80 Years Ago, 80% Of The US Was Experiencing Moderate To Extreme Drought

Climate experts* tell us that the 2014 drought in California is due to global warming, because they know nothing about the climate.

In 1934, the drought covered California, and the vast majority of the rest of the US.ScreenHunter_15 Apr. 26 13.30

* “Climate expert” means someone who has received money from the government, in exchange for an implicit or explicit promise to generate politically useful propaganda.

There has been no trend towards increasing drought in the US, and experts who say otherwise are either dishonest, incompetent or both.

190001-201202

About stevengoddard

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

9 Responses to 80 Years Ago, 80% Of The US Was Experiencing Moderate To Extreme Drought

  1. Mike D says:

    That’s not a problem. People’s memories don’t go back that far. Only since 1979 counts.

    • Bob Knows says:

      The young voters today can’t remember anything before 1990, many not even that long. Nothing that happened before their 10th birthday is “real.”

  2. Shazaam says:

    These “extreme” events are 100 times more common now……

    At least in Al Bore’s fantasy-land anyway: http://intellihub.com/al-gore-extreme-weather-events-100-times-common-30-years-ago/

    (I wonder what he’s smoking!! The Laughingstock-in-Chief must have passed the choom!!)

  3. Psalmon says:

    Killer slide.

  4. Bob Knows says:

    Rather than “drought” perhaps its just NORMAL range conditions, sometimes more, sometimes less, within a “normal” range. One century of measurements is not sufficient to establish normal fluctuations or the normal range of fluctuations.

  5. Gail Combs says:

    * “Climate expert” means someone who has received money from the government, in exchange for an implicit or explicit promise to generate politically useful propaganda.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    A bit of explanation of what “Climate Expert” and “Climate Change” actually mean. Since we are dealing with progressives and socialists words never mean what the ordinary person think they mean.

    UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ratified 21/03/94 (You can thank Clinton for this.)
    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 quoted directly 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 voters have 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 us 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 IPCC mandate is similar:

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.
    http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

    So it never was about understanding the climate. It was really about ‘options for mitigation and adaptation. ‘ and this is the change wanted by the Globalists like the UN, the World Bank, and the WTO.

    The IPCC’s ROLE

    The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

    Click to access ipcc-principles.pdf

    So there it is again. ONLY “human-induced climate change” is of interest and that is why you see very little work done on natural climate change.

    Worse it is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with the political summaries. The facts are as follows.

    The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice of the IPCC when prior to its Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,

    We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.

    This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure ever since then.

    Can you see how the entire treaty and IPCC was designed from the get go to be a world wide HOAX? And our idiots in Congress fell for it hook line and sinker. SHEESH, They sure flunked that IQ test.

    The names of the Congressmen and Senators who flunked that IQ test should be shouted far and wide! Along with the specifics of this hoax and the number of people it has killed vs the number (and names) of those who have grown fat wallets from tax payer $$$.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Gail, great comment! As an old Southren boy (the spelling proves I am old!) I do not often speak well of Lincoln — but here goes. There is a story that Lincoln was once asked, “If we agree to call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?” Lincoln answered “Four, because calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.”

      Lawyers, politicians (Lincoln excluded) and so-called “climate scientists” wish to convince us that calling a tail a leg will make it so. In my youth, this process was called “lying”.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Thanks,

        Please feel free to pass the info along to others.

        People may not understand the science but they do understand lying and getting robbed.

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 )

Connecting to %s