Reader Challenge

The challenge for the day is to generate some Romm censorship statistics. It only takes a minute of your time. Please go to :

and post a polite comment asking why Joe is not interested in all the record low temperatures and snow. Then cut and paste the comment over here, including the time and date it went in for moderation.

Later today we can compare notes and find out what “censorship progress” is all about.


Bravo22C says:

I would just like to ask why, whenever we see a period of hot weather, you publish the details, but you do not publish the details of all the record low temperatures we have seen recorded

[JR: I publish the details of extreme weather events that are way off the charts, 100-year events, 500-year events, 1000-year events, since the deniers say nothing special is happening. This is especially true for events that are sustaining in time and space (i.e. area). Record lows and record highs are set every day. I publish the statistical data on record highs versus record lows on a very regular basis.]

About stevengoddard

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

28 Responses to Reader Challenge

  1. bravo22c says:

    Bravo22C says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    February 10, 2011 at 3:10 pm
    I would just like to ask why, whenever we see a period of hot weather, you publish the details, but you do not publish the details of all the record low temperatures we have sen recorded>

  2. Squidly says:

    — On Joe Romm’s website, posted 3:30 pm —

    Squidly Says:
    February 10th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
    I am confused, I could have sworn I heard many people saying things like “snow will become a thing of the past”, and that “winter will virtually vanish”. However, this morning, coldest temperature ever recorded in Oklahoma of -31F. So, can someone please explain to me how not but 2 years ago, all of the supposed “climate scientists” were telling us how “snow will disappear” and how “my children will never know what snow is like” and how we will all see “barbeque winters” forever, but now, suddenly, this is all consistent with a warming world? Hmmm? … what am I missing here?

    Also, would someone kindly direct me to the GCM (global circulation model) output that shows this current cooling and/or showing any prediction of more snow? .. I have looked high and low, searched everywhere I can, and I simply cannot find a single GCM that predicted (even remotely close) to anything we are seeing today.

    I am trying to believe you Joe, I really am, but I am finding it difficult when what you are *saying* contradicts everything I am *seeing*. So, do I trust what you are saying, or do I trust what I am seeing?

    Please, someone help me out here, I’m so confused …

  3. Andy Weiss says:

    “Cold season storm tracks are shifting northward….”.

    Yeah, sure. That is a great explanation for all the record snow and cold across the South the last two winters.

    I love it when they checkmate themselves with their own arguements!

  4. Squidly says:

    Hehe, I guess I haven’t been to Romm’s site enough, nor have I paid any attention to his page header:

    “The Web’s most influential climate-change blogger” — Time Magazine

    But certainly the “A PROJECT OF CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS” part says it all for me anyway. I didn’t realize Mr. George Soros funded Mr. Romm.

    Nothing more to see there .. moving along…

    BTW, my post disappeard. Don’t know if it will re-appear, but for not it is gone, no longer showing as “awaiting moderation” .. just poof! .. gone

  5. Squidly says:

    I just finished reading his entire post, and the only thing I can think of is, ” do people really believe that BS? ” … wow

  6. omnologos says:

    Squidly is right…the tragedy is not what Rommel says or even his obsession with censorship. The tragedy is the vast number of people that still take Romm as a meaningful participant in the debate.

  7. Gator says:

    G says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    February 10, 2011 at 3:52 pm
    Hey Joe, was wondering exactly why record snows and record cold is not being covered here. Are records not interesting when they are not heat related?

    Wanna place bets on how not posted this will be?

  8. MikeTheDenier says:

    I’m number 8. I also posted as MikeTheDenier 🙂

    8.MikeTheDenier says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    February 10, 2011 at 3:54 pm
    Hey Joe why are you not interested in all the record low temperatures and snow?

    • MikeTheDenier says:

      he’s not taking the bait. he replied to my post. snarky and condesending, but he did reply.

      • suyts says:

        How did you get that last post through? #21…… he must be asleep!

      • suyts says:

        hahahhaah I hadn’t seen Steve latest post!!!!!! hahahahahah

      • suyts says:

        lol, well Mike you got the loons at Romm’s all a’cacklen.

        “It’s about January, not February!!!!!”

        That’s a beautiful bit of disassociative reasoning you’ve thrown them in! You see, Romm started babbling something about January, so February doesn’t count!

  9. suyts says:

    “Indeed, the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) U.S. Climate Impacts Report from 2009 reviewed that literature and concluded:”

    Yes, climate scientists have been saying this all along…….except when they predicting the exact opposite such as the imminent world droughts. And……

    “Monday, 20 March 2000 : According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”

    David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes – or eventually “feel” virtual cold.”

    Meanwhile, back in reality, record cold in Oklahoma. Apparently, record lows are much less significant than record highs.

    I really don’t believe that one will get through.

  10. Russ says:

    3.Russ says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    February 10, 2011 at 3:33 pm
    Hey, Mr. Joe Romm, Sir, why aren’t you interested in all the record low temperatures and snow?

  11. Gene Beljaeff says:

    When will Global Warming cause more rain, then? Specifically?

    Is more snow (and cold) consistent with Global Cooling?

    What weather is NOT consistent with Global Warming?

    – – – – –
    the above was posted to moderation just after 4:00 PM Central Time

  12. Ira says:

    saved some screen shots of things I posted that later disappeared. I guess they’re leaving other things up just to show that they aren’t deleting comments from those who don’t buy the party line.

  13. Gator says:

    Just left another inquiry… #75

    Hey Joe! Exactly what kind of weather would disprove AGW? When it’s actually hot you say it’s AGW, when it’s really cold you say it’s AGW. When there are droughts you say it’s AGW and when there are floods you again blame AGW. When it snows you say AGW and when there is no snow it is prevented by AGW. All while the GHCN network is reduced to a bunch of UHI corrupted data.

    So please explain again what type of weather disproves AGW. And while you are at it, please provide a peer reviewed paper that proves natural variability is not he cause of climate changes.

    PS – Love the Soros funding!

  14. Bob Webster says:

    I posted this comment at Climate Progress. Don’t expect to see it appear:

    “Since conservatives can’t attack the science or the scientists on this, they know it is safer to attack Gore.”


    In fact, most real scientists do NOT support Al Gore and the cult of global warming (er, climate change) true-believers.

    The science is deeply-flawed, based on improper assumptions, “confirmed” by scientifically crude computer models that reflect the deeply-flawed assumptions of the greenhouse warming ideology.

    Here’s some inconvenient statistics for you:

    1. Your bar chart does not represent anything more than normal climate variability. One could create similar charts for other periods of cold phase ENSO, PDO, and NAO alignment.

    2. 36 more record highs were set in the continental US in the first half of the 20th century than in the second half (287 vs. 251). On average, 57 per decade up to 1949 and 46 per decade thereafter. Peak decade was 1930s with 113 record highs. Peak decade of 1950-1999 was 1950s with 72 record highs.

    3. All-time continental record high temperatures for the continents of Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America were each set prior to 1942 with two of them in the 19th century!

    4. All-time continental record low temperatures for the same continents reveals four of the six continents had their all-time lows recorded since 1954 (1954, 1978, 1994, and 2002).

    5. Since even the human-caused-climate-change (aka, global-warming) believers acknowledge that under their (flawed) theory, human emissions of CO2 were not significant enough to affect climate until after 1945, it is hard to square the actual record of temperature extremes with the AGW theory.

    Note that, whenever reality is contrary to theory, good scientists give the nod to reality.

  15. Mike says:


    Encouraging your zombie friends to bombard another blog with repetitious questions is unethical. Any publication has a right to not publish comments that are off topic or repetitious. Joe Romm makes clear what the purpose of his blog is: “Climate Progress is dedicated to providing the progressive perspective on climate science, climate solutions, and climate politics.” He did not set it up as a debate forum on climatology. If Romm is not posting temperature records you are interested if, just post them yourself.

    • How do you feel about Romm writing articles trashing me, and then not letting me post comments?

    • Gator says:

      Hey Mike! Romm was deleting my posts long before I ever visited Steve’s site. Romm runs a fascist alarmist site and if he can’t handle the backlash, he should find something else to do.

      I assisted another third party in establishing the bias and censorship of Realclimate. That 3rd part was a warmist who did not believe Realclimate was unethical and wanted to prove their innocence. He tried to publish my question,Which he agreed was legitimate and respectful, and after weeks of trying it has yet to be posted.

      Real scientists do not hide behind walls of censorship. Real science does not need to be propped up by fascists. Real science appreciates honest questions.

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