Climate Moves To California

78% of the US has been below normal temperature since October 1, but Southern California was the important place for measuring the climate.

WaterTDeptUS (19)

About stevengoddard

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

93 Responses to Climate Moves To California

  1. Both California and Siberia were above normal (supposedly)? That proves it. Global warming is here.

    • TRyan says:

      Has anyone looked at the temperature station in Idaho that glows red? I bet it’s next to an exhaust fan!

      • Eric says:

        NOAA mounted it atop a smokestack. Better wind speed measurements.

      • TruthTeller says:

        When you look at a map of US weather stations, you find many of these hot spots. In an area where all of the stations show no warming, or slight cooling (blue), there will be one station that shows up bright red. You don’t have to be a climate scientist to know something is wrong with the station itself. The warmists loved to lecture on the difference between “climate” and “weather”. And yet they are perfectly willing to accept the idea that one isolated area can have its own pocket climate.

        The really insidious part is the “smoothing” algorithms they use that are retro-engineered to make the most of the hot spots. An area that has had no warming for a decade will still show up as warming, when you smooth the single “hot” station over a 700+ mile radius.

        Imagine doing the same thing to graph the results of a company’s billing department. Say you have 19 customers who always pay on time, and a single troubled customer who stiffed you two years ago. So you just “smooth” the data, and you now have 20 customers who are 36 days overdue, on average. Of course, it means nothing, and you make a good billing department look really, really bad. (I’ve seen this exact thing done.)

        Clear outliers, like the Idaho hot spot, have to be thrown away. Averaging them in to meaningful data is the height of ignorance. Designing a system to accentuate them is just fraudulent.

      • Mrs Libnish says:

        I live in almost that EXACT area of ID. It was in the zero to 10 degree range for WEEKS. Coldest winter on record, so they can stuff the global warming. Unless it really is only happened in CA. Then, turn up the heat 🙂

      • Phil Jones says:

        Al Gore farted….

    • Goldy says:

      climate control, yes God controls all weather, even on other planets

    • Lee says:

      96 degree tomorrow here in Needles, CA on CO river.

    • Recent studies of how data was collected found unscrupulous researchers have moved the temperature sensing devices away from forests and fields and into parking lots, on rooftops and next to air conditioning condensers. Wattsupcom
      Why? Pay someone to find a desired outcome, and that someone will provide the evidence you desire or you won’t hire them again.
      That map says New England was four degrees below normal… our weather forecasters here in the Boston area (all five major stations) have been saying all winter we have been 10 degrees below normal, So Who’s lying? I’ve lived here for sixty years, I believe my local guy.

  2. Pathway says:

    Seventy eight degrees of glo-bull warming is moving to the intermountain west by Thur. Ya-hoooo.

  3. Ben says:


    You forgot about the red dot in Idaho.

    Red beats any cold color, shape or size.

  4. gommygoomy says:

    Apparently, Brian Williams hasn’t gotten the Memo.

  5. Wes Boimar says:

    You know this is all lies Mr Mann who lied to congress and got caught with is email stating how they were hiding the down curve. I mean Al Gore said it is getting warmer and so did Obama so it must be true. Oh and Dont forget all thoes people that actually make a living off of this ridicules lie.

    • iodiner says:

      Wasn’t barry supposed to lower the rise of the oceans and heal our planet? What’s up with that?

    • Let’s not forget who is and has consistently made money by making sure you think global warming IS a myth. Not to mention those entities have bought everyone in The White House for decades. If you think we have not severely altered our globe, then you have a severely altered brain…not in a good way.

  6. JustSomeGuy says:

    Always remember that weather is not climate except when a weather event like “SUPER STORM” Sandy proves global warming.

    So a prolonged cooling season doesn’t disprove global warming but a single weather even does.

    • depressionbaby says:

      “Superstorm” Sandy was a Category I hurricane when it came ashore. Too many buildings and too many people being and living in the wrong place.

    • iodiner says:

      Are you referring to hurricanes – which have existed since the dawn of time? Since way before billionaire A.Gore and the fraudulent boy-king barry were born?

  7. The Goblin King says:

    Thank God for Global Warming…HA!!!

  8. Seventy-eight percent? That seems to correlate to the low-information voter percentage who believe the Globaloney sliced off and served up by the agenda-bent left and bah-bah-bah their ways to polls to vote for more. Hey, it’s science! Just sayin.

  9. Yea yea Man Made Global Warming from CO2; Man produces the most CO2 by berating, to be specific exhaling. So the Elites Answer Population control. Thats what its all about, weather there is Warming or Cooling it is not made made. It is mostly do to the sun. The Sun what is it, a star at the center of our solar system that provides us LIHGT and Warmth. but thats not important now…

  10. Mike Johnson says:

    Steve we all are ignorant conservatives. you must be a real idiot if you can’t tell weather from climate and you believe the mean temperature of earth is reflected by 2% of the earth surface. God, conservatives are stupid.

    When will you conservatives man-up, pull your pants up from around your ankles and stop being bent over like a boy the conservative media has their way with. Do you want to be known as lips, like Steve here? Steve loves giving lip service. Steve has no pride.

    • Every smart progressive knows that the climate of 2014 is located in central Australia, and Sochi.

      The global climate hasn’t been located in the US since 2012, climate experts said that the mild US spring proved global warming.

      • mrunpc says:

        Actually, ALL man made global warming will instantly cease when the king blowhard, Al-E-Gore stops breathing.

    • Mike, If you can’t make an argument based on something other than vile arrogance, then you really don’t have anything useful to say. STFU!

  11. Mary Berg says:

    Oh goodie, no more global warming, so does that mean that we can go back to using aerosol spray cans, and having bon-fires outside, & most of all, can the poor cows now pass methane gas without the lib’s threatening the poor creatures into extinction?

  12. labillyboy says:

    OK who let the “denier” near the thermostat?

  13. Jim Fitchuk says:

    There is absolutely no doubt that Liberals don’t care about the working poor. They see no issue with “skyrocketing” electricity rates and gas rates to eliminate the devil’s fossil fuels. Their fanaticism with saving the planet from global warming has trampled over the lower and middle classes. Even with killer cold temperatures, the stupid Democrats in the Senate have an all-nighter touting the dangers of global warming. The damage the Democrats want to do to the economy won’t change global weather patterns and won’t cool the globe .00001 of a degree.

    • ERRRIIICC says:

      I make my living off building wind turbine generator projects. Believe me I know how expensive they are and it is not the end all be all unless if you want “skyrocketing” electricity rates. The answer is nuclear energy, which terrifies people mostly because they don’t understand it and automatically think Chernobyl.

  14. Rexxx says:

    Globals WARMING makes it colder say Democrats, so next time you want to make ice cubes, just put pans of water in your oven!!!

  15. Rexxx says:

    It’s a shame that democrats are too lazy to google CLIMATE DEFINITION, and see that CLIMATE = THE WEATHER prevailing in an area.

    I guess some folks are so dumb they are just now figuring out that weather CHANGES!

  16. You cons don’t understand science. Haven’t you heard of the hockey stick graph? You don’t understand the scientific method. You don’t understand the difference between climate and weather. You think the Earth is 6000 years old. Forget that the main man pushing this lives in a 20,000 sq. ft. mansion and jets around the world, spewing carbon dioxide and other poisons into the air, so he can warn us all about carbon dioxide. You had better be prepared for regulations that will take you back to the Stone Age so we can save the planet. Don’t worry that those of us who have been warning you about Global Warming will still be driving cars and flying airplanes. We’re much smarter and more important than you, so we need to be doing those things. You don’t.

    • Arminius says:

      Well put.
      I’m always astonished that, on one hand conservatives are wealthy elitists, while on the other hand we’re slack jawed illiterates. Guess it depends upon whose axe the progressive lackey in question is grinding today.

      If anyone is concerned, it’s been cold where I am, too. Having moved from Illinois to western Arizona, it rarely got above 70 for the ENTIRE month of March.

  17. Mark says:

    Climate-gate exposed collusion between the scientist and politicians who attempted to dupe the world into believing that global warming actually existed, the scandal irrupted in 2009 when Professor Phil Jones who was the leading scientist for the Climate Research Unit had his Email account hacked.

    Thousands of Emails revealed the collusion between Jones and his team of scientists; the emails clearly demonstrated a contrivance among the scientists to squelch global-warming skeptics, and proved the scientists were falsifying data.

    The reality is; the world’s cyclical weather patterns are pointing towards a little ice age, so they were forced to modify the narrative to ‘Climate Change.’

    All of which, begs the question.

    What has happen to academic integrity?

  18. mrunpc says:

    What’s most pathetic in ALL of this massive global warming hoax is how many people actually swallow it hook, line, and sinker!

  19. tlarremore says:

    Reblogged this on Head Space and commented:
    As Global Warming (insanity) kicks in to full gear…

  20. MickeyG says:

    Al Gore is pissing God off. That’s what it is.

  21. Kess says:


  22. Allen Clark says:

    welcome to global warming!!!!

  23. Steve Dziedzic says:

    America’s scientific community had this to say about climate change: Some pretty smart people involved with all this data collection (Not Gore or Obama). Of course, one could simply mock the science – it’s what most people do when exposed to a new paradigm (historically speaking). “When you listen to fools, the mob rules” – B. Sabbath

    • Smart people don’t push stupid theories.

    • TruthTeller says:

      If you are of the impression that the EPA practices, or even observes, scientific rigor you are probably beyond hope. You do realize that the same EPA outlawed the use of DDT, because they said it was weakening eagle eggs, and driving them to near-extinction. That little “scientific fact” has been soundly proven to be a myth, but the extremists STILL tell the story, even now. Malaria kills almost 900,000 people annually. DDT can reduce malaria cases by more than 90% in many areas, but we have “scientists” who demand that it not be used… because of a persistent myth.

      Remember, if it cannot be questioned it is a religion, not science. And the real Flat-Earthers are the ones that insist that anyone who disagrees with them are branded as heretics.

      • Steve Dziedzic says:

        Two replies and neither addresses the data. Respondent #1 called the theory of climate change “stupid”. I would’ve gotten better feedback from my 10 yr old – though he’d have included an eye roll and a “pfft”. Respondent #2 began with a personal attack (always a good start) and immediately branched off into a conspiracy surrounding DDT. He followed this with philosophy on “who” is believable. *Sigh*…the internet, last bastion of free thought, and the clearest evidence humanity will bring about its own doom (just a theory of mine). “Yeah I’m proud to be part of this number” – The Doors.

        • Gail Combs says:

          OH? You REALLY want to discuss the Science?
          OK how about we start with the lies about CO2 “The well mixed gas” as a chemist who has worked with mixing for decades I laugh my self silly every time I hear that idiotic assumption.
          Dr Jeff Glassman:

          4. Sidebar: By losing its long residence time assumption, the Consensus finds its well-mixed conjecture invalidated. The admission in the TAR of CO2 gradients over the globe also contradicts its well-mixed claims. Independently, gradients must exist because of the highly concentrated outgassing of CO2 from equatorial waters, and the balancing concentrated polar uptakes. Consequently, the concentration of CO2 depends on where it is measured. Keeling himself warned not to mix CO2 measurements without regard to sinks and sources. He used calibration techniques to mix records. {Begin rev. 3/14/10} Recent results at 8 km from the AIRS (Atmospheric Infrared Sounder) satellite show dense clouds of CO2 emerging from below. This should be just one more nail in the coffin for the well-mixed/long-lived assumption. See RSJ response to James Daniel, 6/17/09, IPCC’s Fatal Errors ; RSJ response to David, 8/24/08, The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide . {End rev. 3/14/10}.

          His first paper: (wwwDOT)

          And then there is the data tampering. Temperature is not the only place the data was tampered with.
          Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski has written about this data tampering and given testimony in Congress. Hughes has collected the PDFs here:

          To be noted: Dr. Jaworowski was FIRED not for publishing incorrect information but for publishing data that proved the ‘Consensus’ wrong. He was then denied funding and toldthe research would be “immoral”

          …Dr. Jaworowski has devoted much of his professional life to the study of the composition of the atmosphere, as part of his work to understand the consequences of radioactive fallout from nuclear-weapons testing and nuclear reactor accidents. After taking numerous ice samples over the course of a dozen field trips to glaciers in six continents, and studying how contaminants travel through ice over time, he came to realize how fraught with error ice-core samples were in reconstructing the atmosphere…

          “This ice contained extremely high radioactivity of cesium-137 from the Chernobyl fallout, more than a thousand times higher than that found in any glacier from nuclear-weapons fallout, and more than 100 times higher than found elsewhere from the Chernobyl fallout,” he explained. “This unique contamination of glacier ice revealed how particulate contaminants migrated, and also made sense of other discoveries I made during my other glacier expeditions. It convinced me that ice is not a closed system, suitable for an exact reconstruction of the composition of the past atmosphere.”

          Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be “immoral” if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.….

          Now do you want to get into the chemistry of the migration of molecules or will you accept the fact that a bottle of soda stored for a year goes dead flat?

        • Gail Combs says:

          More on the CO2 well mixed ASSumption (Word press will boot me into a snow drift for more than three links.)
          Some real life data showing that is a myth:

          In August 1986 in Cameroon, Lake Nyos released a ‘belch’ of CO2 (It is a volcanic crater) killing about 1700 people up to 26 km away from the lake. (CO2 is heavier than air) This is why, instead of protesting Fracking which has been around since just after the Civil War (U.S. Patent No. 59,936 in November 1866 ), you should be protesting CO2 sequestering. “CO2 sequestering” is a method oil companies use to make wells more productive and now they want taxpayers to foot the bill for it but they are not about to tell you that.

          Although the climastrologists have re-written science to say plants could live in an atmosphere of only 180 ppm to match their revised ice core data, earlier work, now gone from the internet, had a lower limit of 200 – 220 ppm.

          A more realistic lower limit can be deduced from this field study of wheat (C3).
          “The CO2 concentration at 2 m above the crop was found to be fairly constant during the daylight hours on single days or from day-to-day throughout the growing season ranging from about 310 to 320 p.p.m. Nocturnal values were more variable and were between 10 and 200 p.p.m. higher than the daytime values.” (wwwDOT)

          The extreme lower limit of 200 ppm can also be found in green house studies:

          CO2 depletion
          Plant photosynthetic activity can reduce the CO2 within the plant canopy to between 200 and 250 ppm… I observed a 50 ppm drop in within a tomato plant [C3] canopy just a few minutes after direct sunlight at dawn entered a green house (Harper et al 1979) … photosynthesis can be halted when CO2 concentration aproaches 200 ppm… (Morgan 2003) Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and does not easily mix into the greenhouse atmosphere by diffusionSource

          In other words our present day CO2 levels are still close to ‘Starvation levels’ for plants and during the next glaciation, whenever it comes, the corresponding reduction in CO2 levels will be very dangerous to plant life.

        • Gail Combs says:

          CO2 starvation
          It is well known, a law in fact, that the colder the water the more CO2 it absorbs. (Again you see this in soda pop.) Also CO2 lags temperature by 800 years so CO2 DID get to very low levels during glaciations. Most plants like our veggies are C3,and C4 (grasses and weeds) developed in response to the low CO2, low rain levels during glaciation. The C4 pathway is not the most optimum and therefore C4 plans can not compete against C3 plants when there is plenty of CO2 and water.

          Royal Society Transactions: Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution

          Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California

          Why are C3 plants dominant compared to C4 plants?

        • Gail Combs says:

          There is another little know fact about C3 and C4 plants.

          We hear ‘scientists’ can measure the human contribution of CO2 in the air by looking at the ratio of C12 to C13. The theory is that plants absorb more C12 than C13 by about 2%, so looking at the air ‘scientists’ know which came from plants and which came from volcanos and which came from fossil fuels, via man. Because plants are ‘deficient’ in C13, it is assumed so is fossil fuel derived CO2.

          Lets leave the Russian adiabatic oil hypothesis -not from plants but from geologic processes – out of the discussion for simplicity sake.

          The ‘Consensus’ assumption is since coal and oil were from plants, that “plant signature” means “human” One Small Problem… C4 metabolism plants absorb more C13 than do C3 metabolism plants. Over the last 100 years we’ve planted one heck of a lot more grasses world wide than ever before since C4 plants are more drought resistant and therefore they are a preferred crop in marginal areas. And remember all the Biofuel? Corn is a C4 plant and is now preferentially planted in the USA as THE cash crop.

          Lets look at recent history. If human CO2 dropped dramatically during the great depression, where is the signature in the record?

          I should acknowledge one imprecision in my description of Dr. Martin Hertzberg’s graph in my first column–”the smoothly rising curve of CO2″–which prompted several intemperate responses, charging that I couldn’t possibly expect CO2 or carbon levels to drop just because of a one-third cut in manmade CO2. Indeed, I should have written, “One could not even see a 1 part per million bump in the smoothly rising curve.” Even though such transitory influences as day and night or seasonal variations in photosynthesis cause clearly visible swings in the curve, the 30 percent drop between 1929 and 1932 caused not a ripple: empirical scientific evidence that the human contribution is in fact less than a fart in a hurricane, as Dr. Hertzberg says….

          And then Mr Cockburn delivers the killing blow:

          On the naïve and scientifically silly assumption that the only way that plant-based carbon can get into the atmosphere is by people burning fuels, they exult that here indeed is the smoking gun: Decreases of C13 in the atmosphere mean that our sinful combustions are clearly identifiable as major contributors to the 100 ppm increase in CO2 since 1850.

          This is misguided, simply because less than a thousandth of the plant-based carbon on earth is bound up in fossil fuel. The rest of the huge remaining tonnages of plant-based carbon are diffused through the oceans, the forests, the grasslands and the soil. In other words, everywhere. Obviously, lots of this C13-deficient carbon has the chance to oxidize into CO2 by paths other than people burning fuel, i.e., the huge amount of plant material that’s naturally eaten or decayed by the biosphere….

          Perhaps even more significant, cold ocean waters absorb lightweight C12 preferentially, resulting in lots of C13-deficient carbon in the oceans. This low-C13 carbon most certainly would have been released massively into the atmosphere over the course of the world’s warming trend since 1850, when the Little Ice Age ended….

          Do we even know the signature from oil and coal? The C12:C13 ratio is different in oils than in coals and varies in the source lipids from which oil is made.

          Lipid fractions of organisms have consistently lower C13/C12 ratios than do the whole organisms. The average difference between nonlipid and lipid materials for all organisms studied is about 0.5% and ranges in individual species from as little as several hundredths to more than 1.5%. This suggests that petroleums and other noncoaly organic matter in ancient sediments are derived from lipids, or at least from certain components of the lipid fraction. In contrast, coal deposits apparently are derived from whole plants or from the cellulosic fraction of land plants, which is the major nonlipid constituent, of plant tissues….

          Has the petroleum and coal from around the world been tested for differences in C12:C13 ratio? I’d expect significant variation based on the above.

          And I haven’t even gotten into Swamp Gas. Remember the US government is now protecting swamps and the beavers that make them. (I lost a good 20 ac to the giardia ridden beaver who are now infecting the town near me.)

          Bacteriogenic methane from Illinois generally has a C13 values in the range of -64 to -90% relative to the Peedee Belemnite ( PDB ) standard. The 11 samples from pipelines and storage reservoirs that have been analyzed have all had C13 values in the range of -40 to -46%.

          Do you understand that? Bacteria make methane with even less C13 in it than natural gas. So a little swamp gas can look like a whole lot of human generated C13 deficient CO2 once it air oxidizes.

        • glenp says:

          completely rambling non sequitur argument—- you put me to sleep in 7 words

        • Gail Combs says:

          glenp says: @ April 8, 2014 at 4:02 pm

          completely rambling non sequitur argument—- you put me to sleep in 7 words
          Then I will make it easy for you.

          The IPCC fraudsters have lied through their teeth about CO2.

          #1. CO2 is NOT well mixed in the atmosphere.

          #2 CO2 does not follow a hockey stick shape. Ice cores showed 7000 ppm and chemical analysis in the 19th century showed 500 plus ppm.

          #3 – THE MOST IMPORTANT! Plants are starving because there is too little CO2.

          #4. The supposed ‘C12-C13 human signature’ used to blame humans for the ‘additional CO2’ in the atmosphere is completely bogus.

          Steve Dziedzic wanted “Science” so I backed up all those points.

          Now I have to go out and mow the C3 Grazing Rye and let it decay to CO2.

        • glenp says:

          GAIL we do agree, it’s just that you make bad arguments—- try a better economy with words.

          CO2 is “mother’s milk” for any green plant. Water Vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas and “global warming ” is a fraud

        • Gail Combs says:

          glenp says: @ April 8, 2014 at 4:41 pm

          GAIL we do agree, it’s just that you make bad arguments—- try a better economy with words….
          glenp, I tried that originally and got slammed repeatedly.

          Here are a couple classic examples:

          Gail Combs says on March 18, 2012 at 9:23 am:

          Helen, the attack on Religion was “necessary” and “deliberate” if “Socialism” was to be implemented.

          The threads of this decision going back into history are long as usual. The easiest place to start is the Webb’s Fabian Society and London School of Economics (LSE). If you investigate LSE you will find it is linked to world leaders like former Fabian chairman/ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair, Director of the World Trade Organization Pascal Lamy, Bill Clinton and even Gaddafi’s son.


          Is that where all this started?

          Not with Lucifer and his fall from grace?

          Not with being cast out of the Garden if Eden for (woman) being tricked to eat of the tree of Knowledge?

          Wow. I hadn’t realize all this had ‘roots’ so recent …

          Please note I am NOT a Christian, I am agnostic…

          Grey Lensman says:
          May 15, 2012 at 12:49 am

          Socialism is the monopoly of labour. Capitalism is the monopoly of money, same beast different spots. I think the posters mean Free Markets not capitalism. Science demands accuracy, No?
          Gail Combs says on May 15, 2012 at 2:55 am:

          No. Fractional Reserve Banking (Central Banking) is the monopoly of money. …

          Oh brother; here we go again (mods, I apologize in advance for minor transgressions or infractions I may draw in making this post) ….

          Tragically, when one’s ‘financial education’ (re: banking et al) begins with the fictional and entertaining works by G. Edward Griffin, we are apt to see all manner of ‘extrapolations’ into the absurd, and from one who appears somewhat rational and factual on some subjects.

          Maybe a little refresher on the ‘background and history’ of banking and banking practices is called for….

          Please note: I had not said ANYTHING about G. Edward Griffin and I usually link to The Primer on Money by United States, Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on Banking and Currency.

          So now I am very very careful to always have back-up for everything I say. (It is a real pain in the neck too.)

    • Gail Combs says:

      Yes and a retired EPA scientist says

      To all concerned,

      One reason I retired early from research at EPA years ago was good science was beginning to be sidetracked for political purposes. In this case EPA has been completely derailed. I have spent the last four years of my retirement studying all the data I could find to get to the truth about climate change. I just finished a presentation that shows ample evidence that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide do not cause global warming. Carbon dioxide has been falsely convicted on circumstantial evidence by a politically selected jury. A just retrial could overturn this conviction before we punish ourselves by trying to control emissions that will have no effect on climate change. You can view the presentation and be your on judge and jury at

      Fred Also said:

      If I were asked to pick a single point on earth that most likely has the greatest effect on global weather and climate, it would be 0 and 90W (Galapagos). This is where El-nino winds, the deep sea Cromwell current, the Panama current, and the Humboldt current meet. These flows are not constant and each has different cycles and those cycles are not constant. Cycles on cycles create extremes in weather and climate. These extremes have an effect globally. I suspect these cycles are also controlling our observed atmospheric concentration of CO2. CO2 is very likely a lagging indicator and not a cause of climate change.

      • Steve Dziedzic says:

        Well thank you Gail Combs for a cogent defense of your position (albeit you threw in small amounts of condescension) I respect your argument. I’d only say in rebuttal that the NOAA, EPA and NASA (et al) do not concur. I’m no climate scientist (or doctor, lawyer or indian chief) so I defer to experts in the applicable field. In this case, I’ll roll with the scientific consensus. and plus my original EPA post. All the credible data I’ve consumed puts human contributions of CO2 at ~2% , a fraction of atmospheric CO2 – certainly not worthy of all the mania mainstream media propagates. You’ve equated my original post with things I’ve not said, agreed with, or argued in favor of. I don’t accept any of the political gibberish so rampant on this thread, but your response has partially restored my faith in humanity. “So much for the golden future, I can’t even start” – Judas Priest

        • glenp says:

          Steve Steve Steve “scientific CONSENSUS” is a non sequitur , an oxymoron , specious and completely asinine

        • Gail Combs says:

          After over fifteen years of fighting the corporate control of the US government I am getting a might bit short tempered.

          I started with WTO and the Agreement on Ag and the international HACCP regs, regs implemented WITHOUT Congressional approval or public awareness.

          I plotted the incidence of food borne disease three years before and after HACCP was introduced and found a doubling of food borne illness. These illnesses was then blamed on farmers not the corporations and we got the Food (Un)Safety Modernization Act of 2009. The real cause of the media hyped illnesses: SHIELDING THE GIANT: USDA’s “Don’t Look, Don’t Know” Policy (Inspectors no longer inspect food they inspect corporate paper work and the food testing labs were shut down.)

          I have a friend who is a casualty in the battle. He is fighting several multi-million dollar lawsuits after a USDA agent intentionally infected his petting farm sheep and goats with a nasty strain of e-coli only found in cattle. (very long story.)

          John Munsell, who I have corresponded with, lost his three generation business in this fight. He told me several years ago a New York Mag. came and interviewed him for three days, the article was written and approved by the editor and at the last minute the ‘Owners of the press’ stepped in and shut the article down. A humorous account of his story: Five Minutes With John Munsell & A Trip To The Woodshed With The USDA that never made it into the main stream and therefore never influenced the legislation that turns control of US farms over to the World Trade Organization.

          One hundred years ago we lost the battle over our money. Five years ago we lost the battle over our food supply (Though we have not really felt it yet.) I just hope we do not lose the battle over our energy supply.

          “Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.” ~ Henry Kissinger

    • Well we do have certain facts that have been exposed but go on ignored.. We know for a fact that the first 2 Hockey stick charts in IPCC reports.. the ones most used as the banner of global warming, were, indeed, averaged over periods like the little ice age and Medieval warming period to flatten their visual effect on the plot then the scales were amplified to accent the 0.7°C warming since 1900. So now that we know that Mann fake’s data, why on earth would we believe that any of this core panel of IPCC con artists would be sincere going forward.

      We have the fact that when early 20th century data is plugged into every GW model, they over-predict today’s temperature by a minimum of 3° in the most conservative model.

      We have the facts that we’ve had to of the hottest summers on record since 1998 but we ignore that we have had 5 of the coldest winters over the same period.

      When a few irregular tornadoes and snow storms popped up in the last few years, early in this weather cycle, the AGW crowd made statements such as “See, this is what Global warming will look like in the future” because they knew all too well that even if the most dire predictions of their pseudo-scientific models were true, we are way too early in the climate change models for climate change to be having this much of an effect on weather. Now, 2 or 3 short years later, this opinion has fallen by the wayside to give way to the hysteria that feeds the belief that every uncommon weather event must be because of global warming and there is no other explanation. I would love to hear the scientific arguments for this…

      We ignore the fact that only the staunchest of AGW supporters dare make the ludicrous claim that 97% of all scientists agree with AGW… and also ignore that this figure is derived from, yet, another contrived model, created by the AGW supporters.

      We ignore the fact that the IPCC is made up of mostly politicians of countries that stand to gain from the development of green technology with the perception that it will make energy production more economic that importing oil.

      We ignore actual data from the ancient world that shows absolutely no correlation between CO2 and temperature. We ignore the expansive canyons and fjords that litter the earth which were cut by glaciers of past ice ages which receded during periods of warmth much warmer than now which also has less CO2 than now.

      We have the fact that many times before, many scientists, with so called widespread scientific backing, have made grave claims which were less accurate than a Nostradamus prediction.. i.e. Global cooling, population growth, & resource availability. If everything “scientifically predicted” in the 70’s had came true, we’d be out of oil, gold, silver, lead and other resources right now as well as billions of us would be dead due to starvation caused by the inability to create enough food.

      AGW is just the latest in a long history of scams/religions that take advantage of the paranoid, scientifically challenged, gullible masses in order to feed off of government teet and attempt to shift wealth from those who have it to those who dont. .

  24. iodiner says:

    Al Gore, is that you?

  25. Sojourner Truth says:

    People will believe anything they see on television. The nation freezes beyond recognition and people are still buying the global warming crisis. I personally like “the sky is falling! the sky is falling!” Makes for a much more entertaining read than our geniuses in the government and the media.

  26. In the Aztec society, hearts routinely got ripped out of living people for the rain god Tlaloc for good weather. A ongoing tribute paid to the priests of Tlaloc made them very rich and powerful. I am encouraged to see how far the enlighten Obama voter has ‘evolved’ over time.

  27. kestrel27 says:

    Just more proof that the Global Warming/Climate Change meme is the religion of mentally retarded Progressives, who just don’t have it in them to admit they are wrong. So, they just change the subject, move the goal posts, or change the language to prove they are right. No wonder most Americans think Progressivism/Liberalism is a mental disorder and disease.

  28. Steve Morris says:

    My question is what is the color for, and percentage of the country that is right on the normal average since on this graph it does not exist. You are either above or below.

  29. JJR67 says:

    Have the global warming scientists stuck in the “rapidly melting” Antarctic ice been freed yet?

  30. Noknarak says:

    It was so cold in New England this winter I actually saw liberals with their hands in their OWN pockets!

  31. Sparky says:

    What the heck is normal when referring to climate? Is it since the first day that Earth became Earth? Is it since a gauge was made to measure it? Is it since your birth?
    The Earth existed longer without polar icecaps then it has with them, so that could be, “normal”. Which if that’s the case we have some warming up to do.
    Global warming alarmists have become a religion.

  32. Dan Meyers says:

    Big Al? No comment? Still got that “Hockey Stick” Theory stuck up yer ace?

  33. glenp says:

    that pesky GLOBAL WARMING rears its ugly head even again!!!

  34. mancave001 says:

    Hey, don’t forget…warming causes cooling. This just means climate change is worse than we thought. All this cooling is clearly a result of all the warming that we can’t measure (because, uh, we think the ocean is storing heat). Makes sense, right guys? #FRAUD

  35. glenp says:

    maybe we can direct Gail to a forum that discusses hypergraphia or hyperpostia

    • Gail Combs says:

      I will keep it short (here) if I do not get slammed.

    • Gail Combs says:

      However Steve Dziedzic did ask for it when he said:
      “Of course, one could simply mock the science – it’s what most people do when exposed to a new paradigm…”

      followed by

      “Two replies and neither addresses the data. Respondent #1 called the theory of climate change “stupid”. I would’ve gotten better feedback from my 10 yr old – though he’d have included an eye roll and a “pfft”. Respondent #2 began with a personal attack (always a good start) and immediately branched off into a conspiracy…”

      So he got why the theory of Climate Change (caused by Manmade CO2) is stupid with LOTS of data to back it up….

  36. Look-up says:

    The cooling is simply a result of the high altitude spraying that has been going on for years. Just look up and observe the “contrails” through out the day.

  37. sdfgsdfgsdfg says:

    IN South CArolina there is a really warm spot net to the Savanna River Nuclear Plant.

  38. dieter says:

    GloBull freezing sux…doesn’t it, all you NE libs?…give me 90 degrees and sunshine any day.

  39. Smokey says:

    The “carbon” scare has run its course. The ultimate Authority, Planet Earth, has been busy debunking the scare by cooling for the past 17+ years, per satellite data.

    The only 2 things that keep the carbon scare alive are:
    1) oodles of taxpayer loot, and
    2) Algore’s credulous, swivel-eyed True Believer clique

    And ‘grats, Steve, on the Drudge link! The more the word gets out, the more that the public sees that the believers in man-made global warming are in reality just a small clique of anti-science fanatics, and a few self-serving riders on the grant gravy train like the odious Michael Mann.

    Normal folks are beginning to see the “carbon” scare for exactly what it is: a scam on the taxpaying public, promoted by the anti-American UN.

  40. Jeff Masters ran a blog post on outdoor hockey threatened in Southern California while 90% of the country was below normal and portions were setting all-time record lows for the month.

  41. Note: We were currently enduring one of the many polar vortex’s when this blog post was made.

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