Royal Meteorologial Society : Record Cold Due To Global Warming

The cold winters of the 1960s were due to global cooling, but the current cold winters are due to global warming. The common denominator is “whatever BS keeps funding coming in.

About stevengoddard

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

71 Responses to Royal Meteorologial Society : Record Cold Due To Global Warming

  1. Latitude says:

    He predicted that the weather would change, just like it always does………..

    Who are these numbnuts that keep saying climate is not weather?
    Here’s another weather report tied into global warming…….

  2. bruce says:

    it all works rather well, AGW means you can expect the earth’s weather to cool.
    And yes, you can expect the earth to cool, so AGW is really here.

  3. PhilJourdan says:

    Colder winters – next colder summers. All due to global warming. So I guess we are going to freeze to death from global warming!

  4. jim says:

    What is amazing is when the Warmist scientists got the unexpected freezing winters, that totally contradicted their supposed long warms winters they precicted, they simply turn around and say to the MSM “oh yeah the freezing winters were to be expected” as part of global warming and the MSM rushes out and prints it like it has been the warmist view forever. Total BS.

    So are warm winters a sign of a global cooling?

  5. marshall says:

    Whenever a theory cannot be falsified by empirical results it is no longer a scientific theory but an item of faith. Believers in AGW have sunk to a very low intellectual level in their attempt to uphold their view as both truly scientific results and the evidence of people’s senses tells them AGW theory is wrong.

  6. Andy Weiss says:

    Heads I win, tails you lose!

  7. Adela says:

    Terrorists are being brought to justice in civil courts these days…
    Al Gore and the global warming alarmists such as left wing politicians, pseudo scientists, journalists, the Hollywood idiots, have been inflicting psychological terrorism upon a whole generation of children all over the world for the last 15 years.
    These charlatans should be brought to justice as the perpetrators of the biggest scam in the history of this planet.
    The social,financial and psychological damages that they caused are beyond comprehension.
    No criminal organization in history has come even close to having such a desastruous impact on so many people, for such a long time, and make so much money in the process.
    They should not be permitted to get away with it.
    Hundred of billions have been wasted on a fraud, social and economical policies have been altered based on a fraud….the moral authors of this fraud should be in jail for the rest of their lives and their fortune seized

    • brian says:

      You say what I strongly believe too. They should all be sent to jail for eco-terrorism. Their lies have cost us much more the al-qaeda terrorist have.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      I have been saying the same thing, but Steve accuses me of being a conspiracy theorist.

      • Sense Seeker says:

        LOL. Yes, it’s alright to vaguely imply al kinds of conspiracies, but apparently you are not allowed to say there is one.

    • John Douglas Swallow says:

      I whole totally agree with you and this course of action should be pursued to make the perpetrators of this scam pay so as to stop such a travesty in the future regarding any science from being repeated. Recall when the UK judge said that Al Gore’s movie had to be shown with disclaimers because of the 9 blatant inaccuracies presented.

  8. Adela says:

    Open letter to Al Gore

    You should be ashamed of yourself for propagating an alarmist theory which has no base in reality whatsoever.
    Because of irresponsible people like you, some children don`t want to do their home work or even go to school, because “what is the point, we are all going to die soon from global warming”!
    Millions of children allover the world from kindergarden to highschools and universities have been brain washed by your shameless propaganda,to the point that they feel their very lives are putting the planet in danger.
    But people have already waken up and see this whole thing for what it is, meaning a total fraud, an international effort of power and money grabbing based on the marxist concept of “wealth redistribution”.
    On April 28 1975 Time magazine had on its front cover the title THE BIG FREEZE!!, with an article, signed by climate scientists, concluding that the Earth is cooling to the point it will all be covered in ice and all living creatures will die of freezing.
    After a few years, when it obviously turned out that such a theory was nonsense, the so called climate scientists, in their quest for government grants, have invented a new fantasy, that of global warming……the world is warming due to us, human beings and we are all going to die unless we give up all of our liberties to one big world government which is going to regulate every single aspect of our lives, how many times to flush our toilets, what kind of cars to drive, where, for what reason and how far, how many children to have , what kind of food to eat, etc.
    In 1992 Al Gore said that “the time for a debate is over, the science is settled”…..
    This obviously is a lie for the time for a debate is never over and the science is far from being settled.
    Science my dear sir, does not work as a democracy , meaning that in science, the majority does not rule as it does in a democracy.
    If 1000 scientists have a debate and 999 of them agree on the subject, but only one of them disagree, it may very well turn out , as it has so many times in history, that the lone scientist is the only one that is right.
    I could give you many examples, such as that of Charles Darwin.
    When he first presented his theory of the evolution of species, all the scientists laughed at him and ridiculed him…in the end he was right and they were wrong.
    When Galileo said the Earth is spinning, the rest of the scientists accused him of heresy…but it turned out he was right and they were all wrong.
    After 15 years of advancing a false theory based on fraudulent data, the “scientists” noticed that the planet is not warming, but is actually cooling, so they changed the name of their theory yet again from global warming to “Climate Change”, just in case, to have all possibilities covered.
    Soon, my dear sir the whole thing will be unequivocally exposed for a premeditated fraud.
    People like yourself will then be held responsible for the enormous psychological, social and financial damage that your actions have caused.
    Just like when a doctor who gives out the wrong diagnosis and causes harm to the patient as a result, just like in such a case the doctor has the license suspended and has to pay damages or even go to prison, people like you will soon face the consequences of the lies you have imposed on the world for so many years.
    There must be parents out there whose children have suffered mental trauma because of this great scam.
    All these parents should get together and get a pit bull of a lawyer to file a class action law suit in a civil court and take the global warming crooks to the cleaners.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Actually when he presented his theory all the scientists did not laugh and ridicule him. In fact his theory was accepted very quickly by a lot (certainly not all) of scientists, including the Royal Society of England.

      Your historical analysis of the climate issue is certainly interesting and ties in with right wing conspiracy theories,
      but the issue is a scientific one. So I am not sure how science operates if 1 scientist is right and 999 are wrong. There is a peer review process that allows for different experts to comment on the accuracy and validity of the subject being presented. And the premeditated fraud you describe shoal dewily be proven by scientists and the truth should come out.
      Once all the papers that supported global warming are shown to be fraud there will have to be a cleaning out of these dishonest scientists so that accurate science can once again be studied.
      Since there is already a suit against one of the principle supporters of global warming, you should supply the AG of Virginia will all of the evidence that his work was completely fraudulent.

      • peterhodges says:

        but the issue is a scientific one.

        ahhh, now i see tony’s confusion. he thinks it is about science.

      • peterhodges says:

        at least your local library is not confused. they have in politics!

      • Bruce says:

        “So I am not sure how science operates if 1 scientist is right and 999 are wrong. ”

        Here are a couple of names you can look up:


        When they presented their hypotheses they were the 1 and the consensus was the 999. They were ridiculed. Today their proven theories are the 999.

        In my experience career scientists, especially academics, are often attracted to the consensus because it is safe, not because it is necessarily true. You tend not to lose your job and have your house repossessed if you align with where the money is. You don’t get promoted if you make waves and make your superiors look bad. On the other hand you can do very well by looking in the dusty corners where consensusees won’t go. You don’t get rich by panning gold where everyone else is panning.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        I know all about wagerer and marshall. I have had numerous one sided discussions with Steve about Continental drift, in which he just ignores my analysis of the alanolgy to climate science.
        As for Thurgood Marshall, of course he was right about civil rights, be he wasn’t all alone in thinking that!

        you might want to read up on another person whose views were ignored for decades, and he was a nobel prize winner! Arrhenius. His story almost exactly mirrors Wegener.

        and you are absolutely right about scientists. they just go where the consensus is to make sure they can pay their mortgage. Never see any controversies in science, nope. Just good old boys playing the game.
        No wonder there has been almost no progress in science in the last 100 years or so. especially in climate science where every scientist believes exactly the same thing, and none of them ever question anything.

      • peterhodges says:

        and you are absolutely right about scientists. they just go where the consensus is to make sure they can pay their mortgage. Never see any controversies in science, nope. Just good old boys playing the game. No wonder there has been almost no progress in science in the last 100 years or so.

        that is a fairly accurate assessment.

      • suyts says:

        “So I am not sure how science operates if 1 scientist is right and 999 are wrong. There is a peer review process that allows for different experts to comment on the accuracy and validity of the subject being presented.”
        Tony, look to Einstein for a specific perspective on “peer review”. He may have been the first to undergone such a review. If you’re at a loss, its something about ‘it would have only taken one……’
        “Since there is already a suit against one of the principle supporters of global warming, you should supply the AG of Virginia will all of the evidence that his work was completely fraudulent.”
        No, the Virginia AG isn’t involved in a suit against Mann. There is an investigation to determine whether or not Mann, (not specifically Mann,) or anyone involved with the acceptance of state monies has done anything that violates the law.(He’s doing his job.) I wish all AG’s would ensure honest brokerage of the public’s money. Left, right, warmist, skeptic, and everything in between. Only then can the public trust be regained.

        There has been no charges filed to my knowledge. A suit implies civil action. I’m not aware of any such action regarding the principle parties mentioned.

        Again, look to Einstein. He’s a treasure trove!

      • Sense Seeker says:

        No wonder there has been almost no progress in science in the last 100 years or so.

        Peter wrote: “that is a fairly accurate assessment.”

        Right. You do realise you may look a bit ridiculous with that statement? It shows you are really anti-scientific. And plain denialist at that, ignoring the evidence that contradicts your statement.

        Let’s see, 100 years ago. 1910. No computers. No airplanes. No rockets, no man on the moon, no antibiotics, hardly any effective medical care at all. Where do you think all that came from?

      • Bruce says:

        Tony – wrong Marshall. I was referring to Barry Marshall, nobel prize winner. He was a lone voice, castigated for proposing that ulcers were bacterial and able to be cured with cheap antibiotics. Twenty years ago there was a huge money spinning ulcer industry, now its gone. Twenty years hence the global warming industry will also be gone and forgotten.

        I see you have not understood the message about the ordinary human nature of scientists, or how science works. Well, that’s your right.

      • suyts says:

        @ Bruce

        Heh, I was in the hospital pharmacy(not pharmaceutical) business at the time. I remember. Pepto alone, will do the trick some of the time! (In a manner similar to cranberry juice and UTI’s.)

        All those purple capsules people bought, and are still buying today…………… peer reviewed science. Experts, all of them. Millionaires now, most of them. Now marketing a better one! Ask your doctor! H2 blockers! Thing of beauty.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        As is typical on this site you ignore what I wrote in in my comment.
        You may not believe this but I knew you were not talking about Thurgood Marshall. Since there are about 1 thousand Marshall’s that are scientists, your clever trick of not giving a first name or context totally fooled me.
        And it is amazing how complete peoples analysis is of me from such a small sample of posts. Yes I have this naive view that all scientists are seekers for truth and would never do anything that was not based on high ideals and the good of all mankind.

        So how long did it take for Marshalls idea to become accepted? All these people who pooh pohed him and the pharmaceuticals with their billions of dollars. Was there massive fraud in experiments that tired to show that his results were totally wrong.

        I think the better comparison is Arrhenius and Wegener. both of their ideas were ridiculed, and the scientific establishment in both cases, while clearly wrong had some reason not to believe their ideas. Wegener did not have a reasonable mechanism, and scientists at the time did not understand the real nature of Atmospheric science, so they thought they could falsify his idea with experiments that were not actually relevant.

    • John Douglas Swallow says:

      I present these quotes that apply to this issue.

      “Those who make you believe absurdities will also make you commit monstrosities.”

      As Bertrand Russell said: “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”

      “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” – Bertrand Russel

      As Galileo said, if God did not want us to use our intelligence, why did he give it to us?

      I do believe that this last one was written with Al Gore in mind:
      “Nothing in the world is more haughty than a man of moderate capacity when once raised to power’. ~ Baron Wessenberg

  9. Andy Weiss says:

    At the very least, they should take away Al Gore’s Nobel Prize. Reggie Bush did far less harm and had his Heisman Trophy taken away.

  10. M White says:

    So, what was the greenhouse effect again??????

  11. James Evans says:

    “It may seem contradictory to link this with global warming, but there is growing evidence to show that we can expect a temporary period of colder winters as the climate warms.”

    It’s just genius. We have “growing evidence” that even though the climate is warming, we can expect a period of colder winters. This “expectation” is based 100% on the fact that it’s bloody cold at the moment. I mean seriously, that is what the “growing evidence” is. If tomorrow is also really really cold, the evidence will have grown even more!! “Check us out, we’re such experts! We predicted this just moments after it happened! That’s why we’re an authority on this stuff.”

    The bit about the climate warming is based on nothing but assumptions. Given that there hasn’t been any warming for many years now.

    Genius. Just when you think they must have spun their last spin, they come out fighting with something even lamer.

  12. The global warmers are so full of BS.

    Their useless models have been predicting a more positive AO , as a result of increase CO2, the reality is the exact opposite is happening, the AO has been more negative.

    Why ,because of prolong low solar activity, and an increase in high latitude volcanic activity, these tend to warm the stratosphere more near the poles in contrast to lower latitudes.

    To make matters worse ,these idiots are now trying to say this more meridional circulation pattern will result in the N.H. warming, which is exactly wrong.

    The more meridional circulation pattern will result in a positve feedback, which will cause the N.H. to cool, all one has to do is go back in history and look at the more meridional circulation during the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum to see this is true.

    The positive feedback ,due to a more meridional circ. will be increase snow cover in latitudes south of the polar region,resulting in earth’s albedo to increase, resulting in maintaining the more meridional circulation.

    A warm Arctic from the surface up to the lower stratosphere is needed to cool the N.H. because it keeps the AO negative ,which is needed to allow cold air locked up in the ARCTIC ,to advance southward.

    The global warmers are trying to rewrite history from the famous hockey stick ,to the phony positive feedbacks from water vapor and now clouds, to not accepting past temperature graphs and how these temperature correlate to solar activity ,but do not corrrelate to CO2 concentration changes. Not to mention they keep trying to push the idea that everything that happened in regards to the last century warming is a one time event that never happerned previously. lol

    Enough said, in closing this will be the DECADE OF GLOBAL COOLING which will be due to low solar activity, increase in volcanic activity,soi oscillation having more La Nina’s,PDO now in cold phase with AMO to follow, and atm. circulation ,that being the NOA,AO being more in a negative phase promoting an increaSe in earth’s albedo.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      That all sounds really clear and makes sense.
      Why don; tyou publish this and then when you turn out to be right it will be in black and white in a peer reviewed journal, and you can start yo unravel this obvious fraud.

      • Bruce says:

        Peer review is pure tribalism, pretty much on a par with peer groups in the school playground.

        Jeff Id has finally succeeded in getting a paper through peer review after nearly a year of effort. Roy Spencer likewise had an even worse problem getting his CO2 sensitivity paper through. Anthony Watts is having,/a> the same problem now with the surfacestations results despite Menne appearing to get his bootleg paper through in days not years. Its the sort of level playing field that makes Mt Everest look flat.

        Dr Phil Jones’ own words: “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

        You seem not to be a scientist or you would not say what you said. I left the academic system 30 years ago to work in industry not least because the distortions of publish or perish and the mad peer review system. Industry cares less about peer review silliness and is more interested in results.

      • Sense Seeker says:

        Bruce, you’re so right. Peer-review is totally discredited. As an academic I often struggle to get papers published because of reviewers that just refuse to swallow my garbage. Let’s just give it up.

        People can see for themselves what is fact and what is not. Just give them the data to look at. But many people don’t even need to look at data. They simply know what is right and what is not.

  13. Bruce M says:

    …. from the same people that gave you “abstinence causes pregnancy”.

    When is this silliness going to end?

  14. brian says:

    These people at the RMS are very educated , I’m sure ,but they sure lack common sense.

  15. I am still waiting for some brilliant scientist , bureaucrat or politician to provide me with FACTUAL proof of this global warming scam . So far I have only been able to find opinion . These scammers are trying to make me believe that 2+2= 5 . Most of us can see the lies behind all this rubbish and are getting heartily sick of funding this multi billion dollar scam .

  16. LYNN says:

    Adela states the following:
    > I could give you many examples, such as that of Charles Darwin.
    When he first presented his theory of the evolution of species, all the scientists laughed at him and ridiculed him…in the end he was right and they were wrong. <

    If we're talking about perpetrating a crime against multiple generations, it would have to be Charles Darwin as the grandfather and Al Gore as the son.

    God created all things. We are still free to read the Bible and believe in the God who made us. Now is a good time to read the Bible, God's Holy word, and let His Spirit breathe new life into your soul. Read about His birth in Luke – "Emmanuel" means God with us – our soon and coming King.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Why am I not surprised that no one has responded to this comment?

      • Leonard Weinstein says:

        Religious belief has nothing to do with science or AGW. When someone make a statement totally unrelated to an issue you have two choices: ignore it, or show how ignorant you are and debate it. Please give your response to the comment if you will.

      • suyts says:

        Because, I had not seen it yet.

      • libdave says:

        > Religious belief has nothing to do with science or AGW.
        Au contraire:

        Posted at 12:11 PM ET, 11/29/2010
        Cancun talks start with a call to the gods
        By Juliet Eilperin

        With United Nations climate negotiators facing an uphill battle to advance their goal of reducing emissions linked to global warming, it’s no surprise that the woman steering the talks appealed to a Mayan goddess Monday.

        Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, invoked the ancient jaguar goddess Ixchel in her opening statement to delegates gathered in Cancun, Mexico, noting that Ixchel was not only goddess of the moon, but also “the goddess of reason, creativity and weaving

      • Tony Duncan says:


        Wow, You really caught me AND leonard out on that one.
        Obviously Hansen and Co. have been channeling Ischel and using her data in pace of satellites and all those other messy scientific tools

    • suyts says:

      Thanks Lynn, that’s greatly appreciated! Although, it may not be by all here. Of course, Luke isn’t the only book to read regarding the birth of Emmanuel. Nor is Luke the typical reference to the name Emmanuel. The name refers back to books much older than Luke. It may be worthwhile to mention the other writings, also.

      Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

      Isaiah 8:8 8 And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.

      Matthew 1:23 “Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,” which being interpreted is “God with us.”

      Luke 2:21 On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived.

      As you have pointed out, some may see this as an inconsistency. Indeed, many here will view this as a refutation of the Word. Fortunately, most here are educated enough to read and gain a proper perspective of the manner in which people were regarded, insomuch as the names of our Christ.

      Sometimes, it may be more fruitful to gain a more full approach. Once again, thank you Lynn, God bless.


    • Tony Duncan says:


      My response is that no one here will take be skeptical of any ideas as long as they are against ACC. So far with this comment my hypothesis is managing.

      here someone is making a absolute connection between evolution and climate change. Lynn at least is sticking to her guns and calling someone out for daring to consider Darwin someone who explained a scientific truth.

      Of course I haven idea what SUYTS was saying to her. I wonder if he accepts the idea that God created all things. Lynn appears to take this literally.
      I have no problem with bringing religion into scientific discussions, as long as religious explanations are not used to replace scientific ones.
      I think Maimonides said something to the effect that whenever reason and religion collide, put your faith in reason.

      • suyts says:

        “I think Maimonides said something to the effect that whenever reason and religion collide, put your faith in reason.

        Which is contrary to the definition of faith.

        To answer your question, all things come from God. I find it unreasonable to believe otherwise. See Newton for the explanation, or if you wish I can bring it out for more examination. What I was telling Lynn, was a couple of things. First I augmented her(?) posting with scripture that prophesied the coming of Christ using the name Immanuel, a variant of Emmanuel, and then pointed to the NT scripture that uses the Name. Then I offered more scripture in the Book she referenced that may lead to confusion by people not well versed in the many appellations attached to Jesus with a gentle rebuke to come a bit stronger and finished wishing God’s blessings upon her.

        The reasoning was to show that Christ is the fulfillment of the scriptures, and that it is often helpful to show such fulfillment.

        Tony, faith isn’t something to which one can apply scientific methodologies. And proving is the antitheses to faith.

        That said, “here someone is making a absolute connection between evolution and climate change.”

        No, I didn’t see the “absolute connection”, perhaps you can line out that bit of logic for me. Connect the dots, if you will. Then be as so kind as to connect that to the ridiculous assertion of the RMS that the cold is caused by GW.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        that all seems fine to me. I did not mean to imply that science has any role in determining faith.

        What I was calling the absolute connection was her statement that God created all things and that Darwin is perpetrated a crime against multiple generations.

        As for cold being caused by ACC, I really don’t know enough about it, but I do know that weather patterns are affected by changes in regional climate. I don’t know that any scientist says they know how all the weather works, and there are multiple hypothesis about how this can occur.
        I do know that the assertion that it is blatantly ridiculous for ACC to result in cooling anywhere is a purely emotional appeal to “common sense” that is not based in science. One does not have to believe in the greenhouse effect in order to understand that.

  17. libdave says:

    War is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
    Warming is Cooling

  18. R. de Haan says:

    From Joe Bastardi

    A reminder, you can sign up for free 30-day trials of this site, which I blog on in a much more extensive manner. I thought I would share this excerpt with you, reflections on the global nature of the cold…

    “…The point is it takes a heck of a lot to have what we have had. One thing that was not present, though, was the Euro cold in those years to the degree we have it now. London is over 8 below normal, and will finish at over 6 below normal for December, as the coming week will take temperatures down so the rally at the end will only bring it to -6. Last year, London was -2.4, ’05 was -.8, ’00 was PLUS 2, and 1995 was -3.4.

    Using a population-weighted approximation finds the high likelihood that the combination of the eastern U.S. and northwestern European major population areas of the world and energy consumers are having their coldest start to winter since 1989, which of course was heavily U.S. weighted.

    So it’s not local, especially when one considers what is going into the Far East and world’s most populated nation, China. Whether low solar or volcanic activity have anything to do with it is debatable, but what is not debatable is that CO2 has nothing to do with it, since the argument four years ago was that these were not going to happen anymore (recall the Academy Award Winning Al Gore movie saying that, along with the hurricane idea), and yet now that both turn the other way, many of the people on that side of the argument are claiming it’s because of the very argument that they used to say it would not happen. They now have cloaked it under climate change, or disruption, which gives them carte blanche to claim anything as right.

    Deception in the first degree, as we see the chill caused by the lack of degrees in the temperatures.

    So why would one trust people that are doing this, to the temperature adjustments they are making to claim it’s still warming?

    I have seen this behavior before… on playgrounds from bullies. It’s strange, but a lot of the high-powered intellectual types, if you go back through their records, were not exactly the leaders of the pack in their high school and college athletic careers. It makes one wonder, and a smart, young psychology major that wants a PhD dissertation should do this, if the lion’s share of the people who are academically and scientifically trying to use bully tactics to push this down peoples’ throats were the victims of physical bullying at a younger age themselves, or at the least, are making up for some lack of physical accomplishment at a younger age with this… sort of like the movie “Revenge of the Nerds.” I was not in any way, shape, or form and alpha male type on the playground; in fact, the wrestling through college and continuing training I do now is to make up for that lack of physical prowess with a physical challenge… and then apply the work ethic needed to overcome that to what I do have a talent in. However, one does not say, well now I can lord a power I may have over those that don’t. And while I may be guilty of over analysis, some of this just seems like a grab for power from a group that may have had the lack of it in younger days.

    But again, this little bit of insight may all be nonsense. I do think that if a young psychology major went down the line and perhaps looked at high school and college athletic backgrounds, of who stands where, they may have an interesting dissertation on seeing that people that competed at higher levels physically, where they had to deal with harsh realities of overcoming physical challenges and the work needed to get results there, have a very different viewpoint on this issue now. Again, as one who sees it from both sides, this agw agenda has a bully mentality to me, something that I saw on playgrounds as a kid.”

    You know inside of all of us is a desire to be something bigger than what we know as a given. It’s called reaching beyond one’s grasp. It’s just that you don’t step on someone and trample their chances. When you do, for instance, the economic hardship that can be caused by limiting energy will trample dreams in other places. Imagine if Africa, for instance, had more air conditioning… how much better off people would be? Why shouldn’t they have a chance to advance to levels of comfort that would make things easier to continue to grow? A bully wants to stop those from having what he or she has, and you see it all the time on the playgrounds. It’s interesting to note, that the very system that has allowed these people to progress to levels where they wield the power that they do, funded all these studies, led to all these think tanks, taxed people to be able to allow governments to give them their grants, is the one that they will paralyze by their stance. And by doing so, will eliminate the chance that if there is another, simpler answer, it will come out in time. Very interesting, just like the bully on the playground, once in possession of the ball, not willing to share it. And if he is allowed to do so, the bully will continue to be a bully.

    I may have just handed someone a PhD dissertation idea… Merry Christmas!

    Ciao for now.

  19. suyts says:

    R. de Haan says:
    December 18, 2010 at 5:08 am

    From Joe Bastardi

    A reminder, you can sign up for free 30-day trials of this site, which I blog on in a much more extensive manner.
    R. I like JB. He’s a sharp guy and a stand-up guy. I can appreciate that he’s gotta eat, but so do I. He’s wrong on his pay site. Opinions are for sell. Truth isn’t, there is no price to put on it. If he has truth, it would be wrong to put a price on it. Yeh, I know its a radical, liberal thought, but mine nonetheless.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      is this the same stand up guy that accused some climate group of fraud, and had to mumble some sort of apology because he totally did not bother to check the facts?

      • suyts says:

        Wow, talk about checking the facts, I don’t believe your statement to be true. He did make a mistake. On his own time, he went to his office and recorded a correction and admitted to his error as soon as possible. The error is common given the lack of standards in ice measurements.

        One of JB’s quotes in this manner, “That NSIDC took the time out to make sure I understood what they were up too impressed me to no end and made sure this was cleared up.”……….yeh, a mumbled apology. What would you have him do?

        When data presented doesn’t seem to match other data, the discrepancy needs to be investigated. Did JB jump the gun on this one? Yes. Has the matter been resolved by all parties, I believe so.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Jump the gun is quite appropriate. On national TV he accused them of fraud. Flat out fraud. You don’t think with such a serious accusation he could have contacted them BEFORE he did do? what about going on TV and saying I have not contacted them, but if this is how it looks to me, it might be evidence of fraud. I will let you know when I find out more.
        And what was his choice afterwards? You make him sound like a saint by making a correction “on his own time.” if he denied that he was flat out wrong, the facts were so obvious he would eventually have to have been fired. He did save his ass by admitting his mistake.

        Excuse me for possibly exaggerating about his response. I did not go back and check his actual apology. I stand corrected on that point.

      • suyts says:

        Tony, no I wasn’t putting JB up for beatification after he passes. But, again, I’m not sure what you would have him do. He made a mistake, we all do. Yes, he should have acted differently. I find myself in that position more often than I’d like. But that isn’t the measure of a person’s character. When we find ourselves in that position, we pick ourselves back up, dust off the dirt the best we can, amend and correct, and determine to do better the next time. Now, if we see JB doing the same thing next week, then I would reassess my opinion. Hopefully, the lesson is learned.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        I more or less agree. I do think our society has gotten rather crazy with how we treat people who make mistakes, even big ones. The whole supreme court process is a joke on both sides.
        there is so much pressure to fire people for any infraction because of ideological differences. I think it is quite destructive.
        the key is learning from mistakes, and if you aren’t allowed to make any then it will be a very slow process.

  20. Tony Duncan says:


    I missed the part in the movie where Gore says that by 2010 (OK it’s Dec. 18th, let’s say 2011) the sea level will have flooded the planet and the ice caps will have melted.
    As I recall the judge said there were a few exaggerations and implications made in the movie that were not scientifically supported and there should be disclaimers about those specific issues. I remember when watching the movie that there were a few places where I felt that also. Not sure if they were the same ones.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      This thought just occurred to me. I wonder what that judge would say about this site. After all both the movie and this blog are trying to educate people about a huge danger to the planet. Gore with horrors climate change will cause, Steve with the horrors that mitigating climate change will cause

  21. PhilJourdan says:

    Adela says:
    December 17, 2010 at 5:12 pm
    Open letter to Al Gore

    You should be ashamed ….

    Adela, your letter died as soon as you said those words – hucksters and charlatans have no shame, so you are appealing what is not there.

  22. PhilJourdan says:

    Tony Duncan says:
    December 17, 2010 at 10:25 pm
    this is taken from scientists at NOAA and MET.

    That is both their problem and yours. It should be taken from the raw (unaltered) data. That is comes from a “scientist” indicates it is nothing more than a sermon from a high priest.

  23. PhilJourdan says:

    Sense Seeker says:
    December 18, 2010 at 3:56 am

    While I do not agree with Peter’s assessment, you do know that your response is stupid? Science is not about the enhancement of products, but the understanding of things that goes into creating NEW products.

    100 years ago, there were already basic calculating machines, airplanes, antibiotics and medical care. Engineers have improved on all of them significantly in the last 100 years, but your examples displays the problems with the AGW faithful – they do not know science at all.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s