-level curve for Oahu showing mean sea level higher than today between ~5000 and ~2000 yr ago with a maximum ~2 m above present ca. 3500 yr ago….

          Sea-level highstand recorded in Holocene shoreline deposits on Oahu, Hawaii

          http://jsedres.geoscienceworld.org/content/66/3/632.abstract

          Abstract
          Unconsolidated carbonate sands and cobbles on Kapapa Island, windward Oahu, are 1.4-2.8 (+ or – 0.25) m above present mean sea level (msl). Agreeing with Stearns (1935), we interpret the deposit to be a fossil beach or shoreline representing a highstand of relative sea level during middle to late Holocene time. Calibrated radiocarbon dates of coral and mollusc samples, and a consideration of the effect of wave energy setup, indicate that paleo-msl was at least 1.6 (+ or – 0.45) m above present msl prior to 3889-3665 cal. yr B.P, possibly as early as 5532-5294 cal. yr B.P., and lasted until at least 2239-1940 cal. yr B.P. Hence, the main phase of deposition on Kapapa Island lasted a minimum of c. 1400 yr and possibly as long as c. 3400 yr. No modern samples have been recovered from the fossil beach…Radiocarbon ages of coral and mollusc clasts from a breccia lining an emerged (1.4 + or – 0.25 m msl) intertidal notch, cut into emerged coralline-algal carbonate of presumed last interglacial age, on south Mokulua Island (15 km to the southeast of Kapapa Island) correlate to the history recorded on Kapapa Island. Calibrated ages range from 2755-2671 to 3757-3580 cal. yr B.P. (averaging c. 3100 cal. yr B.P.) suggesting that a higher than present sea level formed the notch prior to 3757-3580 cal. yr B.P….

          The Authors interpret this data to agree with subsidence based on models: ” This history is consistent with geophysical models of postglacial geoid subsidence over the equatorial ocean first predicted by Walcott (1972) and later refined by Clark et al. (1978) and Mitrovica and Peltier (1991).” However if the Southeast Vietnam coast was geologically stable and showing the same type of data, that interpretation based on models is open to question.

          The warmists sure will twist and turn and ignore the facts to support their believe the earth is warming, glaciers are melting and the sea levels are rising….

    • Mikael says:

      well, it is 90° with a real feel of 99° right now in South Florida. and i am working out in the direct sun trying to make a living while obama is chillin, destroying America, on my dime.

    • The libt@rd theory is that it is the inverse of dry ice… Instead of it being so cold that it burns you, it is getting so hot that you are cooling off. Now impose some regulations and lets get that laundered money back into the libt@rd coffers…

    • Michael Dowd says:

      It’s a hoax

    • DarkStarAz says:

      I think they now call it climate “change”. That way the temperatures can go up down or sideways and they are covered…

    • jmorlife63 says:

      In 1975 in WAS “global cooling” and the coming ice age. Then we had Al Gore’s global warming. That euphemism didn’t work out so well for the left so liberals invented “climate change.” Most recently “climate change” has been updated to include “climate disruption.” I can hardly wait for the next euphemism for the left’s “get other people’s money” and “save-the-earth” religion.

    • Iben_Hadd says:

      Warm is really cool man!

    • It is called – WEATHER!

    • ds says:

      can we bring acid rain back, maybe the ozone hole thats going to kill us all? I’m feeling retro right now.

    • calhoun211 says:

      Its a load obama crap

    • Jim Moore says:

      Regardless, Obama will tax it.

    • JoeTex says:

      It’s getting warmer in the north pole, which melts more and more ice each summer, which then cools the rest of the world like an air conditioner.

      However, each year less and less ice is created at the north pole during winter, leaving more water in our oceans.

    • desert says:

      Whoever wrote this b.s. article has their head firmly up their ass for the warmth!! Here in the desert its hotter than hell….so don’t talk your bullshyt to me!!

    • DG says:

      Don’t believe the 1st article you read. Yes the US as a whole is having relatively cooler weather than normal (other than the extreme drought on the West Coast), but worldwide temps are the hottest on record since they started recording in 1880.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2014/07/21/june-was-hottest-on-record/

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/07/21/june-record-heat/12943367/

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/07/21/june-2014-was-earths-warmest-on-record-as-ocean-temperatures-surged/

      • More accurate satellite data shows that is complete nonsense, and that global temperatures have been declining for 18 years. But thanks for being a useful idiot.

        • Edward says:

          Steven gibbered:
          “More accurate satellite data shows that is complete nonsense…”
          [citation needed]

          I noticed you’ve made a baseless claim. Do you want to follow up with more cherry-picked data? 18 years? Really? Why not go back 30? Or 50?

          Is it because it makes your argument ridiculous? I bet that’s it.

        • It only takes one warmer year to show that this year isn’t the hottest ever, dinglebrains.

        • philjourdan says:

          You lose the bet. Why not go back 1000 years. 20,000 years?

          The date was “cherry picked” by Phil Jones. Might want to take it up with him.

      • Gail Combs says:

        From Philip Gentry at UAH – temperature graph

        The RSS satellite temperature record shows no global warming for 17 years 10 months: Graph

        The Met Office (UK) acknowledges (grudgingly) the temperature has been FLAT: The recent pause in warming

    • Duke Sweden says:

      I disagree. 1969 was the coolest summer, man…

    • George Senda says:

      Well, they obviously missed the SF Bay Area in their calculations where recently we had Mtn View and SF set all time heat records and where here in Martinez ( 39 miles from SF ) we’ve just had a week of 90 degree + temps and one day at 104. The Bay Area has had unseasonably hot weather since April and it was sweltering in the city even 3 months ago when my Mother died. And the last I looked its still summer with cold temps in the Northeast and 90+ in the South. Global cooling ? Not around here !

      • The numbers include all of California and all of the lower 48. I was in Cupertino in July 2006 when it was over 100 many days in a row and hit 115 in Sacramento.

      • Gail Combs says:

        I am in mid North Carolina where 100+ was not uncommon when I first moved here. It barely got into the 90s for a few days last summer and this summer is pretty much the same. It is now 73 °F and was 65°F this morning. Yesterday morning it was 59°F and the day before that it was 60°F. Normally at this time of year the min is 70 °F.

        I have not bothered to turn my A/C on all summer!

  2. But, Global warming…

    • Farnsworth F Stich says:

      ManBearPig and his antics aimed to scare the low information voter into carbon credits (TAX) and to prop us failed “Green” industry investments with government funding (taxpayer dollars) into his and other ULTRA RICH men pockets.
      The rich get rich off the backs of low information folks who are too ignorant to know the difference,(d) so keep watching for that gulf-stream or Lear jet, maybe you will get a glimpse of corruption as it fly’s overhead polluting unbelievably to shuffle one person off to the bank in Switzerland to deposit your carbon credit while laughing at you the gullible, and if you listen close enough you might hear a wisp of hockey stick being chanted or greenhouse gas being released by MBP himself….Farrrrrroottttttt and not a cow anywhere to be seen.

  3. nigelf says:

    These cool days and nights are actually quite nice for this time of year but I definitely don’t like where the trend is going.

    • draidt says:

      Stick around for 100 -300 more years and it will reverse itself as it has done though out recorded history.

    • Will Davis says:

      I don’t know where the temps are going either but as a lifetime resident of steamy Georgia I welcome it. Cool nights, pleasant days. Very nice.

      • Dave says:

        I love these past few nights in Southern Ohio have been just beautiful… open windows all night long… sleeping with COVERS!

    • Carmen J Bernardo says:

      I remember back in the late 1970s when they were telling us that it was our fault for the pollution in the atmosphere causing the next Ice Age to be arriving within the coming decade. Then I remember seeing at least two consecutive days of 100-degree (F) temperatures during the summer when I was in high school, and not a glacier (nor much of a snowfall) in sight. I’ve since figured that we have a cycle that more or less goes from hot to not-so-hot summers, and winters that are either mild or deep freeze where I live. That cycle isn’t uniform in scale or duration, but gets affected by variables such as where the jet stream lines up, the frequency of storm systems crossing the continent, and so on.

      And this is just my observation over time. I live by an adage I’ve come up with: “Adapt or die; if you won’t adapt, you die.”

    • Didn’t we just have an artic polar vortex a few weeks ago? Similar to last winter when here in the east we had extremely cold temperatures.

  4. TxSon says:

    Good luck convincing the climate alarmists. They generally do not understand simple math much less a statistical linear regression.

      • Dmh says:

        The cooling trend is obvious. I believe all important climate parameters, ENSO, AMO, PDO, icecaps in both poles, etc., are saying the same thing.
        Now, even solar radiations are giving signs that the solar max is ended,

        http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50

        and the comparison with SC5

        If NASA / GISS / NOAA etc., acknowledge it or not *makes no difference*.
        2015 promises to be a very interesting year, for those really interested in learning the lessons of Nature (I mean, the real scientists).

        • We’re actually in the first half of a Grand Solar Minimum. This is caused by the way in which the four gas giants align in orbit. Every 171 years, Neptune meets Uranus and as they approach meet and leave one another, this is the Solar Minimum period. It happened in 1308 (Wolf Minimum 1280 to 1350) again in 1479 (Sporer Minimum 1450 to 1550) again in 1650 (Maunder 1645 to 1715) again in 1821 (Dalton 1790 to 1830) and it happened again in 1992. When N, U, J align opposite S, this define the depth and breadth of the minimum.

          It has to do with angular momentum and magnetic dampening but it can be seen in the declining number of sun spots. These spots are caused by a slight cooling of the sun’s surface where magnetic strands exit the star. No spots, no mag activity. The sun is extremely quite now and is going to be so for another couple cycles or about 23 years or so.

        • Your reference to Dr. Landscheidt is spot on, DMH.

          It is going to be pretty darn chilly in about 4 or 5 more years.

  5. Smokey says:

    Believers in man-made global warming will respond like they always do.

  6. When the weather warms,it’s global warming. When the weather cools,it’s global warming. When the moon is full,it’s global warming. Bla bla bla they go on and on. Point is the earths been cooling and heating up from day one and has done so many times before modern man was walking about…..

    • Sweetheart I love making fun of you “simpel-folk”who don’t understand science. Are you busy???????

    • Tiny says:

      Ever heard of snowball earth?

    • Carmen J Bernardo says:

      Now they call it “climate disruption” and still demand that we stop living in heated/air-conditioned houses, driving cars, and ordering mass-produced goods. All while still flying in their climate-controlled jets, driving their limousines, and living in enormous mansions that have to be getting heated/cooled by some pretty stout equipment. All for our own good, of course.

      Some things never change.

  7. kbray in california says:

    Smile, you’re on Drudge !

    • ChrisGC says:

      Smile, you’re an idiot.

      • Htos1 says:

        kbray’s smile is awfully similar to the feces eating grins seen on illegals as they exit the local DMV.

      • LarryBoy says:

        Ah, projection. My favorite tell for screwballs with no real argument.

      • kbray in california says:

        The Drudge Report posted a link to Real Science at 9:20pm.
        You are 2 and 1/2 hours late to the party.

        My post is factual, your comment is that of a troll and is caustic as most of your other comments. Try posting facts instead of insults.

      • kbray in california says:

        VISITS TO DRUDGE 7/25/14
        027,561,616 PAST 24 HOURS

        20+ million could be reading your petty comments.
        Smile.

      • kbray in california says:

        These subsequent comments connected to my comment remind me of the game “Telephone”… The words interpreted by each listener never match the original statement.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers

        My original post was a compliment to the blog owner in getting a link on the Drudge Report. Restated: “Good work Steven Goddard”.

        When I originally typed those 4 words there were no comments posted yet.

        The downside to the Drudge link is it opens the blog to a new batch of trolls.

        Have a nice day.

    • Art Hemsley says:

      Hey, what’s the only thing worse than an incompetent liberal president? Answer, a competent liberal president. Now dont be late for your yoga class, therapist appointment or your psychic reading. Dont worry msnbc will be on shortly so you can get your propaganda fix for the evening and feel good about yourself..

    • Joe Gamache says:

      Kbray, How did you wind up here? A link on NYT, perhaps?

      • kbray in california says:

        For several years now, I type in “Steven Goddard” and this blog magically appears in my browser.

    • Ted Steiner says:

      Did Matt Drudge write this article? Does Matt Drudge write any articles? Hating Drudge is pretty shallow, even for someone who uses california in their name.

    • Anto says:

      Go there and you might learn something. If you’re into learning, that is. Otherwise you can polish your participation trophy, it’s pretty cool, you know.

    • Dave says:

      Smile you are IQ challenged drone without a wit of common sense or the ability to think critically.

      • kbray in california says:

        Nice “facts” Dave…
        I can see you’re not a science major.
        How you conclude all that from the word “smile”…
        You are a good candidate for the “warmist” club.

        Drudge always brings in the trolls.

      • kbray in california says:

        Dave and Chris GC:

        The Nazis used similar claims against the Jews.
        “Smile, you’re an idiot.”
        “Smile you are IQ challenged drone without a wit of common sense or the ability to think critically.”

        First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
        Because I was not a Socialist.
        Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
        Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
        Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
        Because I was not a Jew.
        Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

        The Jews have some of the best minds and brains in the world.
        Never again will they sit quietly.
        When attacked, fight back.

      • tom0mason says:

        And you seem to be an maginally improved auto bot with a slightly extended lexicon. Tell me can you really ‘know’ anything or do you just repeat you programming?

  8. russfelix says:

    This is disturbing news to me. I’m in the climate change industry and my job depends on it. NOT!

  9. Joe says:

    Can you make a hockey-stick graph of this for us to share?

  10. theoldadam says:

    Maybe you haven’t heard…the sky is falling !

    The only thing that we can do is to raise taxes (on everything ) and to ride bicycles and live in pup tents.

    Come on. Get with the program.

    • Cynthia says:

      um, in Florida we have had 90 degree days since around start of May…it’s usu. 80’s…90’s are more August…it’s steaming here…cold? need a vacation? come to the GOM and go for a nice chem swim.

    • Stan Olson says:

      The problem with tents is that I read just recently about people getting killed in campgrounds during severe thunderstorms.

  11. Cool man, real cool. Like far out man … oh, wait, … I think I had a flashback to the early 70s. I’m ok now … but why am I wearing this paisley shirt and bell bottom pants?

    This has been a nice sumer in central Florida. It has been hot these last couple of weeks but it has been a mild sumer. The weather guy on the local channel was almost crying when he told me the tropics were quite and calm. I could tell he wanted a killer hurricane to come and make him important again. What has it been, 10 years now since Florida was hit?

    This is a cool site and you are a cool dude Steve … er, Tony … er … oh hell, whatever dude. Keep up the great work. :-)

  12. De Paus says:

    The CAGW propaganda machine is in overdrive to convince gullible people that 2014 is the warmest year ever.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/07/21/june-2014-was-earths-warmest-on-record-as-ocean-temperatures-surged/

    Bits of bogus-science: http://www.bitsofscience.org/hottest-years-ever-2014-world-temperature-record-2015-6545/ It is a flat out lie, but so-called scientists get their fundings by supporting the global warming hoax.
    Three days ago The Guardian came with the same bogus claim: Will 2014 be the hottest year ever?: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/23/will-2014-be-the-hottest-year-on-record
    When this nonsense ends with a question mark, it can’t be even called a lie. The answer to the question is: No, the chance 2014 will be the hottest year on record is practically zero. The last months of the year should become super-hot compensate the cold we had so far and that is most unlikely. But many people remember only the headlines. 2014 the hottest year on record. It is by far not true, but a lie, repeated often enough, will eventually be considered to be the truth.

  13. Youcankeepyourdoctor Period says:

    Gee, cold winter, cold summer: sounds like global warming to me.

  14. jlbusm says:

    Hey al gore what ever happened to global warming i mean climate change

  15. Jason says:

    They going to say you can’t judge a trend by a single year…It’s becoming a mantra for them. It’s true, but this has been a number of years. Now, the question is, what has changed? If we really want to figure out what’s going on with the climate, we need to be looking at these things. The alarmists have been creating a huge carbon footprint of their own, trying to get the word out that we need to reduce our carbon footprint. Do you have any idea how much fuel it takes to fly all those people to all those conferences? They aren’t getting there via train our electric bus/car. All this extra carbon, no real change in infrastructure or driving habits, and we’ve been cooling…

    • ChrisGC says:

      Nope. You can’t judge a trend by a single year. But you damn well can judge it over an 80 year span! You can even do so by the now 8 consecutive winters of increasing record cold and snow in both northern and southern hemispheres!

      • Paul Noel says:

        I would like to give people a trend line that is 1,015 years long. It is sort of undeniable. 999AD Leif Erickson set up a colony in Greenland. The weather was warm enough for raising large herds of cattle, goats, sheep and also raising wine. The weather was pleasant for 350 years and the colony did well. They built homes using the Aspen trees for poles in their roof.

        Then something miserable happened and the colony essentially froze out. They left as crops failed and the animals died. Even to this day raising significant crops of cattle is nearly impossible. Sorry for those who will try to say otherwise the entire herd of cattle there which is highly dependent on modern heating oil, there are less than 250 animals there now. The Aspen trees are extinct in Greenland and no trees grow there of any significance. It is basically impossible to raise animals, grass or trees there. Sorry guys who think otherwise but we have a long term Climate Change study on Greenland and it doesn’t do several things the “scientists” (AKA Useful Idiots) say. Sea levels were lower when it was warmer and the climate is cooling. Those are the undeniable facts. We have been cooling for about 650 years now.

    • mjc says:

      If they were really concerned…they’d be doing video-conferences on pedal-powered laptops.

    • R lee says:

      That’s what pisses me off about climate change alarmists. They say you can’t use one year to justify a trend, but they constantly use single natural disasters to try and prove their point. Every one of them need to be punched in the f**king face.

    • Will Davis says:

      I have the idea that the earth has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850 and now the planet is cooling. Solar activity has been extremely low the last few years. A little warming is actually a good thing but another mini ice age would be disastrous. Crop failures, food wars, starvation….

      • Stan Olson says:

        My favorite was that the negative GDP in the 1st quarter was due to the “brutal” Winter. So I would guess that Global Warming might lead to a positive GDP? They want it both ways, or maybe all four ways!

  16. Abel Garcia says:

    Its Bush’s fault

  17. James the Elder says:

    Quit bitching; September weather is always like this. Oh—

  18. JM says:

    I would like to see a similar graph showing the frequency of below zero days over the same period.

    • Despite UHI, 2014 is coldest in 35 years.

      • Ed says:

        If you want the grants and jobs in academia, and thr praise of all the alarmist it is cliemate change /warming if you don’t care about all the bs it is I don’t know we will see later.

      • JM says:

        Thank you Mr. Goddard. I don’t suppose you’d care to add a red trend line for us novices out here? It would appear that since 1980 the percentage of 0F frequency declined relative to the earlier period, but over the whole period the trend of frequency would cant only slightly lower, consistent with a minor warming trend? Kind regards from Urban Heat Island Grand Rapids near the Gerald R. Ford International Airport, where it is 60.7 F one hour before lunch at the end of July, and the snow didn’t completely melt until the first week of April!

      • pesce9991 says:

        Only in the US, Tony.

        • _Jim says:

          Prove it.

          Oops, I forgot, you can’t.

          Another ‘innumerate’ speaking beyond his (or her) innate capability.

          In case you’re from Rio Linda: innumerate – means “without a basic knowledge of mathematics and arithmetic

          .

    • J.j. Erler says:

      I’d like to see a similar graph showing frequency of 100 degree days. It would make sense that 90 degree days would decline as 100 degree days increased, but no idea if that is happening if both show a decline then it’s much firmer evidence than a 90 degree chart alone.

    • Ron says:

      It’s just US data. If you are interested in the global climate, there is nothing to see here.

      • geran says:

        except the “global” sea ice is setting new records….

      • philjourdan says:

        yea,the US is not part of the world, right ron?

        • pesce9991 says:

          The US temperature readings have an exceedingly small effect on the global averages.

        • philjourdan says:

          “Exceedingly small”??? Less than 2%?

          But is 2% not an effect? YOu keep digging that hole, but China still awaits you.

        • She’s a digger, alright.

        • We’ve heard that narrative many times before. Climate always seems to move away from places that get invaded by cold weather. It just doesn’t like it there any more.

          Also, can you explain your concept of “exceedingly”?

        • pesce9991 says:

          I think this question goes to me since I used the word “exceedingly small” to describe the land area of the US.
          Happy to oblige. You may find the num3ers numbing:

          The 48 contiguous states of the US are 1.58% of earths total global surface.

          The total land mass of the US plus Alaska and Hawaii is 3,790,000 sq miles. This comes to about 1.9% of the total surface of the planet.
          These percentages come from dividing the total surface area of the earth by the total area of the states without and with Alaska and Hawaii.
          Perhaps a better word I could have used would’ve been “surprisingly small”.
          You can see now that all the temperature readings we have can affect no more than 1.9% of the results.

        • philjourdan says:

          Then the effect would be at best “small”. Not surprisingly since you are the only one that seems to be surprised of the area of the planet the US covers. And not exceedingly since the size is not changing (exceedingly being an adverb meaning less than what it represents).

          So you laugh at Tom because you do not know the difference between spelling and grammar. Now you demonstrate a lack of comprehension of the language itself.

          You must be a school teacher.

        • pesce9991 says:

          You’re being very anal phil, Like someone in love.

        • philjourdan says:

          Aw, and I was so hoping that you would remain above the childish ad hominems! I held out great hope that at least, when properly educated on the English Language, a productive discourse could ensue.

          But alas, like all alarmists, you are just another ad hominem spewing sycophant that has no clue what you are talking about.

          I have an anus, I am not being like one. (Just so you know, Anal being the adjective of Anus).

          However you are welcome to be one if you want.

        • pesce9991 says:

          Thanks for the invite (invite is a colloquial expression for invitation) but one @ss hole (anus) is enough per forum.

        • philjourdan says:

          And more ad hominems from the troll. Frankly I do not think any bung holes are needed for a forum, nor trolls. But like flies to honey, they are always attracted to them.

          And you have not disappointed. Just a quick question. Can you post a comment that is not illiterate, ignorant or insulting? You have yet to demonstrate the capacity to do so.

        • philjourdan says:

          The diameter of the hole he is digging.

        • The US has by far the best long term temperature record in the world. About 98% of the rest of the world has nearly worthless long term records.

        • JM says:

          stevengoddard said:

          “The US has by far the best long term temperature record in the world. About 98% of the rest of the world has nearly worthless long term records.”

          I thought Central England Temperature was the longest continuous instrument record in the world. We have a longer one than that, and better?

        • Central England is about the size of Rhode Island. Always good to respond to what I actually wrote.

          “The US has by far the best long term temperature record in the world”

        • JM says:

          stevengoddard said:

          “Central England is about the size of Rhode Island. Always good to respond to what I actually wrote.”

          OK, I simply asked you why the US temperature record is superior to almost every other one, and all I get is ridicule, along with central England and Rhode Island. I can see why this thread is so acrimonious. I obviously came to the wrong place, from the wrong place (Drudge).

        • philjourdan says:

          No, CET is part of the 2%. And it is longer. And it shows exactly the same pattern as the US temperature record. Imagine that.

        • lectorconstans says:

          We do know that Thomas Jefferson kept good records while he lived in Monticello. I don’t know what Steven means by “long-term”.

          And we do know that Russia closed down most all of its weather stations when they ran out of money. Not having that data would certainly skew the averages upward.

        • The hockey stick goes back to about 1910. The US has by far the best records covering a wide area going back for over a century. No place else comes even close.

        • JM says:
          July 29, 2014 at 11:25 pm

          OK, I simply asked you why the US temperature record is superior to almost every other one, and all I get is ridicule, along with central England and Rhode Island. I can see why this thread is so acrimonious. I obviously came to the wrong place, from the wrong place (Drudge).

          I don’t quite understand your post but I suspect that you did not understand Tony’s response. He did not ridicule you or the English but pointed out the surface areas of the Earth being reliably temperature-monitored. All the regular readers of this site know that Central England has an old and continuous temperature record. The same readers also know about the history and quality of the US records, on a continental scale. This is not some silly jingoistic argument about temperature record bragging rights. It’s just how things evolved, for very practical reasons.

          A poster above tied herself in knots trying to discount the US record not because of its quality or continuity but because it doesn’t represent a large percentage of the Earth’s surface. True, but the problem is that we have only a miserable amount of good historical data on the rest of the globe, Central England being one of the exceptions.

          If you are interested in more information about the history of the United States volunteer organization we can point you to some sources describing its origins.

  19. jgdp says:

    Facts and truth have never been a concern of the LIAR in the Whitehouse!

  20. DakotaKid says:

    Here in North Dakot we will have to move away from corn and wheat to rye and oats(cooler weather crops. I think bison will still tough out the weather just fine though.

    • ChrisGC says:

      Bison are leftovers from the last Ice Age and will do just fine in the one that’s coming! LOL! ;-)

      • Carmen J Bernardo says:

        I want to go hunt bison for some meat before this winter hits, though. I think they’ve been coming along just fine for a while now. If not, let me see if that surplus of whitetail deer can use a little thinning out…

  21. Dan Dawe says:

    We have had ice ages and 10 degree warmer temperatures while the carbon percentage in the atmosphere was at much higher levels. When are we just going to come back to reality and stop trying to steal peoples hard earned money????

    • Millions of “we” never left reality.

      And many of us in that population remain infuriated by the politicized scientists who, having jettisoned their integrity and dismissed the scientific method, continue their funded scams to support the madness of CAGW.

    • Sgt Stryker says:

      When we start hanging the “thieves” from the lamp posts.
      A country of sheep waiting to be slaughtered for their wool.

  22. Jeff DeWitt says:

    Pesky global warming.

  23. RickA says:

    Much of the nation experienced a rare July cold spell last week which will be followed up by another next week. The way this pattern is going expect fall to commence in August and winter to follow close behind. They readily admit last winter was brutally cold (to excuse the failure of the Obama economy) but we will be facing a longer and even colder winter this year. It is getting harder and harder for the scammers to conceal the obvious from everybody much longer.

  24. Tsk-tsk. 29 replies and not one person asked the only question that actually matters:

    Where did the chart come from?

    I did a Google search for “percentage of 90 degree days all us hcn stations” and came up with a bunch of articles, but nothing on this particular subject. Then I did the same search, this time putting “percentage of 90 degree days” in quotes, so it would look for that exact phrase, and came up with exactly one article — another article by the same author.

    Without a link to the source, this article isn’t worth the pixels it’s printed on.

    • Latitude says:

      eric….try clicking on some of the buttons in the header of this blog
      the rest of us know how

    • _Jim says:

      re: Eric Jennings says on July 26, 2014 at 11:12 pm
      Tsk-tsk. 29 replies and not one person asked the only question that actually matters:

      Where did the chart come from?

      ‘Hand-holding’, so, like kindergarten or first-grade even.

      I now defer to the response by Latitude …

  25. Rock T. Boat says:

    But, but, but…….?! This is the most critical and urgent thing for America to fix! That, at least according to Obama & Kerry. Never mind about Russia, ISIS, Terrorism, Iraq, China Aggression, Illegal Immigration, The Economy, or all the chaos in the Middle-East! Nope! Global Climate Change!!!

  26. Wally Lind says:

    Glad to find your blog. I think I will learn a lot about the Global Warming thing. It does seem to be losing its public support, a little at a time. Wearing long sleeves in July, might have something to do with it. lol

  27. Pat Loudoun says:

    You have to love the Gore Effect.

  28. Jamman says:

    It’s always sunny in Utopia

  29. bjchip says:

    I suggest you look up what a “ninety degree day” actually is. What the term actually means.

  30. Maybe in SOME parts of the US it’s cooler than normal. Out here in parts of the Peoples’ Republic of Kalifornia, it’s sweltering….106F at the moment here in Fresno. I’m not blaming “Global Warming” because that’s just a ploy for elites like Al Gore to get richer and for Progressives to enslave the rest of us using “climate change” as an excuse to take away our rights and freedoms, but really, it’s not cool everywhere! Too much generalizing doesn’t work in a huge country like this.

    • mjc says:

      I’m pretty sure that actual temperature readings and heating/cooling degree days are what are being discussed here.

    • ChrisGC says:

      Oh joy! A link to a site run by the governmental agency that was caught red handed changing the numbers in historical temp data to support glowBULL warming! And after they were caught they quietly replaced the correct numbers when they thought no one was looking!
      The funny thing is that the REAL numbers show a slight cooling trend going as far back as the 1930’s!!!

      http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/

      This was even reported on right here!

      http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

      • Ron says:

        NOAA methodology is all in the public record. All temperatures in all graphs are computations (yeah, even the ones put out by deniers), not absolute measurements. As time goes on, the consensus as to the best methods changes and computations get updated. There’s no conspiracy, its just the way science has always worked and will always work. And the ignorant can howl at the moon all they want. No one with any sense is listening.

        http://www.livescience.com/46643-climate-update-resets-heat-record.html

        • geran says:

          Ron, you’ve snarfed too much methane, try CO2. It’s a much cleaner gas.

        • Scorekeeping methodology is constantly changing,and it turns out that Brazil actually won the world cup. That is just the way cheating and fraud has always worked.

          “Useful idiot” comes to mind.

          On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Real Science wrote:

          >

        • pesce9991 says:

          I agree with Ron. Just ask Albert Einstein and Steven Hawking what it takes to advance science. I don’t agree with Tony who hasn’t met a fact yet that he trusts! (unless it has less than credible deniers at work on it.)

        • philjourdan says:

          actually fishy, Tony trusts facts. He does not trust manipulation. That you cannot figure out the difference is your ignorance.

        • Misrepresenting my position will get you banned, pronto. I have zero tolerance for bullshit like that.

          Einstein made a joke once “If the data doesn’t match theory, change the data” You apparently didn’t understand it was a joke. Comparing the NASA/NOAA fraudsters to Einstein indicates a severe lack of intelligence.

        • geran says:

          Ron and p, is it possible you can be so confused that no one can help?

          Yeah, thought so….

        • samuel cross says:

          Believe what you will Ron; I will believe my lying eyes before you.

        • philjourdan says:

          So is the raw data. The raw data contradicts their “computations”. I am sure for some clown appealing to authority that means reality is wrong. But for most people they would have a second look at the computations to see where they went wrong.

          But that is just the sane ones.

    • _Jim says:

      Thanks for the comity -er- comedy bjchip.

    • Always interested says:

      That link describes heating and cooling degree days. What this article is discussing couldn’t be in the same context. According to NOAA (and who is actually sourcing a USAToday article) 90degree day would requires a 90degree difference between the high and the average for the day. Since this is not Mars, I doubt that they are the same.

    • glenp says:

      NOAA?? didn’t they COOK BOOKS to “PROVE” AGW?

      • Dave says:

        yes, they also took down another lie where they published that the month of July 2013 was the hottest on record and very recently and very quietly took it off their web site and replaced it with the truth… July 1936…. this retraction of course did not get even a small fraction of the press the original lie got a almost a year ago… so again they continue to manufacture fear.

      • Ron says:

        No. You’ve been duped by the oil companies’ minions again.

        • geran says:

          How do I get to be “duped by the oil companies’ minions”?

          Does it involve more than billions?

          (Ron has no clue.)

        • tom0mason says:

          Oil companies are busy keeping all the Big Greens in line with the chant of no to coal and all the other bulcarp.

        • _Jim says:

          I wonder whee Ron buys his gasoline? Oh, silly me, HE RIDES THE BUS (or subway, or streetcar etc). Gee, from whom do you suppose the transit authority buys their fuel?

          (Silly liberals never ‘think’ that far into a ‘problem’ …)

        • philjourdan says:

          And now we get unsubstantiated innuendo. Prove it little ron.

  31. But, but Obama said the debate was over…

  32. ronnyshoots says:

    When “Climate Change” does not come to fruition, the new call to arms will be “Climate Stagnation,”
    Bumper stickers, placards, pompous Hollywood stars and starlets, all calling for an end to the dreaded “Climate Stagnation.”
    Tomorrow I am meeting with my bag men, we are ordering one hundred thousand T shirts, “End Climate Stagnation Now!” We’re getting ahead of the curve on this one. Eat your heart out Michael Moore.

  33. Dave says:

    You won’t see this anywhere else or reported on in any other medium…. the “warmers” have fooled enough useful idiots and they have brainwashed enough kids in school that man is the cause of all climate issues… this despite the lack of solid empirical evidence and the immense changes in global climate before the first homo sapiens ever built a campfire…

    Its about two things folks… CONTROL and MONEY… if the elites can control the use of bountiful and cheap carbon based energy like natural gas, coal and oil, they can control the world economy and if a global carbon tax is levied it will make thousands of TRILLIONAIRES.

  34. john says:

    How I long for the days my youth in which all summer days were exactly 77.6 F, nights were a constant 61.3. Leave it to mankind to F everything up. The only thing that can save us is a benign dictatorship with the authority to enforce all human behavioral standards and the power to impose the death penalty for any violators.

    • JBSPuddintane says:

      Ah, the good ol’ days. When plate tectonics took a break. And fluid dynamics acknowledged our munificent presence.

  35. Tom Thumb says:

    Coolest summer? Guess Al Gore mouth is shut.

  36. Robert says:

    Don’t tell that snake oil salesman, Al Gore, about this. He’ll be out of business if this gets out.

  37. Emerson says:

    The only way to stop global weather is to tax the United States into ruin. Then it will be room temperature all day and unicorns will rule paradise.

  38. JBSPuddintane says:

    GE e wiz. AljazeeraGore is not gonna like it.
    The “science” was settled.
    Now who is stirrin this up?
    Aren’t we supposed to be fryin?
    Not just in Cauliflornia?

  39. BallBounces says:

    Only a non-climate-scientist would doubt global warming causes cooling.

    • JBSPuddintane says:

      Wowee! You didn’t have to wait long for your comment to get “mod” “erated”! Wowee!
      It must be because you are a real scientist.

    • Piquerish says:

      Cool!

    • Dave says:

      That’s it Ball…. up is down and down is up… as long as the far left narrative stays alive… that’s all that matters… Antarctic ice flow GROWS because of global warming… the threat of hurricanes increases …. wait… NOT? and that too is Global Warming…. brush fires in CA, prolonged menopause in women, tornadoes, earthquakes, its all due to Global Warming right Ball? Meanwhile the fat “warmer” hypocrites fly around in their personal jets spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the air but the working stiff coal miners they are out of luck….

  40. Oldbithead says:

    The sun is hardly ever mentioned. Why? The global warming socialists can’t blame it on conservatism, corporations, guns, Phil Robertson, Bush or Reagan. But rest assured they are working on it! Stay tuned.

    • mjc says:

      They do blame it on conservatives…

      Here’s how.

      CAGW is caused by industrialization, specifically the Industrial Revolution, which as we all know was kicked of by a bunch of greedy white guys who didn’t give a damn about anything else, except money…the current definition of Conservative. And most of those guys spent large amounts of that money on hunting lodges and safaris (being doubly evil by shooting noble, rare animals) which means they had guns.

      And gun-toting, rich, white guys with no morals, compassion, tolerance or any redeeming qualities were evil incarnate, of course.

    • ron says:

      and the Sun won’t pay any taxes…..just like methane-emitting termites, volcanoes, etc…….

  41. Steve says:

    Whatever is happening to the climate it’s definitely a man made disaster!

  42. icansayitnow says:

    Is anyone, anywhere able to see how…No matter what is happening. Somebody always has to add their supposed, scientific EXCUSE to explain WHY it’s too hot, why it’s too cold, why we have heat in Summer months that create thunderstorms, tornado’s, and hail. Then, they do the opposite when it oddly gets colder…DURING THE WINTER, and they make excuses for SO MUCH SNOW, FREEZING temperatures, and GOD FORBID…we get a HOT day in February, or a cold day in August. WE’RE DOOMED….I SAY..WE’RE DOOMED because suddenly…we have FOUR seasons that happen to affect the weather across the North American continent.
    WHAT WILL WE DO? WHAT WILL WE DO?

    Let’s ask AL GORE. He knows everything.

  43. Owl Bore says:

    Global Warming? I know it’s true,cause I saw it on TV. You must learn to believe, don’t be blue.. Sometimes even fairy tales come true. Cross my fingers and hope to die! Al Gore and Barrack Obama? You Lie!

  44. MariKL says:

    Somebody please tell Obama, he said the science is settled and the globe will burn by excessive heating, not from the sun but from CO2. In order to stop it, you have to pay carbon tax and all will end well.

  45. Arcturus95 says:

    Any idea if the graph for Europe or northern Asia looks similar for 2014?

  46. Dropit says:

    It would be funny if not for the push for ever higher taxes due to their socialist/progressive lies.

  47. So me one thing that has actually affected mankind’s behavior as a result of this hoax that isn’t imaginary or precautionary. Just one…

  48. Chris Long says:

    Wonderfully cool July here. Looking for high 80s next week when it should be high 90s…

  49. Frank Jackson says:

    The “Buzzword” has been changed! It is now “Global Climate Change”. Pretty much covers it all….ehhhh.

  50. Russ says:

    Hey Al Gore! This ‘climate denier’ wants you to step right up and get a slap.

  51. carlb says:

    doesn’t matter at the start if next year we will get the usual pronouncement of the hottest year om record. they have been saying that for well over 10 years to the point you would think we would have become water world in kevin costners movie! so if i was you i would learn how to sail a boat! lol

  52. Glenn Holt says:

    Steve, I agree with so much of what you write, but not this. The “coolness” of a summer should not be measured by the number of days of extreme heat, but simply by the average temperature. What has made this summer remarkable (at least here in MN) is the lack of deviation in the daily high temps. While we’ve only had two 90+ days, the average daily high is actually above normal, and the number of days above average is significantly higher than below.

    The 90+ metric is of more interest to psychologists (as a memory device) than climatologists.

    • KTM says:

      The ‘average temperatures’ are a composite of both the maximum temp each day and the minimum temp each day.

      The Global Warming crowd tells us that CO2 should drive both min and max temperatures higher. But real-world observations show that most if not all of the increase over the past century has been due to changes in the minimum temperatures NOT maximum temperatures.

      One huge problem with tracking minimum temps (or average temps influenced by minimum temps) is the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. Expansion of concrete and blacktop and buildings soaks up heat during the day that can dramatically increase nighttime and minimum temps, without much impact on daytime max temps.

      Looking at Max temps as shown in this graph is an elegant sanity-check, because it removes the corrupting influence of UHI on minimum temps.

      Max temps are on a long-term decline, in direct contradiction to the predictions made by all Global Warming models.

      • Latitude says:

        100%…….

      • “Max temps are on a long-term decline, in direct contradiction to the predictions made by all Global Warming models.”

        I don’t think that’s correct… my understanding is that models tend to predict a slight warming trend during the coldest parts of the day. The belief in extreme weather (max temperatures getting hotter) is more activist rhetoric. (Although many scientists are also activists.) I don’t think AGW advocates want to draw attention to this, as it implies that even the predicted warming is likely to be fairly benign, by making temperatures less extreme, not more extreme.

  53. Glenn Holt says:

    Steven,

    I dropped the ‘n’ on your name! Very sorry!!

    • pesce9991 says:

      That’s OK. His real name is Tony.

      • _Jim says:

        Duh! Where have you been? In Poland?

        • pesce9991 says:

          Jimmy, you’re back! Is there a part of you I haven’t destroyed yet?

        • philjourdan says:

          Pretty much all of him you have not. But I guess you have not learned that petty pejoratives and infantile ad hominems are not destroying the opposition, just yourself.

      • Wow! What a day it’s been, pesce9991. I’ve read somewhere earlier that Mark Twain’s real name was Samuel.

        And there is this recent scandal: A commenter posting as “Quinn the Eskimo” on Watts Up With That disclosed that he’s not really Quinn the Eskimo. All his past statements are now in question until his real identity and scientific credentials can be established.

        Can we put you on the case?

  54. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    But aren’t we at the “crisis”, “tipping point” of “runaway” CO2 induced warming?

  55. LWJR says:

    Al Gore gave up his airplane and looked what happened? CO2 went down and global cooling started up.

  56. pesce9991 says:

    Did anyone notice that the article was about summer being the coolest IN THE US? I live on the east coast and, yes…we’ve had a pretty tough winter, a cool spring and now a much cooler than average summer. I like it!
    But look at how insignificant that is to the global temperatures and you will see that it makes an extremely small change in the overall global temps. The USA is about 1.9% of the surface area of the earth. We would have to be much much cooler to make any change in global temperatures. Even compared to total land mass we are merely 6.5% of it. But global warming figures come from us and about 98.1% of the rest of the world.
    To be fair, we are not the only country feeling cooler this year. But more are experiencing hotter temperatures than lower and that brings the average worldwide temps higher and that in turn is why scientists predict 20014 will be hotter.
    This is how a little bit of knowledge goes a long way towards seeing the global warming picture correctly. All the bs I’ve read on this column is do to willful lack of knowledge.

    • _Jim says:

      ” how insignificant that is to the global temperatures ”

      What global temperatures? Who has as complete a record set as the US?

      And, did you plot the RAW, un-adjusted data? Or just accept what some governmental agency posted to a website?

      All this matters, you know.

      It’s a “verify before trust” thing. And sometimes the “verify” stage shows that someone was cheating, so one can’t very well “trust” them past that point going forward, can they?

      .

      • pesce9991 says:

        We may do a better job than other countries and have a more complete set of records, Jimmy, but all that indicates is that we are doing a better job than they. It’s up to the scientists to take un-adjusted data and make sense of them. For example, they take the raw temps of urban areas which would skew the results higher so as not to exaggerate the total score. I assume you haven’t taken the raw data and extrapolated the results either, Jim boy, so your point is moot.

        Also you have nothing but paranoid suspicion to base your claim that ‘someone was cheating’ was cheating.

        • geran says:

          p, so this is your claim: CO2 from fossil fuels can overheat the planet.

          Please explain how that can happen.

        • pesce9991 says:

          No, Ronnie. Nowhere in my answer did I make that claim. You’re delusional. But since you brought it up, please explain what effect CO2 does have on the atmosphere using sound scientific knowledge.

        • _Jim says:

          re: pesce9991 says July 28, 2014 at 8:45 pm

          I finished with you quite a few hours ago; you have NOTHING to add to this debate, you have NO FACTS only continued, hollow, pointless BANTER, and THIS was by your own ADMISSION!

        • Latitude says:

          It’s up to the scientists to take un-adjusted data and make sense of them. For example, they take the raw temps of urban areas which would skew the results higher so as not to exaggerate the total score. I assume you haven’t taken the raw data and extrapolated the results either, Jim boy, so your point is moot.
          ====
          If you’ve studied this…then you know that if you take away the adjustments to the temperature history…there’s been no temperature increase at all…..
          If you take away the adjustments, algorithms, and infilling…..temperatures have been going down. since the beginning

          There is no global warming without adjustment, algorithms, and infilling……..

        • pesce9991 says:

          But, Latitude, you have no way of knowing this. There has been no experimentation proving this, and so there is no reason anybody should believe it.

        • pesce9991 says:

          Geran: No I didn’t state anywhere what the effects of CO2 are on the atmosphere. But it’s a good topic. So you go.

          This is in response to Jimmy, who seems a bit flustered now. He says (or blurts):

          “I finished with you quite a few hours ago; you have NOTHING to add to this debate, you have NO FACTS only continued, hollow, pointless BANTER, and THIS was by your own ADMISSION!”

          You haven’t answered even one point I made in my posts to have surrendered so easily, Jimmy. Your straw dog was answered when I said in effect that neither you nor I are in a position to take raw scientific data and make claims with it. I also said you are not logical and can’t reason your way out of a paper bag which is why you spend your time mired in delusion. I’m waiting for an intelligent reply but all I get is sound signifying nothing.

        • _Jim says:

          re: pesce9991 says July 28, 2014 at 11:53 pm

          No, rather, I have no time for f*cking idiots like you who have nothing to contribute (by your OWN admission even) to the debate.

          BTW, Note: You have earned the deserving moniker f*cking idiot along with rug-chewing, ankle-biting liberal (contrary to your PRIOR assertion to the contrary) by your actions, deeds and words in this thread. Some of you REALLY ARE low-life cockroaches with NO redeeming (social or otherwise) value.

          (Caps are for emphasis, since I think you really are that f*cking stupid that you would misread what has been written here.)

          .

        • pesce9991 says:

          Oh Jimmy, I rather think you’ve lost it. I was hoping you could get past your short fuse and actually engage me in a reasoned discussion. But that’s not to be, I see. I’m not going to call you names even though quite a few come to mind. It’s always the one who can’t control his/ her emotions that loses the debate. Pity.

        • philjourdan says:

          So you are admitting defeat already. Pity.

        • Latitude says:

          But, Latitude, you have no way of knowing this. There has been no experimentation proving this, and so there is no reason anybody should believe it.
          ====
          Your host on this blog has been posting about it for years…..
          ….

        • _Jim says:

          re: pesce9991 says on July 29, 2014 at 12:59 am

          Ever heard the words “Bugger off” spoken your direction? You have now …

          You’re past the point of any redemption, you f*cking idiot. I say this with clean conscience and full knowledge of what it means. I actually pity liberals such as yourself, unable to think or move outside of narrowly confined memes defined by your ‘contemporaries’. Who is the ‘conformist’ today, it is the liberal who dare not speak out against his party or his party’s position. You will be struck down swiftly as a heretic.

          So tell us again how ‘enlightened’ you are, how much more you know than us ‘peons’ down below … tell us again, oh great f*cking idiot one …

          .

        • pesce9991 says:

          Ha! Jimmy! I only go by what you have presented to me on this forum. I see a mind clouded by emotion, anger and bias rather than led by intellect. If I saw something else I’d be sure to tell you about it. So please don’t blame me for your shortcomings.

        • Shazaam says:

          @Jim – I loved the line from this video: “Debating with idiots only reduces your own IQ”

          Williams is rude, crude and not PC. I like that.

        • Shazaam says:

          Wrong URL….

          He must have uploaded a new one while I was typing…..

        • _Jim says:

          I found it, Shazaam –

          Don’t Debate Idiots – It Does No Damn Good

          Peace1999, this means YOU.

          .

        • pesce9991 says:

          Yeah, Jimmy, but debating them is a lot of fun.

        • philjourdan says:

          Then go debate them. I am sure you are on equal terms.

        • Shazaam says:

          Thanks. I was beginning to think I needed to check my forehead for an “idiot” tattoo…

          I really wish there were a 5 minute post edit feature…. It might look like I could spell better ;)

      • geran says:

        pesce9991 says:
        July 28, 2014 at 11:35 pm
        No, Ronnie. Nowhere in my answer did I make that claim. You’re delusional. But since you brought it up, please explain what effect CO2 does have on the atmosphere using sound scientific knowledge.
        >>>>

        I will have to answer for Ronnie. (There is no “Ronnie”, p is delusional, but, let’s keep it a secret.)

        CO2 has not enduring effect on the atmosphere. QED

        • pesce9991 says:

          So sorry, geran. There is a Ron but I met to send this reply to you…..

        • geran says:

          p, do you also see little green men? How about 8′ tall rabbits? How about your great great great great great grandmother?

  57. ARNOLD CARL TAPP says:

    >>> BLAME IT ON ” GLOBAL WARMING ” . WHAT A CROCK OF COOCOO CRAP . <<<

  58. Rick Taylor says:

    Green is the new Red. And Green, Red or otherwise is all about having a good time, on other people’s dime. The lazy gravitate toward the Global Warming hysteria, which really gravitates around govt subsidy. Govt subsidy is eventually about the transfer of power from the Private Sector (the non-connected) to the Bureaucracy (and the well-connected).

    Look at Mr. Obama’s buddies and then look at the venom he spews. Supposedly he spews venom at his buddies; really it’s just cover or ignorance. The Reds & Greens they kill the middle-class which only gives more power to the Ruling Class; who they supposedly despise. Paradoxical.

    The Reds & Greens should be knocking down the monopolies (govt & crony) and supporting the Private Sector; instead they support the REAL Trickle-down economy; Socialism/Fascism.

    To me it’s easy math to understand. But for most people it seems they just don’t see the equation and therefore support the wrong variables.

    • Adolfo Gomez Cala says:

      It’s not paradoxical. They suppose that in the Global Change (in the country) they will become part of the ruling class. It is idiotic but that illusion keep them going.

    • Steve Cripps says:

      Well, as Red Green is wont to say, “If the women don’t find you handsome, they can at least find you handy.”

  59. Teddy Novak says:

    Global warming (aka climate change) is the religion of the stupid.

    http://www.zazzle.com/FirstPrinciples*

  60. Davidio says:

    This should surprise anyone? Air conditioners are much more prevalent than they were 80 years ago. They are working on a grand scale.

  61. Global warming is evolving and learning, much like SKYNET. Only Al Gore and John Connor can save us now.

    • Big Daddy says:

      Climate change has been going on for 4.5 billion years. It will continue with or without us…..What’s the tempature supposed to be ??????

  62. Zesko Whirligan says:

    “Level-headed” Science is in the pocket of world governments whose agenda is to manipulate economies, to restrict civil liberties, and to impose global taxation. Only 43% of climatologists in the world insist that climate change is “man-made,” which is absurd on the face of it. Climate change is a FACT — it is the only ongoing, undeniable fact in the entire history of the planet. Earth’s climate is in a perpetual state of change. However, for a minority of government-subsidized “scientists” to declare that the Earth is warming up due to manmade causes is LAUGHABLE. They’ve been predicting hotter weather and more violent storms for nearly 20 years now, but it’s NOT HAPPENING. The Earth is growing cooler, the polar icecaps are expanding, the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and other storms is DIMINISHING. Manmade Global Warming is becoming a harder and harder sell because the EVIDENCE for it DOES NOT EXIST; or, even worse, the evidence is being FABRICATED.

  63. gunnyginalaska says:

    How can this be? Owl Gore SWEARS: “two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, ’cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot.” We should all be burning up…

  64. bobj says:

    What have the scientists been smoking? The earth is not warming or cooling it suffers from Global Constipation! And with that we have Global Hemorrhoids!
    If we can clear both up, then we are back to normal.

  65. It would add credibility to the Numbers if the Author gave the source of those numbers…don’t you think? I guess we’ll just have to take his word on it …who ever He is

  66. Jerry says:

    It’s Bush’s fault — Obama

  67. Mark L says:

    Global warming = Global tax = Global government = NWO run by the elites… Any questions?

  68. Warming and cooling, ok.

  69. New hampshire says:

    This was another example of a meaningless propaganda headline. A low percentage of 90 degree days doesn’t make it the coolest summer on record. How about a chart the shows the average temperature in the summer? Then the data might match the headline. You wonder why people question both sides of the climate argument.

  70. Nice to see so many AGW “truthers” We were voices in the wilderness in 2007. The worm has turned.

  71. Reg Dunlop says:

    Al Gore has made millions off of this junk science thingy. …….like the “Pet Rock ” guy….

  72. Any One says:

    Wasn’t last summer one of the hottest on record?

  73. Joe Byden says:

    Man-Bear-Pig !

  74. Jay Veritas says:

    Running contrary to what the mainstream media lead Americans to believe, this attached website predicted a cool summer with below average temperatures 6 weeks ago. They also had 9 other predictions that all seem to be coming true.

    http://www.frontlineofdefense.com/10-summer-predictions

  75. asachild says:

    “Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out. This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.”
    Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California. These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort. All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected. Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.
    The theory was known a eugenics. As Margaret Sanger said, “Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty … there is not greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles.” She spoke of the burden of caring for “this dead weight of human waste.” California was one of twenty-nine American states to pass laws allowing sterilization, but it proved the most-forward-looking and enthusiastic — more sterilizations were carried out in California than anywhere else in America. Since the 1920s, American eugenicists had been jealous because the Germans had taken leadership of the movement away from them. The Germans were admirably progressive. They set up ordinary-looking houses where “mental defectives” were brought and interviewed one at a time, before being led into a back room, which was, in fact, a gas chamber. There, they were gassed with carbon monoxide, and their bodies disposed of in a crematorium located on the property. But in retrospect, three points stand out. First, despite the construction of Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory, despite the efforts of universities and the pleadings of lawyers, there was no scientific basis for eugenics. In fact, nobody at that time knew what a gene really was. The movement was able to proceed because it employed vague terms never rigorously defined”.
    They say history repeats itself. Today the theory is called “Climate Change”.
    RIP Michael Crichton. http://michaelcrichton.net/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html

  76. Laney Bee says:

    Can’t wait for the global warming thieves to become the global cooling thieves.

  77. Jim Lively says:

    US population = ap. 320 million
    World population = 7.1 billion
    That means ap 15% of the worlds pop. lives in the US, with the highest concentrations of people in India and China.

    If I removed the entire landmass of North America the charts would not change. If everyone in North America disappeared, and our carbon footprint reduced to zero, IT WOULD NOT STOP their imaginary trend.

    So, you REALLY want to save the world? Learn Chinese. They obviously need the wisdom of Gore much more than the US does.

  78. Jim Lively says:

    population = ap. 320 million
    World population = 7.1 billion
    That means ap 15% of the worlds pop. lives in the US, with the highest concentrations of people in India and China.

    If I removed the entire landmass of North America the charts would not change. If everyone in North America disappeared, and our carbon footprint reduced to zero, It would not stop their imaginary trend.

    So, you really want to save the world? Learn Chinese. They obviously need the wisdom of Gore much more than the US does.

  79. What does it matter? the fact is, Pope albert has spoken-according to him, the earth is warming! Nothing else matters!

  80. Please send some of this cooling our way in Jacksonville, FL. Current temp 84 at 8:30am. High today 98. Low tonight 77.

  81. Bart Hall says:

    I’m not super-impressed with your linear trend line. At least cough up an R-squared to go with it. Presumably this was done in Excel, so that should be easy. More interestingly, throw a 3rd or 4th order polynomial at it. Certainly your R-squared will about double, and it will reflect better the dynamic nature of climate systems.

    I farm for a living and track phenology quite closely. In our part of the world there’s been a two-WEEK delay in the heading out of winter wheat simply from the previous solar peak (Cycle 23, 2000-’02) to this current fizzle for Cycle 24. Given the timing, we’re planning for a Maunder Minimum type cooling. Ask me in about fifteen years. Current cooling could be simply PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation), but I doubt it, given the fairly steady Maunder cycle of some 325 years ±~10%. The world has been in a long-term cooling cycle for the last 55 or 60 million years (the Eocene Arctic Ocean was about like the Louisiana bayous of our day) and I doubt it will change any time soon.

    Disclosure … though I farm for a living, my first two degrees were in Geology, followed by Soil Science and then Agronomy. That included several courses in Meteorology, Climatology, and Paleo-Climatology, so my professional expertise in this area is non-trivial. Too much alphabet soup for a farmer, but I’m a curious fellow. These days my passion is economic history, and the events tracking Maunder-cycle cooling include (14th C) the death of a third of the world population and the rise of a truly militant Islam; (10th C) the rise of serfdom and monasteries as over-indebted farms failed, utter dynastic instability in China and massive migrations such as the Hungarians; or (4th C) persistent dynastic instability in China and the fall of the Roman Empire, in both cases due to failing food supplies.

    Serious stuff, and we need to pay attention. Linear trend lines for just a century or so do not add much to the discussion.

    • _Jim says:

      Common sense says you don’t need to see an “R-squared” to draw conclusions from looking at the graph and see the obvious peak in the 1930’s.

      Do you do the same looking at your bank statement or the cost of apples at the supermkt? I thought not …

      .

  82. This has been a particularly mild summer here in Texas. We are nearing the end of July and have yet to see a single hundred degree day. It is yet more proof that for postmodern liberals debt is wealth, diversity is strength, and cooler is warmer.

  83. Mike says:

    Gore fixed global warming…but overshot a little. Give him a more time and money. He will make the climate consistent…like the economists have made the economy consistent. Send him a check today.

  84. RotalSnart says:

    Climate = THE WEATHER prevailing in an area…….GOOGLE CLIMATE DEFINITION FOOLS!

    So Democrats are so braindead that they have just now figured out that THE WEATHER CHANGES?

    WOW, the sheer stupidity and the boldness of the Democrat lies, all to raise taxes on working people…..

    • tom0mason says:

      The truth of CAGW (aka Catagorically Absurd Global Warming) –
      It’s only weather when it’s not hot, when hot weather=climate.

      OK, now pay your carbon tax.

  85. Mike0oSS says:

    This simply can’t be! Just last week I heard that NOAA was dropping past temperature records to make the new highs look like record highs….no B.S. either.

  86. Nam Marine says:

    BULL CRAP ! It’s been hotter in Florida than I ever remember ! (over 20 years) !

  87. Htos1 says:

    Not here in n.Florida, it’s been 105 for weeks.

  88. NotAGolfer says:

    What does this mean?? Is this a frequency chart of days with a high of exactly 90 degrees? Or days with a high above 90 degrees? Or days with a high in the 90s? Days when it hit at least 90? Days with an average of 90? Are these numbers the average of all US stations? Or days when at least one US station got to 90?

    On a “science” blog, it’s best to be a little more clear.

    • _Jim says:

      - – –
      Graph labeling:

      Percentage Of 90 Degree Days Through July 23 At All US HCN Stations

      The text above it says:

      Coolest Summer On Record In The US
      Posted on July 26, 2014 by stevengoddard

      The frequency of 90 degree days in the US has been plummeting for 80 years, and 2014 has had the lowest frequency of 90 degree days through July 23 on record. The only other year which came close was 1992, and that was due to dust in the atmosphere from Mt Pinatubo.

      – – – – –

      Given the above describing the data, I would write the equation thusly showing the percentage of days in a year (a per anum calculation which is then graphed) for temps recorded/reported at 90 deg or above for the US Historical Climate Network stations:

      Percent_days_90deg_and_above = (Count_of_stations_with_days_90deg_and_above / No_of_Stations * 365) * 100
      .
      Vars for each year:

      . . Count_of_stations_with_days_90deg_and_above

      This would be an accumulated ‘count’ of the number of days that stations (plural) reported 90 degrees or higher throughout the year.

      . . No_of_Stations

      Number of stations in the network. Between 1200 and 1300 if I recall correctly.
      .
      Note:

      The value 365 is adjusted downward from 365 to the number of days through July 23 for the year 2014.

      Corrections, Tony or anybody?

      .

      • 80 years is insignificant when it comes to measuring climate cycles. It would fall more under the catagory of weather. Climate takes place on a much larger time frame of Geologic Time. For example; The last Glacial Maximum ( LGM ) took place 20,000 years ago. Scince then, the continental Glacier wich extended from greenland south to St. louis and from the the north atlantic shore to the great pacific northwest up to Alaska. The continental Glacier melted to the extent that only about 1% of the continental glacier remains itoday in isolated,disassocited,tatters and remenants virtually unrecognizable in ice age terms.Further, This 20,000 yr warming trend is characterized by periods of rapid rates of deglaciaiton;periods of extremely slow deglaciation; and even periods of reglaciation under the much larger 20,000 year warming trend. In Geologice time 80 yrs, 100 yrs, 200 yrs is a nano-second of brevity wich can barely constitute a trend in the larger context of geologic time. Here is a movie of the modeled deglaciation of north america in the last 20,000 years. It is interesting to note that virtually 99% of the virtual deglaciation of North america takes place prior to the industrial revolution and in absence of any anthropogenic forces much larger than a camp fire.

        From an even larger perspective of geologic time of the 4.5 billion year history of the earth it is interesting to note that Polar Ice and Glaciers on the planet earth occupies such a small amount of time as to almost be an asteric in the history of the earth. This is to say that the absence of Polar Ice and glaciation on earth is the ” Norm ” for the exceedingly vast majority of the Earth’s 4.5 billion year history. Further, In absence of any climactic factors of hemispheric or global proportion wich would not only interrupt the warming trend of the last 20,000 years but change to a trend of significant cooling, it is predictable that the tiny amounts of fragmental glaciation in north america and indeed globally will totally disappear thereby reuniting the earths conditions to its long standing historical norm of an Earth without Polar Ice and glaciation.

        Modeled Deglaciation Of north America Movie: Again, 99% of the deglaciation of north america occurs prior to the industrial revolution. This is all one needs to know to dismiss the anthropogenic climate change kooks.

        http://www.physics.mun.ca/~lev/glacmov.html

        • _Jim says:

          I don’t think that’s the point; why does every government plot-of-the-data show an increase in temp whereas an unadulterated plot of the data does not show an increase of temps?

          Can you riddle me an answer to that?

          SINCE the ‘sales’ of CAGW as sold to the public is BASED on the GOVERNMENT plots over less than an 80 year time span even, I think you message is wasted HERE and needs to be directed to NOAA and NASA GISS.

          .

  89. Tom says:

    Maybe the author could obtain a comment from demoRAT-COMMUNIST party operative and colossal fraud, algore.

  90. Temperatures over the past several years have been getting cooler, not warmer. The warming trends all of those computer models and man-made global warming climate change alarmists were advancing were not accurate. This is what happens when a theory is supported by simple consensus of opinon, rather than being validated by science.

    Here’s a link that explains why temperatures have been trending lower the past several years. The results are sure to fascinate you:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LgdKxk9Tkgk

  91. Ed says:

    My theory based on much research states we are heading towards a ice age but the human factor is indeed warming the planet. So what does this mean? Earth will undergo radical temperature changes and we my be able to stabilize effects but the truth is over time it may cause irreversible harm to mother earth.

    • tom0mason says:

      “… it may cause irreversible harm to mother earth.”

      https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/coolest-summer-on-record-in-the-us/#comment-394370

      The earth and life on it has proved to be extremely resilient.

    • lectorconstans says:

      At the risk of being pedantic, your copious research states that we are heading toward AN ice age.

      OK, there’s the theory. In the strange world of science, a theory is a proposition that can be either proved or disproved. (So, we have the THEORY of relativity, which so far has passed all its predictions, and never been disproved.) A good theory also has to show some fundamental cause and effect relationship.

      For your theory to gain acceptance, it has to make predictions (we’re going toward an ice age, but really we’re going toward a heat age). To flesh out your theory, you’ll need to show some cause and effect – backed with experimental observations.

      There’s also a difference between a theory and a hypothesis; I’ll leave that difference as an exercise for the reader.

      • geran says:

        Here’s a prediction for you: Glaciers will not exceed more than 1000 feet in height, below 35º latitude.

        (For more exact predictions, please subscribe. Limited subscriptions available.)

        • lectorconstans says:

          Here’s an even better one: The entire universe (including the Earth &c), was created just 15 minutes ago, in exactly that state – 6 million year old rocks, stars bilions of lightyears away, all of us with the memories (false, of course, and implanted) that we had at that moment.

        • _Jim says:

          The entire universe (including the Earth &c), was created just 15 minutes ago, in exactly that state – 6 million year old rocks, stars bilions of lightyears away …

          I would be compelled to then ask: Why the facade?

      • lectorconstans says:

        Jim: “the facade”… It’s part of the Interstellar Conspiracy.

  92. M says:

    The cooler days are a result of the damage the humans have done to the earth during our industrial revolution and our rapping of the earth’s resources. The Global Climate change, a.k.a. Global Warming, is a direct result of our greed. So enjoy your so-called cooler weather now. Someday it will get hotter. How did I do Mr. Gore? :-)

  93. D. Bowman says:

    I’m sure some “expert” will claim this is a result of globull warming somehow.

  94. M says:

    The cooler days are a result of the damage the humans have done to the earth during our industrial revolution and our raping of the earth’s resources. The Global Climate change, a.k.a. Global Warming, is a direct result of our greed. So enjoy your so-called cooler weather now. Someday it will get hotter. How did I do Mr. Gore? :-)

  95. oracle2world says:

    “Extreme weather” has now superseded “climate change” as the correct terminology in the field.
    FYI

  96. MoonBat says:

    At this morning’s U.N. economic forum Al Gore warned that climate change was going to cause million’s of people’s heads to explode. Maybe the cool summers will delay that. http://www.thedailyrash.com/al-gore-global-warming-will-cause-millions-of-peoples-heads-to-explode/

  97. Big daddy says:

    I think one of the most common mistakes in analysing climate is failing to use the correct time scale. To give credibility to any climate changes one must use geologic time as a reference point. For example; The end of the last great ice age is generally considered to be 20,000 years ago. 20,000 years is a nano-second in geologic time.This moment in time is referred to as the LGM ( Last Glacial Maximum) At that point in time the Glaciation of North america was continental in size. This is to say The Continental Glacier extended from Greenland south to St. louis: From The north atlantic seabord to the great Northwest Pacific coast up to Alaska. In the last 20,000 years over 99% of the continental glacier has melted due to a 20,000 year warming trend. This trend is characterized by periods of increased rates of deglaciation; decreased rates of deglaciation, and even periods of reglaciation all under the umbrella of a larger warming trend and massive virtually complete deglaciation of the north american continent.. Interestingly 99% of all deglaciation of the north american continental ice sheet occured before the industrial revolution. This is to say virtually the entire continental ice sheet melted in abscence of anthropogenic factors. This does much to poo-poo any notion of mans roles in any deglaciation. The remaining glaciation is best described as tiny,disassociated, fragments and remenants of the last great ice age making up less tham 1% of its former size and mass.

    Here is a model of the deglaciation of north america in movie form. Again, note that 99% of this deglaciation occurred prior to the industrial revolution and in abscence of anthropogenic forces.

    http://www.physics.mun.ca/~lev/glacmov.html

    In abscence of climactic changes of hemispheric or global proportions there is no reason to believe the warming trend of the last 20,000 years will abate and the total melting of any remaing glacial fragments still existing in north america. this is the “norm” of the last 20,000 years. Further, If one looks at the entire 4.5 billion year history of the earth, Abscence of polar ice and any glaciers has been the norm for the vast majority of the earth’s history. This is to say that the abscence of polar ice and glaciers is the planetary norm wich the earth has historically resided in for vitually all its history.

    Thanks for reading, you now have the scientific basis with wich to totally dismiss any and all climate alarmist kooks.

  98. Yukiko says:

    Bush is making this cold weather just to thwart the good works of Global Warming Flat Earther’s every where.

    • Dave says:

      yes,,, since they can’t actually call it man made Global Warming anymore… it would seem to anyone with even half a lobe that if you are passionately trying to convince someone of the veracity of your claim …. you shouldn’t have to change the term used to describe your position

      unless of course… your first position was weak and scientifically unsupportable.

  99. Bo says:

    Al Gore you bullshitter

  100. Mike Hammer says:

    When looking at ice records and CO2 levels, if you place your head squarely up your butt you can see that CO2 causes temperatures to rise, just as when shadows come out they cause the sun to shine. Now, remove your head from your rectum and clearly you see that as climate naturally changes, warming causes the release of CO2 just as the sun causes shadows.

    A recent article on the hole in Siberia that has formed actually had the alarmist state the facts correctly saying that the warming of permafrost is causing the release of CO2.

    http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/melting_permafrost.asp

    Just had to point out how they continually contradict each other and rely on the idiocy of the masses for their continued funding.

  101. Piquerish says:

    The Earth relentlessly has been undergoing “climate change” since it was a primordial cloud of dust and gas and that continues to this day. No change at all means stasis and that does not happen in time and space. But it ain’t my fault or yours. Meanwhile, now that libs are thinking of a new catchy control-freak phrase du jour, the disgusting sweat stains under Owlgore’s armpits continue to spread unabated.

  102. Big Daddy says:

    STRAIGHT TALK ON CLIMATE ALARMISM

    80 years is insignificant when it comes to measuring climate cycles. It would fall more under the catagory of weather. Climate takes place on a much larger time frame of Geologic Time. For example; The last Glacial Maximum ( LGM ) took place 20,000 years ago. Scince then, the continental Glacier wich extended from greenland south to St. louis and from the the north atlantic shore to the great pacific northwest up to Alaska. The continental Glacier melted to the extent that only about 1% of the continental glacier remains itoday in isolated,disassocited,tatters and remenants virtually unrecognizable in ice age terms.Further, This 20,000 yr warming trend is characterized by periods of rapid rates of deglaciaiton;periods of extremely slow deglaciation; and even periods of reglaciation under the much larger 20,000 year warming trend. In Geologice time 80 yrs, 100 yrs, 200 yrs is a nano-second of brevity wich can barely constitute a trend in the larger context of geologic time. Here is a movie of the modeled deglaciation of north america in the last 20,000 years. It is interesting to note that virtually 99% of the virtual deglaciation of North america takes place prior to the industrial revolution and in absence of any anthropogenic forces much larger than a camp fire.

    From an even larger perspective of geologic time of the 4.5 billion year history of the earth, it is interesting to note that Polar Ice and Glaciers on the planet earth occupies such a small amount of time as to almost be an asteric in the history of the earth. This is to say that the absence of Polar Ice and glaciation on earth is the ” Norm ” for the exceedingly vast majority of the Earth’s 4.5 billion year history. Further, In absence of any climactic factors of hemispheric or global proportion wich would not only interrupt the warming trend of the last 20,000 years but change to a trend of significant cooling, it is predictable that the tiny amounts of fragmental glaciation in north america and indeed globally will totally disappear thereby reuniting the earths conditions to its long standing historical norm of an Earth without Polar Ice and glaciation.

    Modeled Deglaciation Of north America Movie: Again, 99% of the deglaciation of north america occurs prior to the industrial revolution. This is all one needs to know to dismiss the anthropogenic climate change kooks.

    http://www.physics.mun.ca/~lev/glacmov.html

    • _Jim says:

      re: Big Daddy says on July 27, 2014 at 3:53 pm
      STRAIGHT TALK ON CLIMATE ALARMISM

      80 years is insignificant when it comes to measuring climate cycles. It would fall more under the catagory [sic] of weather.

      As I wrote up-thread to one of your posts:

      I don’t think that’s the point; why does every government plot-of-the-data show an increase in temp whereas an unadulterated plot of the data does not show an increase of temps?

      Can you riddle me an answer to that?

      SINCE the ‘sales’ of CAGW as sold to the public is BASED on the GOVERNMENT plots over less than an 80 year time span even, I [still] think you message is wasted HERE and needs to be directed to NOAA and NASA GISS.

      – – – –

      And I’ll add, I don’t expect you’ll actually address any of the ‘principles’ pushing the CAGW agenda (in government OR academia) and correct ‘them’ as you attempt to correct ‘us’ here.

      .

  103. juan says:

    It’s Halliburton’s fault!

  104. Evil Klown says:

    Funniest part is, they could start screaming “Global cooling” and the same clucking pinheads that believed them before would believe them again.

  105. Where’s al gore and the gorons on this? Not a peep. Global warming is about control and a money grab.

  106. Mike Mangan says:

    No arrogant Alarmists here? No ignorant, bigoted little pricks regurgitating standard SS talking points? What worthless, pitiful opponents you have, Steve. Is this thread indicative of a trend?

    • _Jim says:

      … usually, it seems (to this observer), when RealSci links appear on Drudge; this is proof positive though, that the SS types *do* read Drudge, and furthermore, feel that any sources he links to with info contrary to their CAGW dogma must be ‘countered’ as it is seen as substantive, substantial opposition and likely to ‘harm’ the CAGW cause if not countered.

      Wear it as a badge of honor, then, Tony et al, that they consider RealSci as ‘the opposition’.

      .

    • pesce9991 says:

      Here ya go. One arrogant little prick to burst your balloon and send you hurtling back to earth in a hurry.

      “Coolest Summer On Record In The US
      The frequency of 90 degree days in the US has been plummeting for 80 years, and 2014 has had the lowest frequency of 90 degree days through July 23 on record. The only other year which came close was 1992, and that was due to dust in the atmosphere from Mt Pinatubo.”

      Let’s start with the above article which gets mindlessly repeated over and over here. First, the author is a commentator not a scientist. He’s not even a meteorologist! Second he gives nothing to back up his claims. No references or citations. Yet he is repeated over and over as some sort of authority we should take seriously at face value. His first statement about the frequency of 90 degree days plummeting is pure bunk.

      Next, and this is your fault, you are pretending that a report on USA climate is the same as a report on Global climate. This is complete horse hockey.

      Although reading seems to be a chore for you (plural) the report below should straighten out your warped brains.

      The 2014 world map shows that the US is clearly cooler than the rest of the globe. But the US accounts for only 1.9% of the worlds surface area! You would get a failing grade in science if you did not catch that error. You can’t extrapolate a global trend from only 1.9% of the data. That’s like calling and election with only 1.9% of the precincts reporting.

      I suggest reading the science behind global warming rather than some creative writing bs from unqualified ‘authorities':

      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/6

      • Sharpshooter says:

        As a “scientist” yourself I suggest you look up “Argument from authority”.

        The look of “fraud” and take a peek in the mirror.

        Then, we’ll go through about 30 odd other fallacies and legal definitions.

        Arrogant prick, indeed.

      • _Jim says:

        re: pesce9991 says on July 27, 2014 at 5:47 pm
        Second he gives nothing to back up his claims. No references or citations. Yet he is repeated over and over as some sort of authority we should take seriously at face value. His first statement about the frequency of 90 degree days plummeting is pure bunk.

        Pure assertion and no follow-up with a formal ‘proof’. (You have an opportunity to ‘demolish’ Steve and his ‘rep’ by doing this one thing, ya know? Just sayin …)

        Pure argumentum ab auctoritate (argument from authority; ‘believe me because I say so because I am a a credentialed expert’).

        I might also say we finally have a perceived ‘player’ show up in this thread, but, he (could be a she) has fallen just ‘short’ of the runway; crashed. Didn’t come anywhere close to ‘putting it on the numbers’ let alone crossing the runway threshold. (A/C pilots reading this know what I mean.)

        .

      • tom0mason says:

        Another empty CAGW true believe rant. From someone who, unlike a real scientist, can not keep an open mind, or indeed go and prove what he says. No he only believes. Such an arrogant little know nothing.

        More to be pitied than blamed, poor thing.

  107. kendrick1 says:

    Mencken had it right: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

  108. hansDelbrucke says:

    It’s all about money. Gore is 100 times richer than whebn he left office, all due to the global warming farce. Always follow the money, no matter what the subject.

  109. Victor Ward says:

    Yet, in England, they are having a really warm Summer, for them, that is. I think we should call the phenomenon Local Warming!

    • pesce9991 says:

      There’s a glimmer of hope here. You are beginning to get the idea that different regions of the globe do not follow the pattern of the US. Some are hotter, others colder. Add all the observations together average them and divide by the number. The results show that our earth’s average temps are rising. =GLOBAL WARMING. You’re almost there!

  110. Benji says:

    2012 summer was hotter than hell in Wisconsin.

  111. Bill Adams says:

    Rarely has Babylon gotten into such a huge lie that’s fallen apart so obviouslyl. According to Catholic Fundamentalism, such lies are one way He separates sheep from goats, wheat from weeds, etc. Such lies! Such punishment to come!

  112. Dave Tufte says:

    Here in southwestern Utah, all the bushes and trees that usually flower after the summer heat is over have started early – a month early for a rose of sharon, and a couple weeks early for sunflowers.

  113. Paul Verlaine says:

    Everyone! Sell all your motor vehicles, and start riding a bicycle. Do you think that will somehow change the weather?

  114. Ryk E Lee says:

    Al Gore warned us, it would be “hotter this summer than it has been all year”, in your face climate deniers.

  115. pithy runt says:

    Pointing to a local phenomena (sorry fellas the USA is not the entire world) to foster distrust in a global event lends false credibility to irresponsible behavior.

  116. glenp says:

    you IDIOTS!! we all know WARMING makes COOLING!!! ask any global warmist whackjob!!

  117. Rocco Tool says:

    Algore predicted the major cities would be under water from flooding by now. Wait. Maybe he delayed the Warming Hoax so he would have a dry runway to land on with his private jet billowing pollution all over the place. That must be it.

  118. glenp says:

    and MOOCHELLE is trying to feed our kids FRANKENFOOD/GMO signing a contract w EEEEEEVILLLLL MONSANTO!!!

    • _Jim says:

      Mooch-elle is getting pushback too, on a number of fronts

      Even teens affected by this are pushing back!

      A well-done video titled: “We Are Hungry” expresses this better than words alone:

      .

      • DenverChive says:

        You do realize the whole Monsanto/Obama thing was a hoax, right? And if your kids are so hungry, there’s a simple solution. Pack their lunches instead.

        And the graph above is cute, but misleading. Global temperatures have steadily risen over that timeframe. I’d like to see the actual source data the author used to compose this.

        • _Jim says:

          glenp needs to be addressed on that point, not me. I took no stand. Rather, I take issue with the ‘war on kids stomachs’ issue that Mooch-elle is conducting.

          Regarding ‘whirled temps’, so you too fall ‘victim’ to government-massaged data. WHAT!!?? You think your government (and everybody else’s governments) tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing BUT the truth? NOT when it comes to securing and retaining ‘money and power’, and that goes for maintaining the ‘gravy train’ of global warming for NGOs and also so-called government-funded ‘research’ groups (uni’s and the scientists in their employ) throughout the ‘whirled’.

          .

  119. glenp says:

    CLIMATE CONSTIPATION!!!!!! the NEW RELIGION!!

  120. Azmus says:

    Observational data doesn’t match our computer models’ projections–obviously the data is wrong..

    • pesce9991 says:

      What is wrong is the article itself that wrongly states that the frequency of 90 degree days has plummeted over the past 80 years. This is spectacularly incorrect. Below is a chart of each year for well over 8o years giving the number of 90 degree days for each year up to 2013. 2014 isn’t over yet.
      Check my math, but here is what the charts tell us:
      1934-1943 (10 year period) there were 19.8 average number of 90 deg. or higher days.
      1944-1953………………..18.4 90 degree days
      1954-1963………………..17.30
      1964-1973………………..18.60
      1974-1983………………..18.60
      1984-1993………………..19.90
      1994-2003………………..15.90
      2004-2013………………….9.90
      There is clearly no 80 year plummeting of 90 degree days in the US. In the last 10 years there were 5 well below average years (2004-2009) but in the years 2009-2013 the average bounced back to 19.80.

      http://www.erh.noaa.gov/okx/climate/records/90degdays.htm

      Add to this that the average number of 90 degree days in the US has only a very tiny effect on global warming since the US is less than 2% of the earth’s surface.

      • _Jim says:

        re: pesce9991 says July 27, 2014 at 6:45 pm

        It depends on whether you use ‘massaged’ (government) data or the original data itself.

        That’s the WHOLE point of these exercises.

        Can you detail for us the provenance (validity) of the government data? Can you detail what the ‘changes’ were for each step in the government ‘data’ handling system, from original B-91 form onward? No one has a ‘clear’ handle on that, which again is the WHOLE point of these exercises too.

        .

        • pesce9991 says:

          If that is the point of these exercises and you also have nothing to back up your claims then your assertions that the data is wrong is meaningless. It is the data we have and lacking your conspirational mentality that government scientists are mendaciously altering scientific data I accept the data as the most accurate we have. Of course, if you have done other peer reviewed studies of your own I would be happy to see the results. But as it stands now, you are conjecturing and from a pre-meditated mind set.
          This judgment holds even if you find out they have gone over and corrected some errors. Scientists make errors. If they don’t correct them THEN you could maybe conclude they are dishonest. You’re a phony, Jim. I can’t prove it, of course.

        • _Jim says:

          So you CAN’T detail for us the provenance (validity) of the data the government uses to plot THEIR graphs.

          That’s ALL you have to say.

          No filibustering, no ‘changing the subject’. No dodging and weaving. No name calling, no ad homs.

          Just say “I don’t know.”

          .

        • pesce9991 says:

          I accept the validity of the data because I understand more than you, Jim. The government painstakingly makes measurements and takes the data and draws conclusions. You don’t do that, Jim. You have nothing to base your claims on. I can easily detect a fool who has a political ax to grind and government scientists whose personal integrity is at stake. I am more intelligent than you Jim and I can prove it. My mind is not fettered by ideology which prevents rational thinking. You are a reactionary, Jim. The government doesn’t spend millions in research without accountability.

          You would have to accuse all the world’s nations involved in global measurements as fraudulent. Really, Jim. Think about it. All the global climate scientists all over the world are working to make bad measurements and judgment calls. This is delusional thinking of the first order. Stop it, Jim.

        • _Jim says:

          re: pesce9991 says on July 28, 2014 at 3:49 pm
          Scientists make errors. If they don’t correct them THEN you could maybe conclude they are dishonest. … I can’t prove it, of course.

          Thanks for the admission.

          That’s what you wanted to say, right?

          I didn’t ‘doctor’ or “readjust” what you wrote originally, did I, like the data-adjusters at NOAA NCDC or NASA GISS tend to do to their temperature datasets when calculating trends over time?

          .

        • pesce9991 says:

          That’s right, Jim. I can’t prove it. That’s when other mind qualities take over. Like reason, logic and judgment. I’ll go slow for you, Jim so you can grasp the concept. I am told by Astronomers that the speed of light is 186,000 mps and that the light of the sun takes about 8 minutes to reach us. I can’t prove this either, Jim, but I reason these results are the consensus of many scientists who have proven it. I don’t fantasize that the scientists are trying to fool me about it and their conclusions appear logical.

          The same goes for climate scientists. Logic tells me that these scientists are no more likely to twist their research than any other scientist. To imagine they are tools of the government is paranoid, Jim. It’s not reasonable nor logical. It is the result of a distorted perception which bears no relevance to fact. In other words, it’s the result of a prejudiced mind.

        • _Jim says:

          pesce9991 says on July 28, 2014 at 4:13 pm
          I accept the validity of the data because I understand more than you, Jim. …

          Ahhh … the old “argumentum ab auctoritate (argument from authority; ‘believe me because I say so because I am a a credentialed expert’) bullshit.

          Thanks for playing. And stop back when you have more than your own bullshit to hand out.

          Meanwhile, everyone take notice that *this* is what one is up against in this activity (beating back the ignorance and fraud that constitutes institutionalized, formal CAGW), an entrenched-in-place ‘elite’ who by their own admission “know more than you do”. We so seldom get these types to boldly admit this, but there it is above ‘in print’ so to speak.

          .

        • _Jim says:

          re: pesce9991 says on July 28, 2014 at 4:33 pm
          That’s right, Jim. I can’t prove it. …

          Then, all you have left is speculation and conjecture *.

          One can get that anywhere, and from MUCH more pleasant company. And better atmosphere (so to speak).

          Good bye.

          .

          * conjecture – the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.

          speculation – the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

          .

      • KTM says:

        That’s apparently for one station in New York. The main chart is for all USHCN stations in the US, through late July each year.

  121. willdit says:

    Why can’t people just admit when they are wrong? Is it so hard to say we are not sure? The town criers just want to make money off of this.

  122. This is great! My garden has never been better! I’m getting tomatoes like crazy and cucumbers too. Usually it’s so hot here that everything burns up but I am loving this cooler-than-normal summer. I hope it keeps up like this.

  123. Larry Lotter says:

    ‘Science’ has sold its soul. That is easy to do once it declared the God is dead. Without God, there is no truth, no rule of law and no freedom.

  124. Icelord says:

    I can’t wait for this Winter…all the dumfuks in the northeast will freeze their @$$3$ off because they think coal is evil, and got rid of mostly all of their coal plants. Life can’t get better!

  125. Billagain says:

    But, but, Robert Rubin and the gang just released this glossy report in June of how we are in deep doo-doo now and in the future due to climate change (Yep, that’s the roller coaster that Hurricane Sandy killed on the front cover). http://riskybusiness.org/uploads/files/RiskyBusiness_PrintedReport_FINAL_WEB_OPTIMIZED.pdf

  126. Larry Bradshaw says:

    The Climate Change Advocates (formerly known as the Global Warming Crowd), must be scratching their little pinheads.

    • pesce9991 says:

      No, they’re not. They are having a good laugh over your stupidity, though.

      • _Jim says:

        Gee, that defies reality.

        Have you seen the polls showing that the public still does not buy this ‘pig’ called global warming?

        The GLOBAL WARMING advocates are actually becoming worried about this too (this means they are NOT having a good laugh at anyone’s stupidity). But, I guess you are not that ‘attuned’ to see that either.

        .

  127. Jim Cavuto says:

    We have no natural weather. Better living through geoengineering.

    http://geoengineeringwatch.org

  128. smokybandit says:

    But but but the rest of the world has record highs

  129. Yes, Summer here in Northern Kentucky lasted all of 3-4 days. Since May 1st we have had ten times the number of days in the 70s than in the 90s. It has seemed like Spring has returned. Even the normal Spring rain that we didn’t get much of the first time has now returned. I’m just wondering what it would take for our seasons to shift.

  130. Norm says:

    You won’t here this on the govt. media complex in Canada or the US, or the Penticton Herald. No wonder newspapers are folding as they were mostly lying to people the past couple of hundred years.

  131. tecumseh coldcreek says:

    Any thing Al Gore would advocate I would automatically be opposed to. Same goes for Jesse Jackston nd Obummer.

  132. Willam Nat says:

    Your numbers must be wrong! It plainly states in the liberal (progressive/democrat/leftist) Bible that global warming is an indisputable fact. This is heresy! heresy!

  133. Please post a link to the source of your data. I would love to send that to a few of my friends!

  134. bulsprig says:

    Could it be that old Sol, and the lack of Sun Spots may be the contributing factor? Why is it that the “CIMATE GODS” never mention the sun, or Volcanism, as contributors to Weather.
    That’s because they wouldn’t grab as much dough from idiot’s in D.C.
    A didbit for folks. Tree ring studies on 3000 year old Giant Sequoias showed that the 20th Century was the wettest Century of the previous 30 Centurys. On average the previous 30 Century’s averaged 9 extreme Droughts. Those Droughts lasted on average 9. Years.
    Must’ve been Man caused, don’t ya think. Or maybe it was too many flatulating buffaloes, and Indians
    More later on my Sarcasm toward the Climate Gods, and why, and how they’re full of Flatulae.

  135. joeynik says:

    Can you source this chart?

  136. gasparri says:

    Huum…

    Serious
    Climate
    Iimits
    Every
    Negative
    Collectivly
    Enunceiated

    Sorry, must had to say it.

  137. The Temp might go up ….. the Temp might go down……

    but with “Global temperature disruption change warming but cooling climate catastrophe ” no matter which way it goes….TAXES will go up because of it.

    Global Warming is only used for Marxists to raise taxes…..

  138. Peter York says:

    Hot today, 90s,some actual humiditidit-tidity in southern California. I put the top up and ran the air conditioner while I did a few errands.
    *
    Day’s growing old. I have not turned-on my air conditioning in my condo yet. I mean all year, yet. Not one day. Not one night. Grew up with a swamp cooler; bedrooms were roast boxes. Solution? Hammock under 2 patio umbrellas. Fans. And when it’s too hot, hit the A/C.

  139. Captain Stewb says:

    Just sailed past an iceberg upon which Albert Gore was tweezering his skrinkage!

  140. Steve Johnson says:

    Don’t worry. The global warming nuts are even now crafting their answer which conclusively proves that it is going to be only 79 degrees here in Alabama July 30th due to global warming, which they had to rename to ‘climate change’ because it isn’t getting warmer.

    79 degrees high temp Wednesday, low 55 forecast. Both record lows.

    Stop the madness, people. It isn’t getting warmer. Throw out the Democrats who are trying to sell you this new, pseudo-religion so they can dominate every aspect of your lives.

  141. Jason Jones says:

    Could you post the output on your linear regression?

  142. John Smith says:

    Excuse me, but flooding ALL and ONLY white countries with of non-whites and telling everyone to “assimilate” to create a blended humanity (but ONLY in white countries) IS white genocide.
    Africa will still be full of Africans
    Asia will still be full of Asians
    Only White children will suffer from this insanity.
    Except “anti-racists” don’t call it GENOCIDE when they chase down White children;
    They call it “diversity”.
    “Anti-racist” is a code word for anti-white.
    “Diversity” is a code word for White Genocide.

  143. MichMikd says:

    With an hour or so of simple research, using government data, anyone can prove to themselves that the personal behavior of the 1% is responsible for more than 33% of ALL CO2 emissions in the U. S. (50 times the actual average / person). Oddly, all the plans proposed and promoted by this group will allow them to continue to spew CO2 unabated while lowering the standard of living for everyone else. The scam built on the scam.

    • _Jim says:

      re: MichMikd says on July 28, 2014 at 10:02 am
      With an hour or so of simple research, using government data, anyone can prove to themselves that the personal behavior of the 1% is responsible for more than 33% of ALL CO2 emissions in the U. S. …

      Showing correlation does not however automatically indicate causation; totally unstated here too are the number of people ultimately employed by the 1% and the amount of goods and services produced in the US economy.

      Specifically, this “1%” you write about are situated atop the ‘peak’ of a hierarchical organization like Microsoft or Exxon-Mobil and consequently gainfully employ THOUSANDS of people. There is a reason the per capita output of the US is higher than any other country in the world, and it can be spelled out in three words: We are organized. The rest of the ‘whirled’, not so much.

      .

  144. Jim Lively says:

    US population = ap. 320 million
    World population = 7.1 billion
    That means ap 15% of the worlds pop. lives in the US, with the highest concentrations of people in India and China.

    If I removed the entire landmass of North America the charts would not change. If everyone in United States just disappeared, and our carbon footprint reduced to zero, it would not stop their imaginary trend.

    So, you really want to save the world? Learn Chinese. They obviously need the wisdom of Gore much more than the US does

  145. Wild Bill says:

    Liberals will say that Global Cooling will be caused by man-made Global Warming…..just wait and see.

  146. dr_bugsy says:

    The rabid Global Warming Alarmists will resort to the old ploy of picking two adjacent years where the temperature went up slightly and disregard the other 80 years of facts.

  147. Bam Bam says:

    Like everything else, it has to be Bush’s fault…

  148. Jim says:

    Come on. The weather in any given month/day/year in the United States is not representative of global temperatures (which are clearly rising on balance). http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2014/07/21/june-was-hottest-on-record/

  149. Al Gores ‘Inconvenient Truth’ is a glaring lie

  150. Karl Stalin says:

    Maybe Obama shut down too many coal mines?

    • _Jim says:

      Well, he’s working on the ‘demand’ side of that equation, that is, he, through his proxies at the EPA are issuing regs that limit CO2 emissions from coal power plants which by definition are below a certain thermal (coal to heat conversion via combustion) ‘efficiency’ level. Older, low-efficiency plants will not be ‘allowed’.

  151. myother says:

    You can thank me. I’ve been leaving my windows open and running the AC on high.

  152. philjourdan says:

    Another win for Steven – Drudge link!

  153. Enuf Alrdy says:

    Southern and Central CA have been getting warmer for years now. 90+ degree days are not only more common over summer, but spring, fall and winter have joined in as well!!

    Strange how I never see mention of the fact that Southern CA had absolutely no winter this past year. I’ve lived here for over 40 years and I’ve never seen anything like it. Winter completely passed us by.

    We use to run swamp coolers over the summer and they worked great! Well, we can’t do that any longer either. Our weather has turned mostly humid now and my swamp cooler turns my tile floors into an indoor Slip’N Slide.

    • _Jim says:

      Winter did not pass us (in Tejas) by, nor the rest of the; these shifts from year to year fall more into the category of ‘weather’ than climate change, what with the influence of the Pacific Ocean (owing to Cali’s proximity to the Pacific!) on California with the cycles of La Nina and El Nino, and the Atlantic Decadal Oscillation.on the other side of the country …

      .

    • Rex says:

      That is just an out and out lie.

  154. t says:

    Where on earth is this statistic coming from? I would like to see that. No information regarding it’s validity.

    Even if the statistic is valid, maybe 90 degree days are on the decline because…they are turning into 100 degree days?

    No data on cold places turning warmer either. it’s a fairly narrow statistic, attempting to contradict a global phenomenon with a wide range of scientific consensus..

    • It is NOAA HCN ddata, just as I stated.

    • philjourdan says:

      Hey einstein. To get to 100, you have to first go through the 90s!

      Is your real name Homer Simpson?

      • pesce9991 says:

        Yes, but brilliant phil, once they’re through the 90s they are called the 100s….not the 90s. jeeesh!

        • philjourdan says:

          So a day that reaches 100, jumps over the 90s and is never in the 90s during that day?

          is that how they hide the heat in the deep oceans? A day of 100 (in most normal worlds) means that during the day it was in the 90s. But of course YMMV.

          LOL! Get an education. Please. I need intelligent discourse, not some child who does not know simple thermodynamics.

        • pesce9991 says:

          You’re suffering from heat stroke, phil. You get so upset about everything.

        • philjourdan says:

          Your clairvoyance is slipping again. You mistake incredulity for being upset. To Quote Einstein:

          The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.

          And I am merely amazed at the stupidity I find every day around me.

  155. Rex says:

    EVERYONE KNOWS THE FOURTH LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS SAYS THAT warming all over the entire world (GLOBAL WARMING) CAUSES RECORD COLD……..

    How much dumber can Americans get?

  156. Rex says:

    CLIMATE = THE WEATHER prevailing in an area. How dumb must you be to have just now realized that WEATHER CHANGES…..but Democrats still want to raise your taxes because THE WEATHER does not stay the same…….

  157. Ron says:

    On the other hand, June was the warmest on record in the US.

  158. Sal says:

    Al Gore….call your office.

  159. HelloHello says:

    Its cold today – at the end of July !!! It just NOT 90, its in the 50s

  160. tubaman says:

    man made global warming “science”is a bunch of politically inspired crapola as this article proves!!!!!!!!

  161. mark says:

    Apparently, Gore and his crew are the deniers. Record low temperatures, no global warming since the 1990’s, artic ice is thicker than it has been in anyone alive today’s lifetime, and yet CO2 is at all time high production. The problems with this junk science is visible everywhere, but global warming has become the faith based religion of the left. They will continue to worship at the alter of global warming, global climate change, or whatever the call it tomorrow. Even if we start back into an ice age they will still tell us that CO2 will boil the seas dry.

    • Actually Antarctic ice has thickened in one area, Arctic ice is much reduced, but don’t let facts get in the way of your beliefs.

        • Great comeback, such a coherent argument. The US might have a few cooler years (does not matter) but you don’t get this (see image) without the earth getting warmer. And when you are looking at this, remember most of the loss is thick ice that did not go away in summer, in the past. Yer all home schooled evangelical gun lovin, knuckle draggers who make the US look pathetic on the world stage. your government does suck, due to your citizens who vote for conservatives. But the people of a shade other than white are soon going to fix you. Can’t wait for all the South Americans and Mexicans to start voting. You will have to become terrorists to get your country back and then the US Gov forces can take all you OUT. I will drink to that!

        • You are all over the map with your hysterics

        • philjourdan says:

          Don’t you just love childish logic? “does not matter”. This person thinks the US is not part of the globe! I guess he thinks Niel Armstrong took the entire nation to the moon!

          “Global Warming” (to sane people) means the WHOLE globe is warming. But to crazy people it just means “everywhere there is no accurate temperature readings and hidden from satellites is warming”.

          Aint childish logic great?

        • philjourdan says:

          Oh, and the next time you want to make a fool of yourself, do not quote William Connolley’s pig pen! Apparently you are the only one that does not know about that. And that is called ignorance.

      • philjourdan says:

        Steven has documented both. The net is over 1 million square kms more. Can’t get your facts, eh?

    • lectorconstans says:

      The science isn’t settled, the politics are what’s settled.

  162. Last I looked, the US is not the world. Could it be Europe has had more days over 90 degrees?And the number of days over 90 degrees means nothing if indeed the average temperature of the globe as a whole is increasing. There seems to be evidence that previously frozen methane in the north is beginning to be released due to warming, let’s see where that is going? Of course, by the time it’s really evident it’s too late. Florida will go under water and most of US turns to desert. Canada will enjoy denying your entry due to you being too stupid and Republican to be allowed in.

      • Oh, okay, you are fine with name calling insults instead instead of discussion. Well I know you don’t want a discussion, you have your mind made up, but I tried. So let’s go then, and please don’t behave as if you can name call and no one else can, that would reflect that you are a bigger dick than I thought. Okay, so my turn. You are the product of a mother who abused alcohol and drugs, and your pimp father obviously beat you when an infant. Cause you is massively stupid. Your turn. I’m sure we will solve the nations problems this way…

      • _Jim says:

        … missing a little something in your post there, Colorado … I know what it is …

        A little mood music to ‘herd’ these libs by …

    • philjourdan says:

      Is the US PART of the world? What part of “Global” do you not understand?

      • Read the title of this post, “Coolest Summer On Record In The US”. He ain’t talking “Global” he’s talking US. You do represent the intellect of the people in here.

        • Only a complete moron like you would fail to recognize that this article is precisely correct.

        • philjourdan says:

          Again, is the US not part of the globe? Simple question. Yes or no?

          And I read the title. I even read the article (something you apparently failed to do). And in the article he talks about the US temperature records. The US being a part of the globe (oops! I gave you the answer).

          You really need to improve your reading comprehension.

    • lectorconstans says:

      “… means nothing if indeed the average temperature of the globe as a whole is increasing.”

      Good. We agree. Because the average global temperature has not risen over the last 15 years or so.

  163. The great thing about your denial of humans wrecking the world is you will be dead and not have to answer for it when it happens.

    • The great thing about your mental illness is that exists entirely in your own head.

    • philjourdan says:

      The great thing about alarmists bankrupting the world is that the starving children can be seen today – before the alarmists die – and they still refuse to feed and clothe them.

      • pesce9991 says:

        That’s an amusing observation from an ex-pate American who maybe thinks the political right (global warming deniers) in this country gives a damn about starving children. hahahahaha!!

        • philjourdan says:

          “ex-pate”??? You are a former meat paste? If that is what you want.

          I guess you did not get the news. The US, by amount is the largest donor and per capita is the second largest donor (not the government, the PEOPLE) to other peoples in crises. Australia being a little bigger on the per capita side.

          So you display more ignorance. But of course you have to maintain your ignorance in order to make sure you feel nothing for the children you are starving while fattening your and Algore’s pockets with fraudulently obtained lucre.

        • pesce9991 says:

          I didn’t say Americans, Phil. I said Republicans who have done nothing but cut programs designed to help the poor in this country. Try to focus.

        • philjourdan says:

          Ah, so you spouted ignorance out of ignorance. While proclaiming to be a meat paste.

          What you really meant is that Republicans steal less to give to the poor and actually give more of their OWN money to the poor. http://www.science20.com/news_articles/republicans_versus_democrats_why_some_people_give_more_charity-90603

          Seems that you love to give OPM, but not from your own stash – or at least your leader does http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/obama_2004_tax_return.pdf

          And just a question as you did not say “this country” with “starving children” in your original post. And I have told you I am not clairvoyant (you are forgiven for that moment of senility), so there was no way I could discern that you think there are only starving children in the US (which actually there are not, but then why ruin a perfectly good lie from the left?).

          And the final question is: Do you have any evidence the Republicans are trying to cut ANY welfare program? And please, no Huffpo and TP articles. We know their opinions, but they have never actually sourced them to any actual facts.

        • pesce9991 says:

          “philjourdan says:

          July 30, 2014 at 1:18 pm
          Ah, so you spouted ignorance out of ignorance. While proclaiming to be a meat paste.

          What you really meant is that Republicans steal less to give to the poor and actually give more of their OWN money to the poor. http://www.science20.com/news_articles/republicans_versus_democrats_why_some_people_give_more_charity-90603

          Seems that you love to give OPM, but not from your own stash – or at least your leader does http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/obama_2004_tax_return.pdf

          And just a question as you did not say “this country” with “starving children” in your original post. And I have told you I am not clairvoyant (you are forgiven for that moment of senility), so there was no way I could discern that you think there are only starving children in the US (which actually there are not, but then why ruin a perfectly good lie from the left?).

          And the final question is: Do you have any evidence the Republicans are trying to cut ANY welfare program? And please, no Huffpo and TP articles. We know their opinions, but they have never actually sourced them to any actual facts.”
          …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

          Well, phil, I had to copy and paste your article so I wouldn’t forget any of the points you brought up.

          Since you accuse both parties of stealing, maybe you could give some examples. I assumed both parties were giving freely from their own funds. Not that both stole some of it first. Stole from whom? Please explain. What I give to charity is my own money from may checking or savings account. My contribution. Did you think I bumped over a 7/11 for that?

          The article you provided is interesting and shows how ideology plays a big part in who gives what to whom. I think another factor would be that Republicans make more money because that is what motivates them. So if you’re richer than Jo Democrat down the block you’d probably tend to give more.

          Why did you pointlessly exhibit Obama’s tax return for 2004? It’s missing the page where charitable contributions are listened. It certainly doesn’t show that he took anyone’s money. What I give to charity is my own money from may checking or savings account. My contribution. Did you think I bumped over a 7/11 for that?

          As for your 4th paragraph, the question you ask is completely obscured. I think you probably meant to ask me if ” I think there are only starving people in the US?” How inane can you get, phil?

          As for Republicans who want to cut welfare you’re asking for ANY evidence? All you need is to listen to them and see what they propose to cut and watch how they vote. Even you can do that, phil.

          http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/01/us-usa-congress-foodstamps-idUSBRE97012420130801

        • philjourdan says:

          Since you accuse both parties of stealing,

          You seem confused. I gather you do not understand the concept of voluntarily giving and forced slavery. Let me educate you. If I force you to work for me with no benefit to you, that is slavery. That is what half a million Americans died to eradicate 150 years ago.

          Now if I decide I have enough (I am not greedy after all), but my sister is not so lucky (she married a bum and had to dump him), and I force you to work for her, with no benefit to yourself, is that not also slavery? The fruits of your endeavors are not yours.

          And that is what you call “charity”. This started by you proclaiming that republicans were not charitable. I provided an article (there are many more but there is a 2 link limit) that refuted your ignorance. Then went on to show you that giving someone else’s money to the poor is not charity. it is theft, or actually worse, slavery (but then democrats are famous for that).

          Both parties do it. And my challenge to you went unmet. You did not provide a single link, source or quote that showed where Republicans have CUT benefits to the poor.

          As for the Obama tax return, I suggest you get a better PDF reader. I found the page easily ($2,500 on income of $207,647). And of course you go off on another non-sequitur about Republicans having more money (really? Tom Steyers is a republican? George Soros is a republican? Bill Clinton is a republican?), while totally missing the point of the link – PERCENT giving. In other words, the man who gives $100 out of $1000 gives more than the man who gives $100,000 out of $10,000,000. A difficult concept that you apparently have not mastered yet.

          The percent that Obama gave in 2004 was roughly 1% (Biden is even more famous for giving a grand total of $342 out of half a million in income).

          Next:

          As for your 4th paragraph, the question you ask is completely obscured. I think you probably meant to ask me if ” I think there are only starving people in the US?” How inane can you get, phil?

          The question is not obscured. I suspect just your reading comprehension handicap is getting in your way again. Inane? Yes, i guess that is what you would classify questions that you fail to answer and are uncomfortable answering. But the questions (there are several and you managed to avoid them all) still remain. So I ask another question. Will you answer the previous questions?

          Finally on the only link you have given, trying to answer the question of cuts, I bring you to this link: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Fnews%2Farticles%2FSB10001424127887323699704578328601204933288&ei=p0zaU9mBJIvaoAS3x4LQDw&usg=AFQjCNGd-yjNPeQ4tE-BS5EfE1-J7X4axA&sig2=GVfmkOURXVvlVToifPiM8Q&bvm=bv.72185853,d.cGU

          Where it clearly proves what I have been saying. The “cut” is not in the amount, but in the GROWTH of food stamps. Now I know you will find it hard to believe, but the expectation of increases in revenue is solely held by the Federal Government and its employees. If your boss gives you a 2% raise, but you wanted a 10% raise, he did not cut your salary (do you know what a salary is or have you ever received one). You still got a 2% raise.

          That $40 billion is out of the expected INCREASE, not the amount that HAS BEEN SPENT previously. The amount (it works out to roughly 5%) reduces the rate of increase – but like all idiots, the press calls it a cut because they expect welfare to increase by as much as it ever has. That is amusing in itself since that would indicate NO FAITH in Obama’s economic policies to pull us out of the doldrums (which would be accurate) while at the same time making up more numbers that say we are doing great!

          So you failed to answer the challenge. I said “CUT”. You failed to do so. If you need help with the definition of “cut” (which your writing indicates you do), I will direct you to the dictionary definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cut

          Now are you going to answer ANY questions that I have asked??

        • pesce9991 says:

          My comments, phil, were about the article link you provided. It was focused on comparing Republican and Democratic giving to charitable organizations. It was not about government welfare programs or as you say ‘slavery’ giving. You sound so beset upon. Let me tell you how it felt when Bush forgot about Osama bin Ladin and decided to start a war in Iraq. I was opposed to that war and yet ‘my’ tax dollars went towards funding it and paying back China afterwards. But I didn’t run around crying “I’m a slave, help me, I’m a slave.”

          phil: “And that is what you call “charity”. This started by you proclaiming that republicans were not charitable.”

          Actually you are distorting my words. I said that Republicans want to tear down programs like SS, Medicaid, etc which is a true statement. You asked for proof and I sent a link to an article that shows Republican intent.

          phil: “Both parties do it. And my challenge to you went unmet. You did not provide a single link, source or quote that showed where Republicans have CUT benefits to the poor.”

          Republicans unanimously voted no to the ACA which was designed to help the poor to afford health care. Individual states headed mostly with Republican governors purposely did not set up exchanges so that the poor in their own states could not benefit nor afford health care. You can look this up anywhere.

          phil: “As for the Obama tax return, I suggest you get a better PDF reader. I found the page easily ($2,500 on income of $207,647).”

          Since you did not provide the page for “itemized deductions” I will have to research this figure.

          Next:

          As for your 4th paragraph, the question you ask is completely obscured. I think you probably meant to ask me if ” I think there are only starving people in the US?” How inane can you get, phil?

          “phil: “The question is not obscured. I suspect just your reading comprehension handicap is getting in your way again. Inane? Yes, i guess that is what you would classify questions that you fail to answer and are uncomfortable answering. But the questions (there are several and you managed to avoid them all) still remain. So I ask another question. Will you answer the previous questions?”

          I will answer any question that is clearly articulated. So ask away, phil

          Now are you going to answer ANY questions that I have asked??

          (see above)

        • philjourdan says:

          My comments, phil, were about the article link you provided. It was focused on comparing Republican and Democratic giving to charitable organizations.

          Um, No Pesce. Why do you lie? The article was about giving as a percent of income. You then went bonkers about rich giving more because they are rich. Percents do not care about how rich you are. So your comment was a non starter. And you just lied.

          Then you lied again. The instigating comment was indeed about “cutting” benefits for the poor. That is government, not charity. Now you claim your comment had nothing to do with welfare programs? Why do you lie when the truth is still there for all to see? It takes a special kind of stupid to lie with the evidence on the same page.

          Third, this is not about “Boosh”. He has been gone 6 years now. We can start a thread about “Boosh” in which you will be humiliated again because you have no clue about what I wrote, but I will ignore that non sequitur for now.

          As for your words, since you contradict yourself in the same comment, you said:

          thinks the political right (global warming deniers) in this country gives a damn about starving children.

          That does mean both government programs and private giving, but more so it means private giving. As when someone takes money from you and gives it to someone else under threat, that is NOT charity on your part (you have no stake in it – no caring). So it is both and is NOT a distortion of your words. Those are you words.

          You claim that republicans try to “cut” or “tear down” yet as yet you have not given a single link to prove that point. Your only link was when they proposed increasing it less than the democrats! That is not a cut. So you lied again.

          Next, you then swing onto another non sequitur about Obamacare. We will leave that one for another thread as this one is long enough. But the facts remain. More people have lost insurance than gotten insurance under Obamacare. The costs have risen substantially. And Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare. So you lied 3 times in one paragraph!

          And finally, again – horse, water. I cannot make you drink it. That you do not understand the written word is readily apparent by your feeble attempts to lie multiple times in your post, twice contradicting yourself within the same post!

          I am not your teacher. If they could not teach you to read and write, I am not even going to try. You can admit your handicap and seek help. But instead you seem more inclined to try to change the subject, lie when you cannot, and ignore questions you do not like.

        • philjourdan says:

          Oh, and drop the ad hominems. You have amply demonstrated you can sling school yard taunts around. But nothing else. now is the time to put on your big boy pants and discuss the real issues instead of spouting worthless ad hominems and idiot DNC talking points.

        • _Jim says:

          What was it President Clinton gave to charity? Used underwear?

          Every republican far outdid Algore and Clinton in donations, and MORE than just used underwear.

          Yet, it is the persistent delusion by leftists and the press that it is the leftists and democrats (one in the same actually anymore) who ‘help’ the poor more than republicans.

          The ONLY good leftists see is so-called ‘good’ done by governments, never the multitude of charitable organizations that are FAR more efficient in delivering aid and supplies and money to the ‘whirled’ wide poor.

          And that is just warped. And sick. And of course, we now know that “liberalism is a mental disorder.”

          .

        • You see, Phil, she didn’t say ”Americans”.

          She says she said ” Republicans … political right … deniers … starving children … hahahahaha!!”

          Try to focus.

        • philjourdan says:

          Actually she did not say republicans – until she tried to mock me. She did say “political right” and equate them with “global warming d*niers” with no evidence. Notice she has yet to produce a scintilla of evidence (that means a tiny amount Pesce) for anything she says. So of course we have no clue about anyone denying anything – just her misinterpretation of facts already in evidence.

          I am trying to help her write more clearly and succinctly, but the task is appearing herculean.

        • pesce9991 says:

          You’d have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to see the connection between the ideology of the politically right and global warming denial. But I don’t see any evidence of your being deaf or blind.

        • philjourdan says:

          Ah, more ad hominems! Well, to try to educate the ineducable:

          #1: All conservatives are not republicans. All republicans are not conservative
          #2: All skeptics are not conservative (I point to Dr. Curry, Richard Courtney, among others)
          #3: All republicans are not skeptics (I point you to Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, etc.)
          #4: Dumb means the lack of ability to talk. Since this is a written forum, one can only guess that you are trying out your clairvoyant abilities to ascertain that I am incapable of speech. Or that it is just another childish ad hominem.

          Please! Your ignorance is painful to see! get an education!

        • pesce9991 says:

          phil: “#4: Dumb means the lack of ability to talk. Since this is a written forum, one can only guess that you are trying out your clairvoyant abilities to ascertain that I am incapable of speech. Or that it is just another childish ad hominem.”

          This is what I get when trying to run a play on words past a Republican. Amusing. :-)

        • philjourdan says:

          Again with the claims of clairvoyance! Could you point to the comment where I proclaimed my party affiliation? Please do! Or issue a retraction.

          Second, insults are not plays on words. They are the crutches of the feeble minded that have run out of any plausible excuse for their ignorance and so resort to petty ad hominems.

          It would behoove you to learn that. And learn about blockquote

        • philjourdan says:

          Oh, and #5
          “your being deaf and blind”???

          How about “you being”. your is an adjective. Not a pronoun. really get an education. You are demonstrating a high degree of illiteracy.

        • You’re right, Phil. Of course she didn’t say what she said she had said. You know I don’t use /sarc tags.

          I was trying to highlight in shorthand Pesce’s thought processes by fusing her two posts into one and putting them in a sequence that exists in her peculiar mind.

          The shorthand did not work. Let me try something different instead:

          A few decades ago at a party at our Boulder home for friends and employees from our little company, several of us joked about some Democratic policy proposals.

          The wife of one of our employee stood nearby and listened intently. Suddenly, she screamed at the whole room:

          “Fucking Republicans! They want to kill all the prairie dogs!”

          I did not know what to say. Then I remembered how my father once stunned me when—reporting on daily life in their little hamlet—he remarked that a neighbor got beaten up in a local pub. He paused for a moment and added thoughtfully: “He deserved it.”

          “How can you say that?” I demanded to know. I knew the neighbor. He was a friend of my parents and a quiet, peaceful man who would not start fights.

          “He was arguing with a drunk,” my father replied.

        • philjourdan says:

          The wisdom of our parents!

          Thank you. point taken.

  164. ralph hemmings says:

    As I remember my dabbling many years ago, there are several asynchronous cycles in play constantly which affect weather. There is a short cyclic activity pof appoz 11 years, anpother short cycle of 19 years, then there are many much longer cycles of hundreds (re the little ice age delta from today) and some much much longer. If you overlay these in a non aligned manner you will see many odd constructive and destructive interferrence effects on temp and other patterns. I have no credentials but try not to read the newspaper.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Ralph,

      The cycles are known.
      SOLAR
      11 yr sunspot cycle (Schwabe) is half of the Hale 22 yr full sunspot cycle.

      The 88 year Geisberg cycle.

      The 211 year Suess cycle
      (Dr Joan Feynman, Alexander Ruzmaikin and Yuk L. Yun found the 88 year and 200+ year cycles in the records of the Nile River. link )

      The other cycles are the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle/ Bond Cycle of ~ 1450 years plus or minus 500 years. And the Milancovitch Cycle.

      This is a not bad overview paper although it does leave out the papers linked below: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/516143/1/516143.pdf

      The first is A History of Solar Activity over Millennia

      Of critical importance William McClenney. a geologist, has been tracking papers in Quaternary science for years and is very well read on the subject. He makes several unsettling points one of which is he has seen no papers on an extended Holocene interglacial since the Lisiecki and Raymo’s 2005 rebuttal soundly trounced the Loutre and Berger’s 2003 astronomical model. That means hopes that the Holocene will be an extended interglacial are now vanishingly small. In his words:
      1. Is the Holocene interglacial, our interglacial, just about kaput? Well, that’s the trillion dollar question, isn’t it? The present consensus seems to be that we will not have an extended interglacial this time.

      Chronis Tzedakis, in an exhaustive look at the MIS-1/MIS-11/MIS-19 conundrum, considers the matters thusly (http://www.clim-past.net/6/131/2010/cp-6-131-2010.pdf):

      While the astronomical analogy between MIS 1 and MIS11 has been incorporated in mainstream literature, there is a distinct difference between the two intervals: the Holocene contains one insolation peak so far, while the MIS 11 interval of full interglacial conditions (Substage 11c of the marine isotopic stratigraphy) extends over two insolation peaks. Thus an interesting situation has arisen with regard to the precise alignment of the two intervals….

      The two schemes lead to very different conclusions about the length of the current interglacial, in the absence of anthropogenic forcing, …

      With the end of MIS 11 full interglacial conditions and the start of ice accumulation estimated to have occurred at 395 kyr BP (de Abreu et al., 2005; Ruddiman 2005a, 2007), the precessional alignment would suggest that the Holocene is nearing its end, while the obliquity alignment would suggest it has another 12,000 years to run its course.

      In this view, the two Terminations are incommensurate and MIS-1 is analogous only to the second part of MIS-11c.

  165. planetgazer says:

    Can you please document the source of the data in this story and provide a link?

  166. Ron Pavellas says:

    People: We MUST have a crisis, whether it’s cooling, or warming, or changing sideways in weird ways. We need to rely on THE GOVERMENT to do something (stupid and expensive) about it, doncha know?

  167. Ron Pavellas says:

    typo on GOVERNMENT

  168. Daft House says:

    we’re all DOOMED we are – run away, flee, flee and panic :O pray to your gods it der end of der world like…. !! Doomed!! Vote Donald Trumpf!! Down with nasty liberals!! Keep your hands of my health care!! More guns!! Climate change is a nasty, liberal, European hoax!! Doomed!! Keep health care for the rich an’ not dose nasty poor people!!

  169. Tom Massey says:

    99% Democrats are Morons. Only 62% of Republicans are Morons. I can verify those statistics. Call me.

  170. Nathan Dickson says:

    I see a few problems with this chart:

    1. We are only seeing January 1 to July 23. None of the data from July 24 through December 31 is shown for any year. So, if the USA were becoming warmer later and later in the summer months, we would expect to see something like this chart. The problem is we cannot verify this hypothesis because it’s been conveniently left off the graph.

    2. The number of days above 90 degrees in any year cannot tell you much except how many days were above 90 degrees in any year. Without knowing how many days were below 32 degrees in those same years, we cannot know if this is due to cooling or that wild temperature swings are dying down. Of course, this chart leaves that information off so we cannot know.

    3. The actual temperatures above 90 are not being shown. Instead, we only see how many days (by percent) were above 90. Perhaps the later ones went *way* above 90 while the earlier ones did not. We cannot know this because this chart can’t show us that.

    4. We are only seeing temperatures for the United States. It’s called Global Warming, not United States warming. If the US is indeed seeing a cooling over time, that does not mean the globe cooling any more than if Ohio is cool one day that the entire rest of the world is also cool on that day.

    5. This is one guy with obvious motives who seems to be cherry-picking his data, often taken to task by even other climate change deniers like Anthony Watt. I think I’d rather take my chances with the folks at NASA, JPL and the like, even if their data sets are occasionally borked.

    About the only thing I can say for this guy is that at least he keeps the folks at NASA on their toes, and for that we can be grateful. Other than that, nothing to see here. Move along.

    • Obviously I am comparing the same time period for the currently available data. That is the only legitimate way to do this comparison.

      • Nathan Dickson says:

        The only legitimate way to do this comparison is to show mean values *only* summer months, not including January through May. You are only including one month of summer here, which is roughly June 20th to July 20th. How about re-running this with mean values *after* we hit the end of summer instead of cherry-picking “percent of days above 90 degrees” as you’ve done here, and that before summer is even 1/3 of the way over?

        • Meteorological summer is June/July. 90 degree readings are rare before June, so your point is idiotic. Forecast is for cold next two weeks, so alarmists will be even more screwed than they are now. I will make sure and torment them.

    • pesce9991 says:

      OMAGOSH! Sanity, reason and logic plus facts all in one post. Great job, Nathan.

  171. goddarddamn says:

    You don’t have much time for this do you?

  172. Gail Combs says:

    pesce9991 says: “The US temperature readings have an exceedingly small effect on the global averages.”

    Actually that is not the case.
    Data Records by Latitude

    Number of Raw Stations by Year (majority are from North and Central America)

    And in the North and Central America group the USA is the majority followed by Canada.
    Raw data stations – North and Central America

    Graphs from the post on The ‘Station drop out’ problem

    • pesce9991 says:

      Your article on numbers of stations and their wild fluctuations is very interesting. I can understand their removing older, less accurate stations over the years or relocating others, but yet the explanation for such dramatic changes is not clear. Enjoyed the article!

      But my statement still stands. More stations means a more accurate measurement. For example, If the US had let’s say only 3 measurements on three points in the US it would tell us something but would be highly inaccurate. Increasing the number to 100 would be an improvement and a thousand much more accurate. I forget what your links said about how many the US has today but it seems that we have plenty to make quite accurate measurements.

      But the number of measurements only affects accuracy. It does not change the fact that the US and Alaska and Hawaii constitute only 1.9% of the total earth’s surface. Let’s say for example that the US measurements told us that the US was -5 degrees cooler than normal so far in 2014. That statistic has to be averaged into the remaining 98.1% of the global measurements including sea temps.

      • Gail Combs says:

        “…But the number of measurements only affects accuracy. It does not change the fact that the US and Alaska and Hawaii constitute only 1.9% of the total earth’s surface….”

        Actually it is not quite that simple. This is from the Russians:

        ….Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

        Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

        The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

        Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

        Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

        The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

        The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

        On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

        IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

        The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

        Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

        http://en.ria.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html

        If you pick and choose the weather stations you can get any trend you want. SEE: The Thermometer Zombie Walk and GHCN – GIStemp Interactions – The Bolivia Effect

        • pesce9991 says:

          This was the “Climategate” scandal of 5 years ago. Over 1,000 emails were hacked and sent out with the claim that they showed a cover up by scientists of information that was embarrassing to them. Select quotes were sent which seemed to back up the intent of the hacking. One set of numbers showed a temperature decrease but it turns out to have been gotten from tree-rings which often run contrary to actual temperatures. This was discovered as the emails were actually read entirely and the quotes put in context. Eight investigations were tasked with examining the break in but all exonerated the scientists and institutions from any wrong doing. But nevertheless, damage had been done which was the supposed object of the hackers.

          http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html

        • philjourdan says:

          Over 1,000 emails were hacked and sent out with the claim that they showed a cover up by scientists of information that was embarrassing to them

          Hacked? You have information not available to the British Police? You should share it! I think everyone would love to see your evidence! So please share.

          Or do you mean ‘released’. Since the method of revelation has not been discerned. At least by any authority. So we do not know if it was hacked or leaked. But you seem to want to tell others you know.

          So give us your sources!

        • philjourdan says:

          “Despite detailed and comprehensive enquiries, supported by experts in this field, the complex nature of this investigation means that we do not have a realistic prospect of identifying the offender or offenders and launching criminal proceedings within the time constraints imposed by law.

          From you link. If you do not know, you do not know. So again, your prejudice caused you to misuse a term. Thanks for proving my point.

        • pesce9991 says:

          Yes, phil. That’s what I posted to you. The police do not know who did it which had nothing to do with your previous post which was all about “hacking” vs “releasing”. Since I never said the police knew who the suspects were it’s rather foolish to accuse me of not saying I don’t know. You got that from the police report I provided you. OH MY!

        • philjourdan says:

          From your own link – they do not know who or how. All they do know is that it was done.

          RIF pesce. really you are now getting boring due to your lack of reading comprehension.

          Do not post a link without reading it first! Duh!

        • Robert Kearns says:

          Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 15:02:48 +0000 To: rob_ker1@msn.com

        • pesce9991 says:

          The link you requested is in a separate posting. It is the police report which is
          available on line.

          The word “hacking” is used by the police investigation to describe the method of obtaining the emails.
          Here is a quote from the police report:

          “However, as a result of our enquiries, we can say that the data breach was the result of a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files, carried out remotely via the internet. The offenders used methods common in unlawful internet activity to obstruct enquiries.

          “There is no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime.”

          So, now what were you saying about the police not knowing how the emails were obtained or whether it was an inside job?

        • philjourdan says:

          Exactly what I said. As I quoted from YOUR link. They do not know. So what was that about knowing who dunnit?

          Again, thanks for proving my point. Here’s another suggestion for you. You do not have to compound your own ignorance by adding the ignorance of others to yours.

        • pesce9991 says:

          Quite simply, phil, I never said they knew who ‘dunnit’. Only that they know how the emails were obtained. Are you sure you want people to see your ignorance on this post?

        • philjourdan says:

          You jump around and yet still land on the same square – “do not know”. I read your link (actually I read a lot more since I was interested to see what they found out, but of course you already had your conclusion), and it did not say how. or who.

          So tell us at least how – go to the report and tell us how. Not generalizations, actual deeds.

          Or save yourself the time and admit you “do not know” and neither do they.

          But like all alarmists, you think that facts are ignorance. The laughter is at you, not with you.

        • pesce9991 says:

          So now, after ‘consulting with me, phil, you have learned the following:

          1. I used the term ‘hacked’ based on knowledge not guess work.
          2. you were wrong about the police not knowing how the emails were obtained
          3. you know now that the police found no evidence that led to anyone within the research center to be under suspicion.
          4. that the emails were hacked from a remote location
          5. that the case is closed without the police being able to track down the criminals

          You should also now realize that the emails were hacked with the purpose of smearing the reputation of the institution and climate change scientists The most likely suspects would be ‘global warming deniers’.

          Any more questions?

        • philjourdan says:

          LOL! Sorry pesce, reading your OWN link I have found out
          #1 – You are prone to confirmation bias
          #2 – The bottom line is still – they do not know
          #3 – The police found no evidence PERIOD. Thus why they do not know.
          #4 – The claim they were hacked from a remote location is guess work, not supported by any facts (even in your own link)

          And you do realize that your concluding statement is stupid? Since when is the truth a smear? As for the reason, I guess you never read the Harry Read Me file. Again, your ignorance is painful!

          Way to go Pesce! You keep proving me correct!

        • pesce9991 says:

          “LOL! Sorry pesce, reading your OWN link I have found out
          #1 – You are prone to confirmation bias
          #2 – The bottom line is still – they do not know
          #3 – The police found no evidence PERIOD. Thus why they do not know.
          #4 – The claim they were hacked from a remote location is guess work, not supported by any facts (even in your own link)

          And you do realize that your concluding statement is stupid? Since when is the truth a smear? As for the reason, I guess you never read the Harry Read Me file. Again, your ignorance is painful!

          Way to go Pesce! You keep proving me correct!”

          Not really, phil, If I’m proving anything it’s certainly not that you are correct. lol

          #1: What is ‘confirmation bias’ mean to you? If it means that I can confirm what I say, then I agree.
          #2: Your statement was that they don’t know if the emails were hacked or released. They do know.
          #3: The police found LOTS of evidence PERIOD, that outside hackers broke into the computers remotely and that it was not someone within the system.
          #4 Wrong again. They have evidence that shows the hacking took place from a remote place. It’s not just guesswork.

        • philjourdan says:

          pesce, you really are getting boring. I have proven they do not know by their own words. You have not quoted any definitive statement to contradict that proof. I guess because you could not read the statement the police made. I feel sorry for your disability, but then we have already established that learning and you are oxymorons in the same statements.

          So until you get something new, keep flailing. And, just a suggestion, but read your links before you post them and they are used to prove you wrong. You really look foolish when your own sources are used against you.

      • philjourdan says:

        he remaining 98.1% of the global measurements including sea temps.

        The remaining 98.1% INCLUDES the seas. So your statement is redundant. Not surprising.

        So by your own admission, the trends are “less than better” since so many have been dropped – http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaws-in-temperature-record/

      • geran says:

        peasoup, if you can believe there was nothing nefarious about “Climategate”, then you need to apply for the “Denier” award.

  173. RN BOYD says:

    Supporting the article on “wild fluctuations” of weather on a per station basis, is the fact that there are localized “micro-climates” as well as the more commonly considered macro-climate data. Merely considering the fact that the temperature at the given spot varies according to the altitude above sea level of the spot, by minus 5 degrees Fahrenheit per 1000 feet in altitude above sea level. There are slso lay of the land conditions that directly influence the temperature and precipitation of the selected local. Go to any internet weather site, such as http://www.wunderground.com/ Go to any local map, and you can observe vast differences in temperature and precipitation, on a minute by minute basis. The local weather is everywhere unique, not everywhere the same. Surely you’ve seen it pouring buckets of rain on one side of the street while the other side stayed nearly dry. Such events can be found all over the world.

    But the macro-climate is a much more complex affair, rather than a simpler one, contrary to what one might be inclined to think. Climate in various regions directly influences climate in other regions (El Nino, and so on). In addition we have the solar polarization cycle. The solar magnetic poles reverse, plus to minus and minus to plus, on an ~11 year cycle, which cycle is ~180 degrees out of phase with the solar sunspot cycle. Both of these cycles directly can influence the climate. We’ll leave out the galactic and intergalactic plasma density variations, even though they are directly relevant as well. Then there is the obliquity of the ecliptic, the precession of the equinoxes, and so on and so forth. However, the larger and slower the phenomenon, the more reliable it seems to be as a predictor of climate. We are just now at the start of a new ~25,000 year cycle, which is simultaneously the start of a galactic 26,000,000 year cycle, and the start of a 62,000,000 year cycle, with several related cycles between these. In addition, all galaxies produce directly observable and directly measurable concentric circles which emanate from the center of each galaxy periodically, and propagate, expanding outwards from the galactic center towards the outer edges., Whenever one of these rings passes through a stellar region, the values of the so-called physical constants change as that ring passes through, and then remain fluctuating about the new values, until the next ring passes by. These propagating rings seem to correspond in time with vast flowerings of incredible numbers of new species, according to existing archeological and paleontological records and studies. The passing of these rings also seems to correspond in time with the evolutionary stages of an ever more intelligent humanity. We are on the verge of one of these rings passing right through the solar system, so the changes on our planet could be more dramatic and interesting than mere climate variation. (See: The Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, Dec. 1997, for more on these rings.)

  174. niallbradley11 says:

    Interesting dust connection. I guess all that increased comet dust in the last decades is taking its toll.

  175. mjc says:

    Sort of a side-note…but it seems the Gore-effect happens even when he isn’t personally present, but one of his organsations is…

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/30/al-gores-climate-changers-epa-hearings-foiled-cool/

    And for tomorrow in Pittsburgh, it’s forecast to be 78 and rainy. Usually, this time of year it’s in the 80s, there.

    Also…

    http://news.yahoo.com/record-low-july-temperatures-southern-u-alabama-49-162227772.html

    “The entire eastern half of the United States is feeling the chill, the National Weather Service said, with a record-breaking low of 37 degrees at Saranac Lake, New York, where the previous low for the date was 39 degrees set in 2010.”

    • Gail Combs says:

      Boy, Ma Nature REALLY REALLY does not like Al Gore and his minions.

      Mother Nature = +4
      Al Gore & the EPA = 0

      Strike Four and you are OUT OUT OUT! Makes me really want to smile.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Oh, goodness, this comment is just too good not to share:

      I think you might be on to something. I bet that the Dem’s hate CO2 so much because they haven’t figured out a way to tax the plants for using it. Those feeloading plants have been getting a free ride on our CO2 for long enough! Once they can figure that out it will probably fall into the “good” category.
      Al

  176. pesce9991 says:

    “Over 1,000 emails were hacked and sent out with the claim that they showed a cover up by scientists of information that was embarrassing to them”

    phil: “Hacked? You have information not available to the British Police? You should share it! I think everyone would love to see your evidence! So please share.

    Or do you mean ‘released’. Since the method of revelation has not been discerned. At least by any authority. So we do not know if it was hacked or leaked. But you seem to want to tell others you know.
    So give us your sources!”

    So now phil; I gave you a police report which clearly shows they know the emails were HACKED.

    You claim that the police do not know that. You are WRONG. They know the emails were attacked from without not within.

    You suggest they might have been ‘released’. You are WRONG. The police report exonerates employees from any wrongdoing.

    You claim the method of revelation has not been discerned (at least by any authority). That statement is WRONG.

    You say “we do not know if it was hacked or leaked.” Again you are wrong. And I knew it. and I gave you the source.

    Then you write this jibberish about not knowing who the suspects were, which was clear from the source I provided, and which I never made a claim to the contrary.

    I’m Having a problem justifying why I should continue to answer someone who distorts a lies like you. It’s becoming a waste of time.

    • philjourdan says:

      Read your own source pesce. I already quoted you the pertinent part. What part of “do not know” do you not understand (the irony in that statement alone was worth the time writing it). The authorities clearly stated they do not know how the emails were released (from your own link). They “opine” that it was an outside job because they have no evidence it was inside! But they also have no evidence (according to your own link) that it was an outside job!

      You continue to amuse me with your ignorant gymnastics. But “do not know” is still ” do not know”

      Again, RIF – try it.

      • Robert Kearns says:

        This morning you sent me four emails, phil, each on the on the same theme. Each one contained blatant lies and conclusions by you. I have answered your charges over and over again and shown you the facts which you seem congenitally unable to comprehend. It’s like putting a carrot in a machine and a rabbit comes out. This is the last time I’m going to bother with you because feeding you facts is like pounding a brick wall with a rubber mallet. The Comprehensive Investigation was done by the Major Investigating Team of the Norfolk police and a number of national specialist services. The Chief Investigating Officer sums it up like this: “However, as a result of our enquires we can say that the data breach was the result of a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files. The offenders used methods common in unlawful internet activities to obstruct inquires.” That is a quote from the link below. ” There is no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Angli was involved with the crime.” http://www.norfolk.police.uk/newsevents/newsstories/2012/july/ueadatabreachinvestigation.aspx They are not “opining” (that word is not used in the report) they are stating: 1. CRU’s files were attacked (hacked, breached) 2. The attack was remote (so obviously it was not an inside job) 3.The emails were disseminated electronically over the internet. 4 No evidence implicated any staff of the UofEA. 5. They do not have any knowledge of the identity of the suspects and no prospects of ever finding them. The criminals got away. I checked this out with other reports and they say the same. I even looked at the way watt’supwiththat? reported it and with the usual anti agw rhetoric still reported the findings accurately. So that’s it philly. your toast and I’m not going to prove it again.

        Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 14:03:03 +0000 To: rob_ker1@msn.com

        • philjourdan says:

          Bobby, I have sent you NO emails. Period. Until today, I had no clue what your email address was. Nor will I file it for anything except 13. So you lied again.

          Second, I QUOTED from your piece. Now your source may be lying. But you seemed to trust it when you THOUGHT it supported your lies, so YOU used it. I merely quoted it. So I may have QUOTED a lie, but I did not lie. So you are wrong again.

          So get off your horse, find your proof or shut up! really I do not care. You got scrod by your own link and you are just too childish to admit it. Colorado thought you had changed. it is evident you have not. You get fixated upon an idea and no amount of reality will change it. So you resort again to senseless ad hominems and worthless insults.

          I really do not care if you reply to me. I do not care that you are schizophrenic. That is between you and your shrink. I only care about the facts. And so far you are zero on those.

          Bottom line from the Norfolk police is they said they did not know. Since they DO NOT KNOW, the rest is opining. Period. If you do not know, you can opine all you want. Sometimes you may even get lucky and be correct. But with no facts, no evidence, the bottom line is they still do not know.

          Learn the difference. And use a better source.

          BTW: “your toast” should be you are (or you’re) toast. Again with the atrocious grammar! Get an education son!

  177. abdogmak says:

    Which summer do you believe had fewer 90 degree days?

  178. cdquarles says:

    LOL. Believe that whitewash at your own peril.

    Had there been charges filed, then real evidence would have to be presented at a trial. Since they ‘declined’ to prosecute, we, the people, have no means to determine the truth of the opinion report. Yes it is opinion, since no testable facts have been presented, nor have any rebuttal to the allegations been taken under oath in public or published.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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