Coldest Year On Record So Far In The US

Screenshot at May 08 08-50-30

YearTDeptUS (10)YearTDeptUS.png (688×531)


About stevengoddard

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

400 Responses to Coldest Year On Record So Far In The US

  1. Psalmon says:

    Snow in the air in Rapid City SD.

  2. ozspeaksup says:

    put the aircon on to warm up?

  3. tom0mason says:

    As the WH prognostications were sanctioned by the fool-in-chief what can you expect? Wisdom?

    • Arminius says:


      • tubaman says:

        you got it!!!!!

      • Randy says:

        Your kidding of course!!!??? OR………..Are an idiot???

        • David A. says:

          Chill, Randy – they just didn’t include a /sarc tag 😀

        • stu says:

          While you’re whining in fake indignation Randy the heads of states of many countries think he is no more than a ill trained, globe trotting, golfing monkey. That counts a great deal in how you do your job, which he doesn’t do at all.

        • _Jim says:

          “Your kidding ”

          No, He’s kidding ..

          (Maybe you meant “You are kidding”. Free advice: Stick to fully spelling things out and avoid using contractions.)

      • tom0mason says:

        But I haven’t raced in years!

      • Cato the Younger says:

        Isn’t it amazing how the Leftists have infantilized the thinking process by corrupting the language and turning television into non-stop nonsense-spewing narcotic? CNN spends six non-stop weeks on an airplane crash, then pivots to non-stop coverage of a rich old geezer’s private racial slurs, and then moves on to the White House’s authoritarian cause du jour! This country is unrecognizable from what it was just 50 years ago.

        • tom0mason says:

          The problem is that the new generation haven’t the attention span of ….
          Oh! Look squirrels!

        • Winston says:

          It’s not the same country it was 50 years ago. I’m glad I can remember America. This is not America anymore. It’s Babylon and Sodom & Gammorah combined.

        • Greatmag says:

          At the risk of maddening the PC crowd. AMEN

      • Steve Hill says:

        Yeah right. The default response, when your side of the issue is vaccuous.

      • Joey Haston says:

        you obviously dont even understand the definition of the word!!!

      • john says:

        Grow up,his policies suck! Has nothing to do with race.You are the racist.

      • IMPEACH OBAMA says:

        Well, considering Obozo is Half-White, would that be White racism or what’s Left racism…

        BTW, according to one of Obozo’s goons, he claims we’re experiencing “global warming”…

        One thing for sure, every time one of these Liberals “breaks wind”, they confirm to the rest of the world what Lenin called them, “Useful Idiots!”

        • IMPEACH OBAMA says:

          John Podesta…that’s the genius, who says congress can’t stop Obozo on “global WARMING”…I guess we’re supposed to ignore the fact that we just had the “coldest year on record!”

          NEWS FLASH for Podesta…

          Anything that Obozo does while POTUS, can be reversed by the next POTUS…

          Facts…they, just keep getting in the way of Liberals line of BS!

      • Robert says:

        ABSOLUTELY AS AM I YOU DAMN IDIOT. So is everyone else in the world, against another group. I guess you don’t study history since you are one of those f-ing guilt ridden liberals who takes it up the rear. And yes mr/ms liberal I live in downtown DC right behind the archive (off the Mall if you don’t know the location). Liberals have become SO boring with their emotional attacks with no intellectual or any form of factual response. I always have fun with them in DC because when the bitch session of emotions is over I usually approach with a few facts. Run home little liberal and complain about the world. Boohoo.

      • MirandaAnique says:

        Sarcasm, right!?!

      • Erastus says:

        North Korea just said it all.

    • lloyd lee says:

      Don’t expect much from you.

    • Jesus! Jesus the Lord and Savior!! I’m a Republican Jesus Jesus Jesus!!! Oh yea Benghazi.Jesus is Lord and King!! Science is the Devil!!!!! Common Sense wtf is that Jesus Jesus Jesus….Fags…some more Jesus and Electric Cars are also the Devil!!

  4. But its the coldest year because of global warming. Cold is Warm, Freedom Is Slavery and War Is Peace

  5. Arminius says:

    But but but: Global Warming, ‘n stuff!
    Algore said we’d be roasting polar bears at the North Pole! How can this be?

    • Shazaam says:

      You neglected to observe one tiny detail….

      Al’s lips were moving when he said that.

      Just like with the laughingstock-in-chief, when Al’s lips move, the statements that issue forth have no resemblance to the truth.

  6. atthemurph says:

    The Warmunists aren’t going to like this.

    • Bob Smith says:

      lol “warmunists”! It would all be hilarious if the idiots didn’t have the capability to cause so much harm with their foolish world view!

    • David A. says:

      Actually, ATM, I think “Warm-ist” is more appropriate (similar to “Islam-ist”)

      • Louis Hunt says:

        Except they now say that climate change also causes extreme cold weather events, so maybe “alarmists” is a better name for them.

        • Louis, lern something before it’s too late! Your embrace of ignorance may leave you feeling chilled, but the measurements (data) from around the world speak to the overall warming, and the worldwide disruption of weather patterns.

          you’re stuck in the bubble so it is understandably difficult for you to view a clear picture of the world, but the biggest moneyed interests are investing in your confusion, while the scientists (greedy bastards) are attempting to let reality shine through.

          may you and your fellow cult-of-conservatism followers awaken in time to realize your own folly.

        • philjourdan says:

          “lern something”

          lern[sic] something? 😆 Can you talk intelligently?

        • There isn’t one shred of evidence that the climate is any worse than in the past. Your belief system is based on superstition.

          In the 16th century, climate alarmists burned 30,000 witches for “cooking the weather.” You are just as dense as they were.


          Please, prove me wrong as you’ve so inaccurately proven your other assertions.

          I am not murdering witches, but you are spreading lies without the technical background to make sense of them. Not to mention your outrageous comparison of a true internet comment with murder — good on ya.

          You should be ashamed of distorting reality to spoon-feed your confused, under-educated readership.

        • _Jim says:

          A link to material at the SS website; by the moons of Saturn, it’s got to be true!

        • jimmie boy, the “www…” part just shows you WHERE to look — the good stuff is in the details.

          Details, of course require that you read them, *think*, (and here’s the big one) COMPREHEND.

          In this case, Mr. Goddard was so eager to show an ice increase, he woefully distorted what the data shows (an ice decrease). And those who know more than the people on THIS WP page, showed him that he was utterly wrong.

          But for you, ignore the details! Back to worldnetdaily, where the juicy stuff resides!!

        • philjourdan says:

          The WWW does not to that. Many sites (the one you are on) has no “www”. The WWW is a hold over from the creation of the (wait for it) WORLD WIDE WEB. It is not a requirement.


        • _Jim says:

          … and still, by the moons of Saturn, it’s got to be true!

        • _Jim says:

          chuck H (@Tapasap) says May 9, 2014 at 5:18 pm

          Back to worldnetdaily, where the juicy stuff resides!!

          You can head back there. I’ve not yet finished going completely through “Radiation in the Atmosphere” by Zdunkowski, Trautmann, Bott.

          This book presents the theory and applications of radiative transfer in the atmosphere. It is written for graduate students and researchers in the fields of meteorology and related sciences. The book begins with important basic definitions of the radiative transfer theory. It presents the hydrodynamic derivation of the radiative transfer equation and the principles of variance. The authors examine in detail various quasi-exact solutions of the radiative transfer equation and give a thorough treatment of the radiative perturbation theory. A rigorous treatment of Mie scattering is given, including Rayleigh scattering as a special case, and the important efficiency factors for extinction, scattering and absorption are derived. The fundamentals of remote sensing applications of radiative transfer are presented. Problems of varying degrees of difficulty are included at the end of each chapter, so readers can further their understanding of the materials covered in the book.

          You can educate yourself, too, by reading a copy from here or buy a hard-copy from:

          But I know you prefer the spoon-feeding they do at the SS site, so I guess you will be headed back there shortly rather than the WND site …

      • Gore SChakra says:

        My favorite is Warm-monger.

        • Greatmag says:


        • transrp says:

          OK… So, where, exactly, is the Pro Dahmer group?

          I find it interesting that even though you had to reach out to such extremes of human behavior — generally a group that is welcomed by few people and make no known contributions to society — for an example, you still got it wrong. By your own words, there is no Pro Dahmer group. I could be wrong about that, but my time is way to valouable to spend researching such a subject. I mean it might come in handy during a zombie apocalypse, but I am not expecting that.

        • philjourdan says:

          where, exactly, is the Pro Dahmer group?

          This is a demonstration of your lack of intelligence. This “thread’ was started by a comment by Colorado:

          Everybody hates Jeffrey Dahmer.

          YOU then chimed in:

          Are you claiming that there are two sides in the Jeffrey Dahmer situation? A sort of pro-canibal group?

          Nowhere did ANYONE (except you) claim a “Pro Dahmer” group. Straw man much?

    • Al D says:

      Did you notice that the globe began cooling the moment carbon copies started being phased out?

      • Carbona was banned in the 1970’s when they found out that CCl4 was toxic, and the globe started cooling. Then the Ramones recorded “Carbona Not Glue” in the late 70’s and global warming started again.

    • Winston says:

      Can’t wait to hear their spin on it. They’re good for a laugh.

    • Jeff Crowder says:

      They will simply ignore it.

    • Stan Lippmann says:

      Warmunist Greenos!

  7. philjourdan says:

    Until they fudge the numbers.

  8. Sue says:

    I think we are lucky to have global warming. Think how cold it would have been without it

  9. cico says:

    But, but the ” scientists” who receive 2.6 billion dollars in Fed Grants are claiming global warming…grrr I mean climate change ..grrr I mean climate dysfunction

  10. David says:

    It was so cold this winter, the Democrats had both their hands in my wallet pocket.

    • Al D says:

      And when they pass that carbon tax, they’ll also have a foot where the sun don’t shine. That still leaves them with another foot to jam down our throats to shut us up for good.

      • Robis says:

        If the climate is truly under assault as is implied, we won’t be able to tax our way out of it. consider this: some experts claim man has been adversely impacting the climate for 250 years. So lets look at things 250 years ago, back about 1765. The world population then was about 600 million about 1/2 of China alone now. And these 600 million must have had a lower carbon footprint than folks today. With the world population pushing past 8 billion carbon hungry humans, we’d need to cut average carbon footprint 10 or maybe even 20 fold just to get to the beginning of the problem. Taxes won’t solve anything, only population control. So imagine a US population of say 10-20 million because that is where we might need to be.

        • R. de Haan says:

          Nope, carbon footprint is total BS.
          This carbon planet with a massive carbon cycle during an interglacial can easily feed and support a population of 20 billion.
          We have sufficient resources and (real) new technology and trade will enable comfortable lives for all.

          The reality is that we never reach a population of 20 billion.
          Most nations suffer from population decline and that’s the problem for now, too many older people relying on a relative small group of working people and an elite who believes the garbage from the Club of Rome stating we require Global Governance to centrally control all our resources, our lands, our financial systems, our economies and human kind as a species. Maybe your world, not mine.

          Now if you really think (believe) we have too many people on the planet, get a gun and shoot yourself.

          But realize we now have the technology to to grow foods, generate power and live comfortably even through an ice age.

          All we need is to do is to generate wealth because poverty is what turns life on this planet into a hell.

        • Robis says:

          But de Haan, even if your right, who wants to live in a world like that, seeing how many we can cram in ?

  11. Cold is the new warm

  12. earnst says:

    The Algorythms said we’d have extreme weather.

  13. Steve M. from TN says:

    You obviously have not massaged and tortured the data to get it to tell you what you want to hear…that this is the hottest year on record

  14. I remember reading an article on Global Warming in the Washington Post on Earth Day 1970 – and the author predicted that by 2000, the temperature would rise 7 to 10 degrees, the polar ice would melt and half the country would be underwater 🙂

  15. Sojourner Truth says:

    Who would have thought that “progressives” could even politicize the weather? Sexual perversion will probably be next. Oh, I that’s right, they already did that.

  16. Me NotYou says:

    Burning American embassies contributed to global warming which caused this cooling which will kill us all

  17. you-awl in the coast area– is giong to drowned by high sea waters caused by burning coal– that made them ole polar caps to melt– this flood of waters ran back up rivers for 200 miles– NY city shall be under water by 2013– you-uns in the center parts of america shall be scorched-n- dried up and blown away—— dad-gum-it– I forgeets — now that it is climate change– you-yuns is going to freeze to death cause polar vortex is going to swoop down and get you— sorry fur my mistake– I be not real smart likens you fellers that trust science– who jobs depend on research funds to solve a problem— I’sss be dumb enough to look out the winder at the weather– anyways all you-yunes need to worry all you kans– ok !!

    • 40 years ago, I was born at around 1200′ above sea level. Now I’m only 200′ above sea level. That’s 25′ per year of sea-level rise. Obviously this is caused by global warming, & by the time I’m 15,000 years old, I’ll be more than 70 miles under water.

  18. Dave D. says:

    I was on a ranger tour in Yosemite in 1973. The ranger told us that because of human-caused global cooling, we could see glaciers advancing back into Yosemite Valley within our lifetime.

  19. Steve McFadden says:

    Please don’t tell algore about this.

  20. fhjohnsonjr says:

    Interesting comments and shows the degree of trust and belief in global warming. Send the comments to the serial liar obama.

  21. paprtowl says:

    caused by global warming , climate change , minimal contribution from man , of course china is exempt from the kyoto treaty

  22. David Bollig says:

    You drudge report idiots go to the NOAAA site and look at 2013 world temperatures. Drudge never show anything that reinforces global warming.

  23. Eagle0841 says:

    Climate cultists and religionists must have read 1984.
    “War is peace.
    Freedom is slavery.
    Ignorance is strength.”
    Cold is Warm
    Warm is Cold

  24. naughtonjj says:

    Buy some property a couple hundred miles inland in Siberia. AlgoreObama say it will be valuable beachfront property in 5 five years.

  25. Richard_Iowa says:

    Still running the furnace at night here in Iowa.

  26. Eagle0841 says:

    Cold is Global Warming
    Hot is Global Warming

    “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
    ― George Orwell, 1984

    • IThinkIReadILearn says:

      A Japanese TV show in the 1960s had a thief named “Goodbye-Joe” who would chant:

      “What’s mine is mine, what’s your’s is mine.”

      Not too far from the doublethink of today…

    • FreedomFromFacts says:

      Like many many things and out of control car may careen in a ditch and also swerve across the median. It isn’t doublethink to accept that the car is both going into the ditch and crossing the median the opposite way. This destabilization causing extremes has nothing whatsoever to do with what Orwell was saying which can only be applied to beliefs which the laws of the physical universe are oblivious to.

  27. JJR67 says:

    I have been driving the gas guzzling carbon emitting suburban just to help with the cold temperatures and introduce some global warming to the USA.

  28. David Bollig says:

    Wood for trees graph, huh, they warn you of cherry picking data but you don’t give a shit as long as you can create a graph that supports your claims. I bet Rush Limbaugh is your chief scientific source.

    • Bob says:

      And, Al Gore is your chief scientist?

      • D.A. Terry says:

        Al Gore was barely a C student at Yale and the FLUNKED OUT of both Law School and Divinity School at Vanderbilt. He is a moron with ZERO intellectual credibility. The only people more stupid than Al Gore are the people who have made him richer, believing his unsubstantiated and easily refuted alarmist nonsense.

    • RSS satellite data is the most accurate source of global temperature data. You are completely clueless.

    • Dave N says:

      “they warn you of cherry picking data but you don’t give a shit as long as you can create a graph that supports your claims”

      Alarmist irony abounds.

      Having said that, it would be nonsensical to support a claim of “no warming for 17 years” with a graph that shows anything other than temperatures for the last 17 years. That’s also the thing about it being “the last 17 years”; the graph can’t extend beyond that, since future temperatures haven’t happened yet, unless you’re an alarmist.

    • Tom says:

      Ah the pavlovian response of the warmmonger when faced by a graph. is simply an online database that houses all the major climatate data sets. Satalite temperature data like UAH and RSS, and surface data like CRU and GISS. I also has other data sets like solar, CO2 , the PDO index, arctic and ant arctic ice.

      There no bias to it its just a queryable database. If you want to act like a dog and attack something when you don’t even know what it is then the rest of us will treat you like an ignorant dog.

      • Dave N says:

        “Ah the pavlovian response of the warmmonger when faced by a graph”

        The irony being that many alarmists use the same source, typically cherry-picking a start date of the 70’s, or leaving out RSS, HADCRUT etc, etc.

        • Tom says:

          Actually if you have noticed that have pretty much stopped using the interface. They still grab the data from there but the instead choose to make the graph in house. With how long “the pause” has continued its become harder and harder to message the data using the interface to get the “right answer”. The interface clearly tells the reader everything that was done to the data in the upper left hand corner.

          This is too much transparency for your average warmmonger.

    • IThinkIReadILearn says:

      David, deal with the facts. The alarmists are paid to say what they say. The alarmists are falsifying data and calling it “true”. The alarmists are statistically wrong. The alarmists are trying to gain political power as their primary goal. The alarmists don’t respect the Constitution or the rule of law or the social contract we already have. Where does that leave you?

    • philjourdan says:

      I bet a vegetable is yours.

  29. Tom Swift says:

    I for one am not afraid to use the “N” word. Narcissist, there I said it. Exactly what our beloved Obammer is.

    • _Jim says:

      That’s actually a subset of sociopathic (and pathological?) behavior; which I think is a better fit for a clinical diagnoses overall …

  30. David Bollig says:

    This is my last post as there is no one here who might actually look up the facts behind this RSS anamoly and will actually find a reason for it. But that would not work for the same reason there are like minded individuals who believe dinosaurs roamed the earth with early man. There are so few data points supporting deniers claims that what few there are are endlessly repeated, long past the point where they have been shown to be skewed, erroneous, or used in a missleading fashion. It has been depressing. Good luck in your continued bliss.

    • Spamf Roming says:

      Good-bye to you then, sir.

      If you want a minimum of data points then please look to Mann’s hockey stick. This total fraud, which kicked off the entire AGW nut job factory was a collection of loosely-cobbled-together proxy measurements, consisting of a few tree-rings in Siberia, a few ice-core readings, and a lot of made-up numbers. Then this was attached to actual temperature readings from the first half of the 20th century, which of course were not as thorough or accurate as modern-day satellite readings. And throw in some fudged numbers from East Anglia (you know, where the ClimateGate emails said they would “hide the decline” using a “trick”), and voila! You have the entire Global Warming theory summed up for you using almost no data at all!

      But you go off and have your self-righteous hissy fit. You won’t be missed.

    • _Jim says:

      RSS anamoly?

      What about UAH?

    • _Jim says:

      There are so few data points supporting deniers claims that what few there are are endlessly repeated,

      And _your_ claims (for CAGW et al) and the underlying basis for making them are _____ ???


      Is that it?

    • Robert says:

      Another exacerbated Believer, where the data does not support is Belief system.

    • Does cutting and pasting mindless alarmist nonsense make you feel good about your intellectual void?

    • Wyguy says:

      Thank God, bye.

    • Dave N says:

      In case you decide to stay:

      “This is my last post as there is no one here who might actually look up the facts behind this RSS anamoly and will actually find a reason for it.”

      I guess you mean “anomaly”, but alarmists often find it hard to spell. What anomaly? Between RSS and datasets like GISS?

      “There are so few data points supporting deniers claims that what few there are are endlessly repeated, long past the point where they have been shown to be skewed, erroneous, or used in a missleading fashion. It has been depressing.”

      You might like to look up Einsteins comment about how much it takes to prove something to be wrong.

      • Gregg W says:

        One. Basic theorem testing fundamental. A theory, remains a theory, however long it takes to identify one reproducible exception. At which point the theorem is proven false.

    • philjourdan says:

      And the coward runs with his tail tucked between his legs.

      Part of your problem is your lack of intelligence. You do not think, you merely assume. And when shown to be wrong, you present no facts, you whine like a spoiled child.

      Typical liberal.

  31. pedro fatagras says:

    Nooooooo. Algore says its hot!! And to send more money.

  32. willys36 says:

    it’s all George Bush’s fault.

  33. Must be all that Global Warming, oops, I mean Climate Change, oops, I mean Climate Disruption. It’s hard to keep up with the correct terminology with this Administration.

  34. efeteam says:

    Snowing right now in Laramie, Wyoming with a 70% chance of snow for the weekend.

  35. Linda G. says:

    it doesn’t matter weather to democrats is climate change same thing , but Democrats figured away to make money off the weather and fool the chicken little’s and sheep.

  36. biglouie15 says:

    According to our version of Kim Jung Il (the smartest person that ever lived), we must not believe our own eyes but believe whatever he says is true. He has proclaimed a war on MMGW and nobody must disagree. This pathological liar will not stop until he has destroyed America.

  37. m says:

    Put Al Sharpton on his own network and the hot will keeps us nice n toasty in the Winter.

  38. Al D says:

    When we look at all the information related to the earth’s early atmosphere before and after cyanobacteria spread throughout the globe, we begin to realize how powerful an influence CO2-breathing bacteria alone have had and will continue to have on the planet. Bacteria and plant life will continue their balancing act with CO2 and methane levels. Don’t let short term spikes in these gases alarm you.

    Most “warmists” sucked in by Al Gore and Bill Nye will smarten up after a few brutal winters and data showing yearly increases in the thickening of polar ice caps. They’ll begin listening to warnings about the climate changes the upcoming mini-ice age will bring. A few decades from now, we’ll be wishing we never made such a rapid transition from fossil fuels to cleaner, safer energy sources like solar panels, thorium reactors, and perhaps fusion reactors.

    The Vostok ice core data is cyclical and stretches back over 400,000 years. It reveals that we are on the verge of a long-term cooling trend. The data also reveals the effects of the earth’s axial wobble as well as its varying elliptical orbit around the sun.

    Add up the complexity of the earth/sun relationship, the sun’s varying activity, volcanic activity, water vapor, bacteria activity, plant life, meteor strikes, and you can see how little effect the burning of fossil fuels has had and will have on both warming and cooling trends.

    • Gregg W says:

      :). Basically, when I was a kid growing up, we called it “the weather”. Sometimes it rains. Sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes it’s beastly hot. Sometimes it’s not. Leave to control freaque egomaniacs to believe they can control the weather of the world…

      • Gregg W says:

        Good heavens… I’m being moderated. Let me try a sanitized version.

        Basically, when I was a kid growing up, we called it “the weather”. Sometimes it rains. Sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes it’s beastly hot. Sometimes it’s not. Leave it to individuals with a high need to control their surroundings to believe that they can control the weather…

  39. James the Elder says:

    David Bollig says:
    May 8, 2014 at 9:04 pm
    This is my last post as there is no one here who might actually look up the facts behind this RSS anamoly and will actually find a reason for it. But that would not work for the same reason there are like minded individuals who believe dinosaurs roamed the earth with early man. There are so few data points supporting deniers claims that what few there are are endlessly repeated, long past the point where they have been shown to be skewed, erroneous, or used in a missleading fashion. It has been depressing. Good luck in your continued bliss.

    Enjoy the cold, you Mokele-mbembe denier.

    • Paulus says:

      What, pray tell, is an anamoly? Some kind of extinct animal, killed in ancient times by global disruption? You believers are insane.

  40. Al D says:

    Why is “climate change” suddenly THE priority of the left? They want that carbon tax before enough of us wise up to the FACT that we are now in a COOLING trend. They’re panicking!

    Look at it this way: There has been zero warming in the last decade or so. If not for man, that chart would better show the natural cooling trend we have been in for quite a while. Well, in the near future, that cooling trend will show up despite man’s release of greenhouse gasses – despite all those cow farts. By the year 2050, we’ll probably be looking for ways to warm the planet. Climate change is funny that way.

    • _Jim says:

      Why is “climate change” suddenly THE priority of the left? They want that carbon tax before enough of us wise up to the FACT that we are now in a COOLING trend. They’re panicking!

      They (the left) needed a ‘wedge issue’ to drive otherwise top-tier (a lot of ppl in different scientific arenas buy into it, for instance, since the idea is just palatable enough on the surface to win a ‘sale’ … just don’t dig too far beneath the surface!) people apart. It has been somewhat self-propagating now that Billions in government has been spent in one-sided studies considering only ONE outcome (WARMING) given what they think are all variables.

  41. This is all due to global cooling that they harped on in the 1970’s. No, wait, I mean global warming. I mean climate change (since we are dealing with cooling now)… and the latest term I heard just yesterday… ‘climate disruption’. So pay up people… one of these problems is YOUR fault. Feel guilty RIGHT NOW and PAY UP!!!!

    • _Jim says:

      Yes … ‘pay up’, regardless. There is no end to our profligate spending, our insatiable appetite for the good things in life (French wines, Russian caviar), and our ultimate desire to control each facet of your life. So we can have more. Resources are not a zero sum game you say? We can make it so, through control and regulation, through licensing and permitting, and ‘leases’ let on public lands.

    • tom0mason says:

      Your SUV sins are forgiven ….
      Papal indulgences anyone?

  42. Photos of Colorado’s recent “Global Cooling” can be seen here –

  43. Andrew says:

    I guess no one showed the weather Obama’s global warming report.

  44. Al D says:

    In all seriousness, warming and cooling trends aren’t problems that can be solved. All we can do is adjust to them. Excessive pollution, on the other hand, is a problem we can and must solve.

  45. Alert!!! Alert!!! Alert!!! From Democrat Headquarters: All democrats and supporters here and abroad, we must flood the media with hysterical global warming alarms to take the heat off Dem candidates in the November 2014 and 2016 elections due to the train wreck of Obamacare! Shout, scream, cry, make outlandish claims and don’t stop till after the elections!!! Alert!!! Alert!!! Alert!!!

  46. muzikjock says:

    It is incredible to me that anyone believes this fictitious phenomenon. As being in the HVAC industry, I have noticed illogical and contradictory thought processes in the way the science is reported. On the one hand, as of 5 years ago, on a 30lb bottle of R-22(Chlorodifluoromethane ), it stated that Freon was heavier than air, posing a health hazard if inhaled, even death. On the same bottle, in another panel on the same package, contained another warning listing Freon as believed to destroying the upper ozone atmosphere, therefore being a potential environmental hazard…i began to think….how can a substance that is heavier than air destroy the UPPER ozone? hmm…lets depart from that logical anomilee for a moment, and address this contradiction: so then dupont rolls out R-410A(a combination of difluoromethane and pentafluoroethane), marketed by Carrier as “Puron”…the environmentally safe refrigerant…hmmmm. I then was forced to be certified to handle this new refrigerant, and upon the end of the certification class, i posed this question to the instructor: “If 410A is so environmentally safe, why then do we still have to recover it? why can’t we vent it if its safe? …I got laughed at and patted on the shoulder and they walked away…not answering my question…so…in conclusion, though i didn’t get an answer, by their not answering, i got my answer: IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENVIRONMENT….DUPONT NOR ANY OTHER CORPORATIST GIVES A DAMN ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT…ITS ABOUT THE MONEY!…PATENTS ARE ONLY GOOD FOR SO LONG..AFTERWARDS, ANYONE CAN PRODUCE THE CHEMICAL AND SELL IT…SO, PAY SOMEONE TO DO SOME R&D TO PROVE THAT THE STUFF HARMS THE ATMOSPHERE, PERSUADE THE GOVT THAT IT IS HARMFUL AND THEN YOU HAVE CONTROL AND ELIMINATION OF AN OBSOLETE CHEMICAL(IF YOU PAY SOMEONE ENOUGH MONEY YOU CAN GET THEM TO AGREE TO ANYTHING). DUPONT LOST THEIR PATENT ON R-12 , GOT IT BANNED FOR PRODUCTION IN THE US, THEN PUMPED OUT THE NEW R-134A. SAME THING HAPPENED TO R-22. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENVIRONMENT, ITS ABOUT THE BENJAMINS!….ITS CONTROL, BABY…THIS GLOBAL WARMING BULL CRAP IS MUCH THE SAME…ABOUT CONTROL AND THE STEALING OF PROPERTY AND WEALTH FROM THOSE WHO HAVE IT TO THOSE WHO WANT IT. ITS WEALTH REDISTIBUTION. CALL IT WHAT YOU WANT…ITS A LIE. ONLY, IF YOU CALL IT GLOBAL WARMING, YOU CAN FEEL HONORED AND WILLING BEING TAXED FOR IT WHILE YOU ARE GETTING SCREWED IN THE ARSE.

    • Gamecock says:

      You are a liar, sir. Dupont was pushed into ditching Freon. I know; I was there.

      • Bradenton Bob says:

        If you were there then you must be able to answer the first question posed. If R-22 is heavier than air how did it reach the upper atmosphere and destroy the ozone. Waiting for you answer.

      • muzikjock says:

        yeah, i believe that….the most powerful corporation in the world, pushed into something…lol..unbelievable. what ever…believe what you want…i happen to know, if 410A was so environmentally friendly, we wouldnt still have to recover it… tell it to someone else who believes you? the only answer that makes sense is “follow the money”

        • Shazaam says:

          I hear ya….. Fascinating how 17 years after R-12 was ditched for eating upper atmosphere ozone (and I also thought that was a bogus claim for such a heavy gas), suddenly R134a is now “bad” and we need a newer, greener refrigerant.

          And it’s likely only a coincidence that refrigerants suddenly become environmentally “bad” only after their patents have expired…..

          Just a coincidence, nothing to see here, move along and pay-up.

        • _Jim says:

          And it’s likely only a coincidence that refrigerants suddenly become environmentally “bad” only after their patents have expired…..

          You will find, if you actually do your research, that the common “R-12” (dichlorodifluro whatever) refrigerant patent expired, long, long ago.

          And I’ll bet you 100 dollars that you can’t locate the original R-12 patent (or patent number) either … (few people can)

        • Shazaam says:

          I was referring to the newer stuff. R134a forward. And it could be a coincidence after all….. Since no one really knows…..

          R-12/FREON was indeed a very stable compound that operated at relatively low pressures (compared to the short-lived R410 stuff anyway) resulting in less expensive refrigeration equipment that lasted for ridiculously long times…..

        • muzikjock says:

          ok, here’s the truth: 410A is crap. it has an operating saturation temperature table at about twice the pressures of r-22, which makes it more suseptable to leaks, and it also is a blended refrigerant which makes it less efficient a refrigerant… much so, that in order to charge a system properly, you have to charge it in a liquid(invert the bottle) so that it blends well enough to start working. it takes roughly 20 minutes of running an a/c with r-410A before the system starts stablizing well enough to even know if you got a proper charge on the system…and i havent even begun to talk about the refigerant oil that it comes charged with…..which is known to be a moisture magnet….something you DO NOT want in a refrigerant system….so you also have to vacuum the system for quite a bit longer than r-22 just to make sure you arent contaminating a system with non-condensibles… short 410A IS A BUNCH OF CRAP…ANYONE ELSE WANT TO CHALLENGE ME ON REFRIGERANTS?

      • muzikjock says:

        and…if you were there, you would also know they weren’t forced into ditching Freon…Freon is still alive and well…..Freon is a trade mark and patented name for refrigerant….which is still used….but of course you knew that…you were there lol

        • _Jim says:

          ” you would also know they weren’t forced into ditching Freon ”

          That’s not correct; explain why the alternatives are now used in automobiles for instance …

      • muzikjock says:

        dude i work with the stuff every day. Freon is a patented name by Dupont for one else can use that name for refrigerant but Dupont. lol. “…. The trade name Freon ® is a registered trademark belonging to E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (DuPont)…..” from “”. if you need a source…but again, you don’t …CAUSE YOU WERE THERE! LOL

        • _Jim says:

          When was so-called ‘freon’ originally patented?

        • muzikjock says:

          @ jim….freon was patented in the 20’s and 30’s ….it was a collaborated work between GM, Dupont, and carrier. it was originally patented as a replacement for refrigerants that were deadly….mainly ammonia and the like….so they came up with cfc’s as an inert replacement. i guess you can say it was the “environmentally clean” alternative of the time. lol. i guess 60 years had to pass before the corporatists and the tree huggers decided it wasnt good enough anymore, wonder why? lol. im just sayin.

        • muzikjock says:

          i just can’t wait for them to decide that “puron” is not all that pure, and out of the clear blue……they need another refrigerant …..but by then, the ones who remember the “puron” slogan will be dead or won’t remember the propaganda that was pushed to get everyone on board for 410A lol.

        • from “”. if you need a source

          You’re sort of a self-refuting kind of idiot, aren’t you? I mean, I normally use something reliable like or … just saying *wink wink* *nudge nudge*.

        • _Jim says:

          re: muzikjock says May 9, 2014 at 4:52 am
          @ jim….freon was patented in the 20′s and 30′s

          Just seeing/checking how ‘sane’ you are, and if you are in possession of at least a bare minimum of fact on this issue …

          Now, are you able to point to the specific patent involving the invention of ‘freon’? (I can)

          Simply ‘working’ with the stuff daily doesn’t mean diddly.

        • _Jim says:

          re: muzikjock says May 9, 2014 at 4:52 am
          … it was originally patented as a replacement for refrigerants that were deadly …

          This is not the ‘settled’ science you make it out to be. You have read the ‘pop’ or popular culture reasons that were attributed years after the fact, but, in the contemporary (during the time) years around the invention of freon that was not the sole, lone reason (again, that is your claim) for the invention of freon.

          REFRIGERANTS: IT AIN’T NECESSARILY SO By Carmen J. Giunta, Le Moyne College

          Click to access v31-2%20p66-74.pdf

          This generally applicable paragraph buried towards the end of the above document is particularly applicable regards the misconception you have been ‘taught’ regarding freon being designed solely to replace the other gases used at the time:

          Getting the facts correct would seem to be an uncontroversial prerequisite for writing history, whether for a scholarly or a general audience. Without factual accuracy, judgments and interpretations will be suspect; and even factual accuracy does not guarantee correct interpretation. What is one to do when the facts are complicated or uncertain? Many writers for a general audience are not expert historical researchers. They have little choice but to rely on the most reliable products of such researchers, distilling and condensing as appropriate.

      • muzikjock says:

        AND ….WHILE YOU ARE HERE, any other “truths” you wanna clear up? lol or did i pretty much cover it?

        • Yeah, did you eat paint as a child, or did you do so as an adult?

        • muzikjock says:

          @ stark Dickflussig: dude, you are talking about freemasons coverting freon into thermite to take down the wtc….and you are asking me if I ate paint ? lol. wow….i don’t know about paint, but i would like some of that stuff you’re smokin…must be good chit

        • No, you’re just stupid, but thanks for playing. Your going-away prize is a hamburger made of paint chips, you idiot.

        • _Jim says:

          Stark Dickflüssig, muzikjock is providing a wonderful example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

          We should thank him for the effort in this avenue of behavior.

    • The Freemasons converted freon into thermite to topple the WTC. Dude.

    • _Jim says:

      ” As being in the HVAC industry ”

      Being in the HVAC industry and having any awareness of the intricacies of the patent and trademark systems are two entirely different things.

      As are having any accurate knowledge why certain freons where phased out for use in the US.

    • _Jim says:

      re: muzikjock says May 9, 2014 at 12:38 am

      As subsequently determined, the patent involving “R-12” expired long ago (in the 1950’s). There were also some number of follow-on patents concerning processes for the manufacture of ‘freon’, but these do not preclude the sale or use of ‘freon’ by others as was described in the original patent once that original patent expired.

      Please, don’t propagate this myth about “R-12” any longer.


  47. Ratbite says:

    What about 1816, the year without a summer??

  48. Danthree says:

    Where is “THE WIZARD of GORE”??? Where is THE WIZARD???

    • Shazaam says:

      Your best chance of siting “big Al” would be to hand around the $1000 a plate fundraisers in Mordor-on-the-Potomac.

  49. iambicpentamaster says:

    “Coldest Year On Record So Far In The US”

    That’s one inconvenient truth.

  50. voiceofreasonoriginal says:

    the coldest year on record must be due to global warming, right?

  51. Jack Frost says:

    Don’t fret folks. When “common core” kicks in we’ll all know what to think and when to think it. Surely there’s a “common core” section dealing with “politically correct science”.

  52. Chris Long says:

    Like, does this mean the scientific debate is over?

  53. Dave says:

    It’s a good thing we have that global warming going on….. Otherwise it would be really cold!

  54. Ralph says:

    It’s just fine here in beautiful Camarillo,Ca.. usual weather is 70 and sunny. That hasn’t changed at all.

  55. Mike Herman says:

    This is why “global warming” morphed into “climate change”. Whatever happens lets the Gore-bies say “See? I told you so.”

  56. SP Looker says:

    I carry a nice rotten piece of fruit in a tupperware container so the next time i hear or see a climate
    liar, no matter where we meet, im going to honor that person with a piece of fruit that sends the respect i have for greivous psychotic liars

  57. tlarremore says:

    Reblogged this on Head Space and commented:
    Climate Disruption Assessment

  58. Gary Novak says:

    Scientific Fraud at the Origins of Modern Global Warming Science

    From Gary Novak
    Independent Scientist

    All foundation publications for global warming use modeling, because real science cannot be applied to the complexities of climate. This means there is no data. Modeling does not produce data. It takes measurements to produce data.

    At the origins of modern global warming science was a request in by the Office of Science and Technology Policy to create a study group for answering questions about global warming. The result was a publication by Charney et al, 1979 (1), determining the expected temperature increase upon doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. The group used modeling for the determination.

    Modeling is not science, and the results were not described in an honest manner. Mockeries were supposedly modeled, such as “horizontally diffusive heat exchange.” There is no such thing. Snow cover and light reflected from it were supposedly modeled for the next century, while weathermen cannot predict snow cover two weeks in advance (As Atlanta showed).

    No Starting Point for Heat Produced by Carbon Dioxide

    Modeling requires a concept of how much heat carbon dioxide should produce. A number for heat must be fed into the model, or there is nothing to model. But that quantity was the end result of the modeling by Charney et al rather than the starting point. What can be modeled without the influence of carbon dioxide?

    A Mechanism Could not be Described

    This occurred because there is no concept in climatology for a mechanism that produces heat from carbon dioxide. Early on, a mechanism near ground level was assumed, but it didn’t stand up to evaluation, so the concept shifted to high in the atmosphere, which is even more absurd.

    There is no way to get heat radiated back to the surface from high up. Half of the radiation would go upward rather than downward; only 30% of the radiation, at most, would go around greenhouse gases to get to the surface; and about 70% of the radiation would be absorbed into the oceans, where heat accumulates for thousands of years between ice ages. All in all, at least 24°C temperature increase would be required high in the atmosphere to heat the lower atmosphere by 1°C, while no temperature increase high in the atmosphere due to carbon dioxide has been detected. (

    What Really Happens

    Global warming does not exist and is not scientifically credible. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is so low that all biology is on the verge of becoming extinct due to a shortage of CO2 which is needed for photosynthesis. There was twenty times as much CO2 in the atmosphere when modern photosynthesis evolved. Oceans continuously absorb CO2 and convert it into calcium carbonate and limestone. The calcium never runs out, and the pH of the oceans never drops below 8.1 for this reason. It’s the pH which calcium carbonate buffers at. If not, why hasn’t four billion years been long enough to get there?

    The planet is cooled by radiation which goes around greenhouse gases, not through them. Cooling results in an equilibrium temperature which is independent of how heat gets into the atmosphere. It means greenhouse gases have no influence upon the temperature of the planet.

    The Erroneous Assumption

    The primary error is the assumption that global temperature is determined by how the planet is heated rather than cooled. Not so. The heat is everything that the sun adds to the earth. How the heat is moved around is irrelevant. A jar of pickles will absorb radiation, but it doesn’t heat the planet.

    If the rate of heat leaving were the “delicate balance” which is claimed, nothing about it would be stable. To think life lucked out at 180 or 280 parts per million CO2 is stupidity. The temperature changes by at least 5°C between each ice age, which occurs every 100 thousand years.

    All major forces in nature equilibrate. They change until they can’t change anymore, which is equilibrium.

    Science Requires Measurements and Standards

    Science isn’t just anything that complex studies can do. It must achieve an expected result of reliability in determining basic reality. The reliability is totally dependent upon the procedures and standards. Why are we told the science is settled, when there was no reliability in the methods used? Reliability is not in the virtues and infallibility of scientists. Charlatans could provide plenty of that. Science is a more credible way of creating reliability.

    Only measurement of evidence in reproducible form will produce the reliability that science is expected to have. Achieving this result in the complexities of supposed global warming is so far removed from existing science that no attempt has been made along such lines, while modeling is used as a substitute.

    Climate Science cannot achieve the Claimed Results

    Real science cannot be produced for climatology beyond miniscule effects. Science is unreachable for climatology due to the infinite complexity and randomness. Weathermen cannot predict more than a few days with the most rudimentary concepts of temperature and precipitation for the same reasons. Climate is weather extended farther into the future. Climatologists cannot reach into the distant future any more than weathermen can.

    Yet modelers pretend to have every detail which influences temperature evaluated for the next hundred years. This includes such effects as the amount of snow cover and light reflected from it. They didn’t know how much snow there would be this winter (2013-14) more than a few days in advance. How then can they predict the same thing for the next century? Their claims are nothing but fakery.

    The pretense/assumption is that long-term averaging is totally subject to analysis. Wrong. Long-term effects include as much complexity and randomness as short-term effects, as shown by historical graphs which include endless up and down spikes. The fake hockey stick graph showed a straight-line history, which did not include a “Medieval Warm Period” and “Little ice Age.” Rationalizers said those effects occurred only in the Northern Hemisphere. To get an unchanging average, the opposite would have had to occur in the Southern Hemisphere. Implicit is something holding the average constant, while nothing but CO2 induces average change. Long-term graphs show there are no straight lines. Are repeated ice ages every 100 thousand years an unchanging average?

    Modelers Start at the End Point

    Modelers of global warming start at the end point with a desired result of 3°C temperature increase upon doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They then pretend to have a scientific method of arriving at that result. But complexities are so far removed from their analysis that they cannot produce a consistent explanation of how they derive the result.

    The publication of Charney et al, 1979, vaguely describes various elements of atmospheric effects which were evaluated with no explanation of actual methodology. Without a methodology being described, no scientific criticism of procedures is possible. All real science requires at least enough methodology being describe to allow other scientists to evaluate the results. In climatology, such standards do not exist in foundation publications.

    For example, Charney et al listed endless atmospheric effects which they modeled, while most of the effects are nonexistent and incoherent, such as “horizontally diffusive heat exchange,” which doesn’t exist in the atmosphere. Heat balance was supposedly entered into the model, while heat balance does not exist in the atmosphere, because heat is transformed into other forms of energy such as radiation in varied ways, while total energy equilibrates through radiation.

    Historical Temperature was Used by Hansen et al

    Later modeling by Hansen et al, 1984, 1988, (2,3) attempted to start with a concept of how much heat carbon dioxide should produce, while the modeling was then used to evaluate secondary effects, mostly water vapor which would supposedly increase and add twice as much heat as the primary effect by carbon dioxide. Hansen et al stated that “empirical observation” was used to determine the primary effect by carbon dioxide, by which they meant the assumed historical record. One problem is that the historical record would include secondary effects, which means they compounded the secondary effects. Another problem is that real scientists would never assume that historical temperature records are free from natural influences other than carbon dioxide.

    Yet Hansen et al arrived at approximately the same conclusion as Charney et al, that the expected temperature increase upon doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would be about 3°C. This result is always given for hundreds of such studies with widely varying procedures, which shows that it is nothing but a contrived end result with nothing but fakery for a method of deriving it.

    Watts per Square Meter in the Atmosphere

    Another problem with all such attempts to determine how much heat carbon dioxide should produce is that the results are given as watts per square meter. There is no surface in the atmosphere to evaluate in terms of square meters. The result should be stated in terms of cubic meters of mass. Not doing so shows a total lack of concern for scientific legitimacy. In other words, the studies were such a misrepresentation of science from beginning to end that fixing one highly visible problem was not assumed to be relevant.

    Radiative Transfer Equations were Used

    Eventually, Myhre et al, 1998 (4), pretended to make a direct attempt to determine the primary effect of carbon dioxide. They claimed to use “radiative transfer equations.” Those equations were not designed to show heat. They have the purpose of showing how radiation is depleted as concentration of a gas changes. An additional study might evaluate the heat resulting from the radiation, but it would be impossibly complex and was not mentioned. Worst of all, Myhre et al added modeling of atmospheric effects to their study. The obvious reason for including modeled atmospheric effects was to muddle the subject beyond accountability, since radiative transfer equations were vulnerable to criticism. Then they said their study showed earlier studies to only be off by 15%, but their study could not be compared to other studies, because earlier studies could not separate primary effects from secondary effects.

    Where is the Science?

    Wherever global warming is promoted, the pretense or claim is that an underlying science is beyond question. Where is that science? Why aren’t we told what it consists of, if it is so unquestionable? It doesn’t exist.

    It isn’t that global warming has to be there, and scientists have to find a way to represent it. Global warming is not scientifically credible.


    1. Charney, J. G., Arakawa, A., Baker, D., Bolin, B., Dickerso, R., Goody, R., Leith, C., Stommel, H.M. & Wunsch, C.I. 1979 Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. Washington, DC. National Academy of Sciences Press.

    Click to access charney_report.pdf

    2. Hansen, J., A. Cacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy, and J. Lerner, 1984. CLIMATE SENSITIVITY: ANALYSIS OF FEEDBACK MECHANISMS. Geophys. Mono. 29:130-163.

    3. Hansen, J., I. Fung, A. Llacis, D. Rind, S. Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone, 1988. Global Climate Changes as Forcast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Three Dimensional Model. J. Geophys. Res. 93:9341-9364.

    4. Myhre, G., E.J. Highwood, K.P. Shine, and F. Stordal, 1998. New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25:2715-2718.

    Click to access Myhre_1998_New%20eatimates%20of%20radiative%20forcing%20due%20to%20well%20mixed%20greenhouse%20gasses.pdf


    Home Page: Global Warming Contrived from Fraudulent Science (

    This Page: Scientific Fraud at the Origins of Modern Global Warming Science (


    • transrp says:

      I doubt that you have a science degree. I would not be surprised that you ever passed a upper division course in science. If you did, then it must have been at sometjhing like bob jones university.

      I reat this:

      By Gary Novak
      Independent Scientist

      There is an unsolvable problem at the starting point of global warming claims: There is no mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming.

      Carbon dioxide absorbs all infrared radiation available to it by the time radiation travels 10 meters from its point of origin (, which is called saturation. Doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can do nothing more than shorten the distance to 5 meters. Shortening the distance is not increasing the heat.

      It was clearly written by someone who is ignorant of radiation transfer. At one time I thought that you were correct, but I did what scientists do. I did research on the subject, which you, did not do (or if you did, then clearly the science was beyond your ability to understand).

      I would suggest that you research the physics of radiation absorbtion and transfer in the atmosphere, but you clearly do not have the ability to understand the subject. I suspect that is true of almost all of your followers.

        • transrp says:

          Oh cool. I can just cut and paste my previous statement about name calling. Ahhh Name calling. What people do when they have neither facts nor information to support their argument. Now you may claim that I started this, but of course this would be wrong. An appropriate response would have been . Oh yes. Ghe gausian integral. And then explained that you were familiar with it and why you understood it. You might have commented on the null hypothesis and why it is important.

          But the later would be impossible for you since you have no idea what it is or why it is important. This is evidenced by your repeated use of the word proof in your postings. You see, a person who is an actual scientist and understands science also understands that the only thing in science that one can prove is that a theory is false. Theories can not be proven true which is why the null hypothesis is used.

          But I will add to this Steve: Rememver that the internet is forever. In five years when all but a few whack jobs akin to flat earthers are or Gary Novak who knows that all physics is wrong and probably has his own independent trust fund to support him — seriously what person would actually hire him>? you will find it increasing hard to get any serious attention outside of a mental ward. Certainly no employment. Maybe you also have a trust fund?

    • transrp says:

      I doubt that you have a science degree. I would not be surprised that you ever passed a upper division course in science. If you did, then it must have been at sometjhing like bob jones university.

      I reat this:

      By Gary Novak
      Independent Scientist

      There is an unsolvable problem at the starting point of global warming claims: There is no mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming.

      Carbon dioxide absorbs all infrared radiation available to it by the time radiation travels 10 meters from its point of origin (, which is called saturation. Doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can do nothing more than shorten the distance to 5 meters. Shortening the distance is not increasing the heat.

      It was clearly written by someone who is ignorant of radiation transfer. At one time I thought that you were correct, but I did what scientists do. I did research on the subject, which you, did not do (or if you did, then clearly the science was beyond your ability to understand).

      I would suggest that you research the physics of radiation absorbtion and transfer in the atmosphere, but you clearly do not have the ability to understand the subject. I suspect that is true of almost all of your followers.

      One more thing. The internet is forever. So, in another 5 years when we are having ever warmer years and no one except a few very ignorant idiots still thinks this is some grand conspiracy, people will be able to look back and do research and see these posts. I wonder what that will do to your future prospects in any area other than thrid assistant garbage collector.

  59. Serket says:

    If this is the coldest year through May 6th, was 2012 the hottest year through May 6th?

  60. Ralph says:

    Why hasn’t anyone told the President and his scientists? He said he was going to let science rule more in his decisions, remember? They need to factor this new data into their models for more accurate conclusions? I know, I know, he is busy playing golf, taking multimillion dollar vacations with his family, campaigning and doing everything he can to improve jobs (what is it, for 5 years now?). Hey! He is trying, isn’t he? How many times has he said that he is always ready to talk to anyone with new ideas! What are we waiting for?

  61. Mr. Wright says:

    My $10 million dollar Federally Funded Grant to study Climate Change only allows me to produce data that indicates man’s activities on this planet are causing dramatic swings in the climate.

    If I don’t produce skewed data then I will lose my ability to use Tax Payer money to live large and party like a rock star.

    This week I am flying my chartered jet to a private resort Island to discuss man’s effect on climate due to excess access to commercial jets by the masses. My other colleagues are also fling on their chartered jets, in all total 125 private jets will be arriving at the conference.

  62. B says:

    Guess they were WRONG about global warming! LOL

  63. Lee Weinfurtner says:

    From the graph it is easy to see that the average temp stays the same throughout the years. No ‘Climate change’ to see here. Take it from the Creator of our universe:
    Gen 8:21 And the Lord was pleased with the aroma of the sacrifice and said to himself, “I will never again curse the ground because of the human race, even though everything they think or imagine is bent toward evil from childhood. I will never again destroy all living things. 22 As long as the earth remains, there will be planting and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter , day and night.”
    Thank you Lord Jesus.

  64. Tyler says:

    I blame the cold weather on an Internet video, but really, at this point, what difference does it really make?

  65. Matt In Texas says:

    It’s all that global warming – and it’s George W. Bush’s fault. Someone call Al Gore – limp wristed pansy to the rescue!


    When a president leans over and says wait till my second term you really think he cares what Putin does? He has no clue or cares what the rest of the world does. Wait till RUSSIA and CHINA INVADE US and the libs are hiding in their bath tubs asking themselves why did this happen?

  67. Kylre88 says:

    “Coldest Year On Record So Far In The US”

    What does this have to do with a long term climate trend?

    • Look at the graph. There isn’t any long term trend.

      • Kylre88 says:

        You’re using short term trends, a few years, to apparently pass judgement on a long term process. Natural systems aren’t linear and don’t work that way, especially when subjected to numerous feedbacks. It’s like putting a square peg into a round whole — it won’t fit unless you shave off the parts you don’t want. Short term trends are irrelevant. It’s exactly the same as people who use one or two storms to illustrate ‘climate change.’

      • Kylre88 says:

        “There isn’t any long term trend”

        You aren’t using a long term trend. The data you present is short term, not long term.

        Even worse is looking at short term trends over a specific area, while ignoring the rest of the system as a whole. Again, science doesn’t work that way, and the global system doesn’t work that way. You are expecting some sort of statistically valid trend to show up over a specific geographical area over a short 20 or even 50 year period of time? Given that the oceans absorb 80%-90% of any warming, and only a few % goes into the atmosphere, that really would be alarming. The atmosphere is relatively slow to respond — temperature trends over a human lifespan are more meteorology than climatology. All these discussions over short term temperature variations, especially locally, are irrelevant to climatology. I’m sure they provide you with great talking points and headlines, but they are humorous to those of us who know better.

        • _Jim says:

          I didn’t learn much from your post; can you explain ‘the why’ next to the various assertions?

        • TSZodiac says:

          Aaand since the IPCC, and every other climate scientist related to this whole AGW scam uses less than 200 years of observable data (with the rest being extrapolations) then the entire AGW scam is exposed as non-science. Thank you for making our point for us. By the way, the Farmers Almanac – that primarily uses solar cycles as the basis for their predictions – continues to be FAR more accurate than the so called AGW “climatologists”…and the whole “the ocean ate the warming” argument only arose when the IPCC needed an excuse for the complete and total lack of warming in their data post 2000….gee, maybe you remember the “PAUSE”….curious as to why the oceans weren’t hungry for warmth in the years that the IPCC showed spikes in warming….oh, right – that’s back when they were caught by hackers cooking the books on their data….

        • 117 years is too short, you need to use a better number like 1979-2012.

  68. tngilmer says:

    Unfortunately you cannot refute a religious belief (and that is what “climate change” has become) with objective facts.

    • Rex says:

      Can’t refute Climate change? lol

      Of course not, because Climate (THE WEATHER) has always changed!

      So why have democrats now started calling it CLIMATE DISRUPTION? WHO exactly do they think is interupting the weather????

      Talk about being stuck-on-stupid!

  69. John Trapp says:

    Coldest year on record yet ABC news with Diane Sawyer opened every newscast this week with stories about global warming. Absolutely amazing. When scam artists like Al Gore who have made 100s of millions of dollars from this scam have their credibility threatened by facts, thank God the main stream media is there to bury it.

  70. not drinking the Koolaid says:

    Wooly worms got it right! Ground Hog got it right! please name one thing this administration has gotten right.

  71. Steve says:

    Such a new strain of STD running rampant in the liberal newsrooms over this Global Warming Hysteria. They are calling it “CLI-MEDIA” becauase of the inability to know the real truth about what happens when you come in close intimate contact with those affected by this disease!!!! Can”t treat this one with antibotics, but maybe a lobotomy on some of these growling buffoons might just stop all of this hot air from reaching our atmosphere!!! There is a cure here. It is called KNOWLEDGE of World Climate Patterns, both now and in the past, and you can get it anywhere, but not at the Pharmacy!! Oh, those of you that have “CLI-MEDIA” if you choose the correct cure, you will be PAIN free within 7-10 days!! Read this once every 6 hours and call me in the morning, if the PAIN does not subside!!!

  72. Rex says:

    Global WARMING makes it COLDER!!!!!

    That’s why democrats put trays of water into their ovens when they want to make ice cubes……

    Seriously, how stupid does one have to be to vote democrat?

  73. Rich Rochester says:

    God 1, Liberals 0.

  74. richard says:

    awh- it’s just cooler global warming !

  75. Doug Nusbaum says:

    God must love stupid people. He made so many of them Global warming rests on statistics. None of you have the knowledge of statistics required to begin to understand this. You may as well be a 10 year old Chinese child in a collegs class on Shakespeare. And here is evidence. (Note that I did not use the word proof, since nothing positive is EVER proved in science. Of course, since you are also ignorant of basic science you think that proof and truth are part of science. They are not.) But I digress from speaking of statistics. I doubt that a single one of you can follow the proof of the gausian integral (proofs ARE valid in math)
    Gaussian integral Since this is one of the basic tools of statistics your ignorance renders you unqualified to comment on GW. However it is an example of the Dunning Kruger effect.

    I bet none of you know what ‘e’ is, why it is important or how it is derived.

    • Does OFA train people to make stupid comments?

    • _Jim says:

      ” I bet none of you know what ‘e’ is, why it is important or how it is derived. ”

      More importantly, do you know of any practical uses for “e” (hint: they lie in the engineering areas of the hard sciences)?


    • tom0mason says:

      ‘e’ is the letter between ‘d’ and ‘f’ which unlike all others in the alphabet has the properties of growing in importance depending on how important it has become.
      This strange property allows some that are innocent or foolish in the dark arts of mathematic to feel that they too have this property. The truth is that these foolish charlatans only have egos with the property.

    • philjourdan says:

      You have no idea of our backgrounds, but your assumptions highlight your ignorance on the subject. You have no clue what you are talking about. You think statistics are ERA and RBIs.

  76. Gamecock says:

    This just in:

    It’s not “Climate Disruption” anymore.

    Hey have moved on to “Climate Incontinence.”

  77. Red Blues says:

    Lost in the whole discussion of climate factors is the effect that just two of the completely natural process of solar heating and volcanoes have on the planet. If we were able to control those two sources, then there might be reason to add Carbon tax credits or propose major legislation like Agenda 21…

    Somebody got a really huge beach umbrella that can be placed over the equator? … or a gigantic vacuum that would be needed to suck up all the sun blocking volcanic ash and soot?


    Well, then I guess we’ll just have to muddle our way through times when the planet experiences extreme weather… still not as hot as it was during the Cambrian Era nor as cold as the last ice age… and when it does get to one of those extremes, no amount of taxation or alarmist rhetoric will make a tinker’s damn worth of difference.

    Go ahead and rebut this statement… with logic and critical thinking but not name calling… go ahead… double dog dare ya!

  78. naughtonjj says:

    Climate disruption is a joke. The comments in this session are funny and show what how funny the “warmists”

  79. Frank Grillo says:

    Algore what up?? …………… I know, I know, global warming causes global cooling.

  80. Vince says:

    We MUST do something about this global warming…er…global cooling…er…climate change…er…climate disruption…yeah, that’s it….climate disruption.

  81. Eric says:

    IF you people had the intellectual faculties, you would realize that the global cooling is a directly correlated result of global warming which is a direct result of excess CO2 and we’re all going to die soon, just like the polar bears which are now extinct the only hope we have is to capture cow farts, compress them with wind turbine and solar powered compressors and send them into outer space with methane powered rockets (fitted with CO2 extraction/conversion adapters) otherwise we are all dead meat any day now. Also we need to recycle. Wake up people. The planet’s survival is at stake.

  82. Erastus says:

    I don’t mean to argue with statistics but it seem that it was colder when I was a kid.

    • FreedomFromFacts says:

      At this point deniers are utter adult children who lack the courage face the overwhelming consensus on the results of real science using real scientific methodology. The dangers of climate are now independently acknowledged by the military brass as being a grave concern to our future security. Hell is for those who hide in extremist echo chambers where spin, cherry picking data, denial, delusion and petty politicalization can keep you from feeling scared and losing a little pride. Get some courage to face reality in the eye and do something positive. Things don’t look good and you can’t take it like adults. Get your heads out of the sand stop the noise and do something to help future generations have a inkling of a chance to thrive with clean renewable energy sources. Don’t sit in a pool of bitterness at the changing world and tried to suppress the truth. The internet is forever so don’t let all this bullshit be your legacy. Everything I see on this page can be shot down with common debunking such as this and many other sources.

      • I would say that you are a complete moron.

      • philjourdan says:

        According to Holdren, the only thing you can do is die. YOur existence creates CO2. Ergo, the alarmists are hypocrites for not dying. And there are not many mass murderers among the skeptics so they do not “do something”. You are welcome to “do something”. Try baby steps. Get off the computer! You are wasting CO2 and energy.

  83. harry says:

    The cold temperatures are caused by global warming. Unfortunately only our highest paid scientists are able to understand how this is even works. Everyone else is an ignorant flat earther for even question this theory. The computer models are accurate the science is settled the program is sound! Submit!

    • naughtonjj says:

      Everything is caused by GW even the IRAQ war. Birds sing because of GW. People poop because of GW. Everything happens because of GW. The universe was created by GW. GW is the religion of its advocates. But God created and sustains the earth.

      GWites are very confused, they have dismised God as the Creator and sustainer of the earth and universe. They are making fools of themselves.

  84. Mr T says:

    Firstly, it seems to actually be on track for the *warmest* year on record: Secondly, even IF it were particularly cold this year it wouldn’t mean shit taking ONE ISOLATED YEAR on its own. It’s not that simple, you have to look at climate trends and temperature AVERAGES. Guess what, most people don’t understand climate science, big surprise. It’s wilful ignorance like this which will seal our fates, unless the media stop their biased BS spin on the issue.

    • transrp says:

      I doubt that there is a single AGW denier who understands or can follow the proof of the gausian integral. Kind of sad, considering that this equation is one of the fundamental basics of all of statistics, and if you do not understand statistics, then you can not begin to understand the science behind global warming.

      Second I doubt that any of them understand what the null hypothesis is. Which is evidence that they have no idea what science is or how it works. If you want to kill a few minutes here, that is ok, but you have the same chance of convincing the AGW deniers that you have of teaching a monkey higher algebra.

  85. transrp says:

    Ahhh Name calling. What people do when they have neither facts nor information to support their argument. Now you may claim that I started this, but of course this would be wrong. An appropriate response would have been . Oh yes. Ghe gausian integral. And then explained that you were familiar with it and why you understood it. You might have commented on the null hypothesis and why it is important.

    But the later would be impossible for you since you have no idea what it is or why it is important. This is evidenced by your repeated use of the word proof in your postings. You see, a person who is an actual scientist and understands science also understands that the only thing in science that one can prove is that a theory is false. Theories can not be proven true which is why the null hypothesis is used.

    • Curt says:

      Hmm.. Twice, separated by 6 months, people put in a drive-by comment in this thread about something that is, at best, remotely related to the topic of the thread. Neither can state why they think the “Gaussian integral” is even possibly relevant to the topic at hand. It reeks of ignorant activists spouting talking points they don’t understand at all.

      And you can’t even spell it! You made the same two mistakes each time you cited it. Hint: if you are trying to demonstrate your superior knowledge, you should at least be able to spell what you are talking about correctly.

      Why don’t you tell us ignoramuses what conditions need to apply for the Gaussian integral to be appropriate. You are aware, aren’t you, that one of the reasons we are in the financial pickle we find ourselves in is that Wall Street computer risk models inappropriately used the Gaussian integral in evaluating financial risk? That the use of Gaussian integrals to evaluate flood risk (e.g. the level of “100-year floods”) is increasingly viewed as producing inaccurate results?

      On the null hypothesis, why don’t you ask Kevin Trenberth if he understands it. He now insists that the null hypothesis is that added CO2 is causing substantial warming, and that skeptics must provide “statistically significant” that is not. (Actually, I view that as a tacit admission on his part that he is unable to upend the real null hypothesis.)

      • transrp says:

        As someone below said : “Young children like to repeat their inanities because they think no one listened to them the first time. ” thus showing that he is only slight less ignorant and foolishg than those who limit themselves to one sentence that consists of name calling. I use the terms ignorant and foolish based on the following:

        1. Jesus had a favorable view of children compared to most adults. Here is a more famous quote. Then Jesus said, “Leave the children alone, and don’t try to keep them from coming to Me, because the kingdom of heaven is made up of people like this.”

        I suggest that you look up violinist bell subway. It was mostly the children who were aware that there was something special about this person. Adults just continue in their “set in their ways” patterns of behavior oblivious to anything that is new.

        And finally, of course there is the German story about the naked king. philjourdan would have been accurate had his statement had left out the word inanities. Adults do not pay attention, because their minds got set into concrete shortly after they reached sexual maturity. The few exceptions to that are almost always very creative or very smart people who manage to create and learn new stuff past 40. They are few and far between.

        Now about your issues. I do drive by comments because I have a real life. An analysis of climate change requires an in depth understanding of statistics. so based on:
        The Gaussian or normal distribution plays a central role in all of statistics and is the most ubiquitous distribution in all the sciences.

        if you can not follow this basic bit of mathematics, then you are as competent to comment on global warming as a high school biologyu student is to do brain surgery. You may disagree with any of these statements, but that would only demonstrate ignorance. It would of course be in line with most of the remarks made here that involve cherry picking, like statements that because on the anamolous high global temp in 1998 is evidence that there has been no global warming for 16 years. See, cherry picking data simply demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge of the nature of statistics.

        Now the fact that someone uses a tool incorrectly, as in what happened with wall street, does not mean that knowledge of the tool is not necessary. That would be like claiming that because someone misread an X-ray, that one does not need knowledge of X-rays to do good medicine. Seriously would you use a doctor who did not know what an X-ray was, or was otherwise ignorant of any of the basic tools of medicine? That is what the gausian integral is. A basic tool of statistics. Like any tool it can be used wrong.

        As to the null hypothesis. I read your article. While you may disagree, I suspect that most scientists agree with him. By the way. Are you aware that there are hardly any papers that support AGW deniers.

        less than 1 per 1000 which is 30 times less than 3% that AGW deniers claim favor their side.

        I have an idea. Find a single paper that lays forth the argument that humans are not the driving force behind todays global warming. Not a commentary, but an actual scientific study with measturements, statistics analysis etc. Some paper published by some scientist somewhere that is accessible. Then look at how it has been shredded by others who show that his models are flawed (one paper assumnmed that the earth was a ball of water with no lang), his math is wrong, and his data is wrong. And by wrong, I mean factually, demonstrably wrong.

        AGW deniers own paid mouthpieces are turning against you:

        • philjourdan says:

          My statement is validated by your inability to understand it and to continue to repeat the behavior. Your misunderstanding of the story is part of your problem.

          Your use of childish pejoratives and juvenile ad hominems only validates the summation of your maturity and ignorance.

        • transrp says:

          aND Since I can not understand you, I will cease to interact with you. You win !!! 🙂

        • transrp says:

          I just realized that from the evidence that you present that you are so much smarter than I am, that I do not even understand you, that you must be really really smart. So, why are you wasting your time here? You really should be out consulting or teaching, or maybe starting and running your own company.

          I mean I once did graduate work in math and made my living for 20 years as a contract programmer so I am not exactly an idiot, but as you insist, — compared to you, I am but a child. And as I admit, I do not understand what you are saying, or your quotes / stories. So you must be REALLY REALLY smart.

          Or, you are just off your medications. But if you are smart then you really should be spending your time making the world a better place, and earning oodles of money. Perhaps you could apply to the Koch Brothers for a job 🙂

        • philjourdan says:

          Ah, the poor soul trots out bona fidies when none where asked, thinking that perhaps he will impress us with a made up resume. Not satisfied with that tactic, he has to throw in a giant non sequitur about some private citizens who have less than 1% of the financial might of the government who he must believe, as his handlers told him to, are some kind of Gods of evil!

          And he did all that while lying about being done with the subject. Now that is a bona fide that is pertinent to the discussion, although not one he should be posting on his meager resume,

        • philjourdan says:

          For someone who “quit” long ago, you sure are incessant. Or just a liar.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Ah.. trivial pursuit. 🙂

    • philjourdan says:

      Young children like to repeat their inanities because they think no one listened to them the first time. They do not have a conception of irrelevance and no one is listening because of the childishness of their words. here we have a classic confirmation of that principal.

  86. transrp says:

    About the Koch brothers. They did recently loose one of their key sciency supporters Richard A. Muller,

    I am sure that someone as smart as you could fill that position.

    • Muller was never a skeptic. He lied to obtain money and get publicity.

      • transrp says:

        And he fooled the Koch brothers for how many years? But he could never fool you, cause you are so smart. Hey, maybe you can get a job with them 🙂

      • transrp says:

        I did some more research: You are actually claiming that this man: who won a MacArthnur award as well as other awards and testified before congress wanted money and publicity. Please. Exactly how does that work? How did he benefit monetarirly from his new position? Or are you claiming that he wanted money from this research project? Are you claiming that his various positions did not provide him with enough money? Can you offer evidence?

        I am trying to figure out which is more strange. That this well recognized scientist would, for some reasons for which you offer no evidence, would actually behave as youi claim, or that someone could actually hold the mental state that you do that causes to offer up your claim. Now I confess that I am fairly certain that you are more likely to have the strange mental state, especially since you offer no evidence to support your allegations, and Mr. Muller has published many papers supporting all of his positions. But your mental state is, well, incomprehensible to me.

        Of course as others have pointed out — I am child like. And as I have admitted, I am also mentally inferior since I can not follow much of the reasoning here.

        • Muller lied about being a skeptic. He was never a skeptic, and obtained money from the Koch brothers by lying to them about his position.

        • transrp says:

          And you have evidence for this? Did he even meet with them? His positions before this study existed over many years, and were evidenced by papers that he published. Are you claiming that his papers were fraudlent? Do you have evidence to support this?

          At the most, I found that some studies by Dr. Muller had concluded that global warming data was flawed. But later research lead Dr. Muller to change his opinion. Are you aware that actual Scientists often change their minds when presented with new data? Are you claiming that this is always evidence of lying? Can you do anything other than slander people who are probably way smarter than you? Again,. do you have ANY evidence to support your slander? Has Dr. Mullers paper been critized in any way? As opposed to that of Willie Soon

          I found no evidence that Dr. Muller in any way interacted with any part of the Koch foundation before his project was funded. From what I saw, they liked what they read and gave him money to do more research. Do you have evidence to the contrary? What was his motivation before he got this funding. He was already publishing, and his papers were well received.

          EVIDENCE!!! EVIDENCE!!! EVIDENCE!!! You have none!!!!

        • 11/03/11
          “It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic“
          -Richard Muller

        • transrp says:

          This is not evidence of his having lied. Unless you can show that he claimed to be a skeptic. What he did was publish papers that threw up questions about the accuracy of existing research. This often happens among scientists. Can you produce a paper where he actually said that there was no warming, or that if there was, than humans did not cause it.

          Besides, even if he did say that “based on the evidence I believe X to be the best interpretation of the data”, and then changes his mind, this in no way makes him a liar. It makes him a scientist open to new data.

        • philjourdan says:

          I am child like. And as I have admitted, I am also mentally inferior since I can not follow much of the reasoning here.

          Confession is good for the soul. Feel better now?

    • philjourdan says:

      Perhaps you should research more, and opine less. Muller was never a Koch supporter. He loved their money, but was never a mindless sycophant. But I guess since he did take their money, to you, that meant he was one.

      Interesting. I guess you would qualify the whole BEST team that way. I wonder how Berkley managed to hire so many mindless sycophants.

  87. transrp says:

    Here — I did your research for you:

    I was wrong. It would appear that the two did interact before there was a grant given.

    If it makes you feel any better, apparently there are many in the evil conspiratorial AGW camp who also do not like Dr. Muller. I subscribe to the idea that if both sides hate you then you are probably doing something right 🙂

    • Look what he wrote in 2003. Muller was a wild-eyed alarmist all along, who wanted to prove global warming. He misrepresented his position to obtain funding. A total scamster.

      By Richard Muller on December 17, 2003

      Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium.

      • transrp says:

        And that is were you stopped reading. Also, this completely refutes your statement that he lied. To lie means that you make statements that you know to believe to be false. What you did was to cherry pick the evidence, like you do with various measurements. Dr. Muller clearly stated what his positions were at any given time, and also his uncertainties. That is what actual scientists (as opposed to those who simply have science degrees) do.

        Do you think that the Koch brothers were / are stupid ignorant fools. Do you think that they were not aware of his total body of work? Do you think that they became wealthy by acting — well like you do by seeing only what they want to see? Again, you should consider selling yourself to them. Though It may well be that they do not consider your work worth much 🙂

        • Muller lied about his position to obtain funding and pull a coup. Period.

        • transrp says:

          “Muller lied about his position to obtain funding and pull a coup. Period.” Reminds me of one of those bumper stickers: The bible says it, I believe it, that ends it. It is mind sets like that which have lead to such intellectual advances as witch burning.

          Your posts reminde me of doublespeak: But tell me: Which part of this paragraph is the lie of which you speak:
          “Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium. ” You know, the lie that so cleverly fooled the Koch brothers.

          Hey, I have an idea. Maybe you can get a job with them protecting them from such silver tounged frauds like Dr. Muller who con them out of their hard earned money. Warning them what quotes like this REALLY say.

    • I subscribe to the idea that if both sides hate you then you are probably doing something right.

      Consider unsubscribing. Everybody hates Jeffrey Dahmer. 😀

      • transrp says:

        You should take a reading comprehension course. I did not say everybody. I said if both sides hate you… Are you claiming that there are two sides in the Jeffrey Dahmer situation? A sort of pro-canibal group?

        • Yes. Brush up on your Hegel. With a glass of Scotch. 😉

        • I took my own advice about the Scotch but instead of Hegel’s generalized theses I reflected deeper on your particular question.

          The answer is still yes. I don’t really know who they are. During my younger years, I lived in the seamier parts of some cities on the Continent and I noticed that cannibal fantasies—or practices disguised as fantasies—loomed large in the progressive SM scene. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that there is a real pro-cannibal group among our citizenries. I suspect there are also many pretenders and “sort of” pro-cannibals but I never had the urge to explore it on the ground and find out who is who. Instead, I decided to dedicate my life to the upkeep of the “thin veneer of civilization” over barbarism so we don’t have to find out.

          One thing is obvious: People love Hannibal Lecter because he made cannibalism look cool. The same people hate Jeffrey Dahmer because he’s a loser and they wouldn’t go out with a guy like that.

          They are your Pro-Cannibals against Dahmer. QED. Then there are Beef-Eaters and Vegans against Dahmer but their existence was not in doubt. These are your two sides.

          Libertarians are agnostic about Dahmer as long as his dinner guests agree to be eaten but we don’t need them for our argument.

          P.S. As a nice bonus, when I ran the YouTube clip of Hannibal Lecter and “liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti” it started with an ad for the Auguste Escoffier School of Culinary Arts in Boulder. I appreciate such artistic touches in life.

        • @transrp: The questionable quality and a puzzling location of your last attempted reply suggests that you didn’t take your prescribed medicine. You must concentrate when you type. It shows.

        • transrp says:

          I just hit the reply button. Doing more would require more effort — which I do not want to put forth on a side discussion on cannibalism. I actually have better things to do with my time. Like take my pills. Which, by the way, are NOT prescribed. I only take prescription meds after stauma surgery like intensive dental work.

        • I just hit the reply button.

          Yeah, that’s how it read, too. Credibility is built on one’s willingness and ability to follow at the very least his own line of reasoning. I found a correlation in the comments on Goddard’s blog between the increasing mentions of “Koch Brothers” *) and a decreasing capacity to follow an argument. I do not claim a cause and effect relationship but it’s intriguing.

          Well, I must go, too. Good luck with the pills.

          *) was it 7 times?

        • transrp says:

          I confess that I was unable to follow the logic that claimed that Dr. Muller was lying. I must be simple minded. Clearly a statement like “Muller lied about his position to obtain funding and pull a coup. Period.” Should be self evident and easy to follow. And it is for people of faith and inclined to unthinking obedience to authority. Unfortunately, I am not one of those

        • transrp says:

          So… Which lies convinced thje Koch Brothers to fund his study? Was it what you call his statements in 2003 which was a full 7 years before they funded Berkeley Earth and were public? Or were they statements made after the study was made. Clearly Dr. Mullers statements in 2011 are consistent with what he said in 2003.

          In 2004 he published a paper that showed that the hockey stick graph may have been no more than an artifact of the mathematics used to evaoluate data. Perhaps this is the source of his reputation as a skeptic. Maybe someone cherry picked that item and solt it to the Koch Brothers.

          As to his stated frame of mind. Well, I doubt that he pays much attention to it unless asked. He is interested in what the data show. As a scientist tries to draw the best conclusions based on all of the data. Given the complexity of the theirety of climate of the earth there are going to be ambiguities. He is comfortable with that. All that you have shown is that he has changed his mind based on changing available data, and his understanding and interpretation of that data.

          The results of scientific studies of data are not always consistent. Only a fool would think that scientists would have views that do not change over time. You have conclusively showm that his statements lack consistency over time. You have never showed that he made a statement that he knew to be false. Do you even know the difference between those two sentences?

        • philjourdan says:

          8 now Colorado. He does have a one track mind.

        • I have no idea what or why the Koch Brothers do what they do. I have tried to explain to some of his staff about Muller’s past, and they don’t seem to know anything about it.

          You are asking the wrong person, because I am as baffled as anybody why they are doing this.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Doing more would require more effort ..”…. than you are capable of. !

  88. transrp says:

    I guess that you guys did not get the memo.
    Jewish scientists terrorize capitalists into submitting themselves to AGW conspiracy

    Soon you and a very few others, like watts up with that guy will shortly be deprived of all support from business. Then by even the most stupid politicians.

    The only ones left to support you will be from the shallow end of the gene pool, who talk to each other, and lets face it, with minimum wage jobs they really do not have a lot left over. The exception being some variation of trust fund babs.

    • AndyG55 says:

      roflmao.. what an incredibly pathetic post, from the trannie.

      Watts, SG, JoNova et al. don’t get any help from business.

      A good 97% of any funding goes to the climate scammers.

      And as far as the gene pool is concerned, you probably shouldn’t talk, because you still in the waders / kiddies pool, with only your little toe getting wet, too scared to open your mind and proceed any further.

      • transrp says:

        1. You did not bother to read the Forbes piece. 2. Name calling. The rhetorical argument used when facts and logic are not available. 3. regarding funding. They are probably trust fund children. 4 Logic test: You will probably fail:

        You are shown a set of four cards placed on a table, each of which has a number on one side and a colored patch on the other side. The visible faces of the cards show 3, 8, red and brown. Which card(s) must you turn over in order to test the truth of the proposition that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is red?

        • Phil Jourdan says:

          Seems you are a bit confused. YOu first alleged funding from business, then claim trust funds. What next? Maybe a dose of the truth? nah! Alarmist cannot handle the truth.

          Nice ad hominem attack. All the while alleging the same behavior falsely. Which in common terms is a lie. Care to demonstrate any more defective behavior?

      • AndyG55 says:

        Put your little toe back in, child-mind !!

        You were the one bought up the gene pool issue.. feeling a bit fragile on that, I see. !

        • transrp says:

          Hey AndyG. Still trying to find someone on your side to strike fear and panic into my soul? Or are you crawling back under your rock and curling into a foetal position? Surely you can find someone… Drinking buddies. Young earthers? 911 truthers. Chemtrail believers… Oh wait. Those are mostly all the same people.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Rocks do not feel fear.

        • AndyG55 says:

          I have to say..

          What the f*** have you been smoking.. !!!

          Major hallucinogens… again, it seems. !!

          Its the ALARMISTS that are trying to strike fear about a non-existent problem.

          And you are obviously in a DEEP PANIC about it. Why else are you here.

          Me… I’m just sitting back watching guys like you make abject fools of themselves. 🙂

    • AndyG55 says:

      And seriously, Zeller is paid apostle of the AGW scam.
      He makes his living writing propaganda pap about it.

      Why would anyone pay ANY attention to anything he says.

      Your link starts out with a link to the 2014 non-record..
      …why read further, when you know the rest is going to be arrant nonsense !!

      • transrp says:

        Yes — why read further? Would not want to be exposed to actual valid information that disagrees with your view would you? So is the american petroleum institute part of this AGW conspiracy…. Cause the forbes article was little more than a summation of this: which mentions climate change at least 6 times, including this:

        Few things threaten America’s future
        prosperity more than climate change.

        which link you would have seen were it not for your blinding arrogance.

        As a side note. It was not “the left” or others who came up with climate change. It was a member of the Liars group who engage in magical thinking and think that name calling can replace science who decided to start using the term climate change. Frank Luntz in 2003 wrote a memo to this affect. Here is one of many sources showing that.

        Who will be the last AGW denier? And when will he slink off to his rock? I think that you will go extinct by 2020. The first subspecies to die of embarrassment 🙂

        • AndyG55 says:

          The first line shows the essay is a waste of time, designed especially for the brainwashed AGW grovelers.

          And then you link to the Gruniad.. just to emphasise the fact. .. hilarious. !! 🙂

        • AndyG55 says:

          Your PANIC is getting MANIC !!

          So funny to watch the whole AGW farce starting to crumble. 🙂

        • Phil Jourdan says:

          So the steady state of the planet threatens the planet. And we are supposed to change something that has been going on for 4.5 billion years? When was the last time climate DID NOT change?

          And you again project your own defects. Now who is the one that is ignorant of the facts? Opinion is not facts. So neither of your links provide any facts, just opinion. Except the fact that climate changes. And has for 4.5 billion years.

        • rah says:

          By 2020 the AGW issue will probably have faded more into the background than it already is. Survey after survey has consistently demonstrated it is at or very near the bottom of any list of concerns even for people in the most developed nations despite all the efforts of governments, their paid “scientists”, and the press organs that hype and broadcast the misinformation. And actually the trend over the years shows it falling down the list of concerns and not climbing!

          Go to the less developed nations where the fundamentals of good food and clean water are less abundant and it becomes a nonissue to the average citizen. In those less developed nations only some of the leaders hype it in the mistake belief they will get funds from the developed nations one way or another.

          Fact is the AGW drive is losing despite the billions spent on propaganda by governments and special interests and it those campaigns ended it will be virtually wiped out of public’s consciousness.

          And why should any rational person believe it to be a cause worth considerable effort when not a single catastrophe predicted to have happened by now due to AGW has occurred?

  89. AndyG55 says:

    I must say it is fun, and great progress, to see realist forums like here, WUWT, JoNova etc starting to get SO MUCH ATTENTION, even if it is from the very lowest level of the AGW drones. 🙂

    Keep coming guys.. fun to watch the PANIC setting in…

    that’s the ONLY reason you are here, PANIC ! 🙂

    • transrp says:

      Panic. This implies fear. Fear implies harm. Harm implies conflict. OK there is a conflict. On my side are the Jews (always part of a conspiracy) The pope and many of his followers. The defence dept. The insurance companies. The american petroleum institute and its members. The renewable energy people. A lot of banks. Most of the democrats and republicans. On your side are the Tea Partiers. And … Well a few scientists who do not see fit to publish their findings where they can be reviewed and critiqued by others. And of course THE TRUTH AND GOD.

      There are a few cases when a small force has overcome a much larger force. As in Sparta & the greeks vs the persians. But when the Jews & the pope are on one side, its seems unlikely that God is on the other.

      So — just who is on your side that I should Panic?

      • Phil Jourdan says:

        And on your side, pedophiles, rapists, serial killers. Yea, you are in good company.

        • transrp says:

          You forgot the nsa which is watching you. And the Mossad. And those ” pedophiles, rapists, serial killers” are going to come after you and your family next!!! Cause as you have said, the truth that people like you spread scares them, and makes them angry

        • philjourdan says:

          More impotent threats from the troll who has already admitted he knows nothing. Since you cannot even find a URL, I am not worried about you finding me. Or your impotent threats.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “So — just who is on your side that I should Panic?”

        REALITY !!!

        • AndyG55 says:

          If REALITY wasn’t stinging you in the butt… you wouldn’t even be here.

          You are trying to hide against REALITY….

          REALITY scares you… you better just keep popping those hallucinogenics.

        • transrp says:

          All hail AndyG55 who has now become the sole arbiter of the nature of reality. He need not present any evidence. He need not show any information. AndyG just declares what reality it, and by george that is what it is. He is right, and almost every one else on the planet, the Pope, the defense dept etc. are wrong. And we know that Andy must be correct because he is not talking about reality but about REALITY which is the realer stuff.

          Hey, Andy. If you tell everybody that, you will get sent away to a nice padded room. Or you will end up dead, because that is the only two possible fates that await people who keep insisting that reality is what they say it is. Just ask the late Steve Jobs.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          You might try posting ANY fact. Instead of just trolling. Since you have not, we can only conclude you cannot. And that is the reality. What you have is a mental disorder. And you are welcome to it.

        • transrp says:

          Which of the links that I have posted here do you consider to be absent of facts and why? I am sure that you would, for example, consider this : to be devoid of facts. The question is, why? How are you using humpty dumpty speak to remove facts from this, or the links that I posted. Not knowing the standards by which you judge a “fact” (Other than it agrees with your point of view) I do not know what you would consider a fact.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Such anger from such a small mind. I guess you swear by Wiki – being totally oblivious of William Connelley. But that is simply your lack of facts. You have none. You know none. Which is why you are clueless.

          But I guess multisylable words are too big for you. All you are doing here is providing comedic entertainment as you merely confirm the fact that ignorant fanatics know nothing, but make good sport when they go into their stompy feet mode.

        • transrp says:

          William Connelley I believe that you spelled the name wrong. Apparently cut and paste is beneath your superior intellect. Also, in keeping with your superiority, you need never learn anything new, nor offer support. Connolley was purged in 2009. It is amazing that the only bit of stuff that you can find to rebut Wikipedia is about a discredited and banned poster who has not done anything there for 5 years.

          even one of your AGW deniers is aware that Connolley was kicked out:

          and of course his wiki entry

          I will not respond to you in the future unless you post some evidence or link that you claim supports your position. I doubt that you will do that since all that you seem capable of is name calling. You know, the rhetorical technique used when you have neither information nor logic to support your position. What immature third graders use on the playground

          Your posts remind me, as does so much of AGW deniers of that other anti science group Young Earth Creationists. You find a bit of information that agrees with your position and cite it, even if it is decades old, has been repeatedly shown to be wrong, or is just incoherent gibberish. Are you a YE creationist?

        • PhilJourdan says:

          I misspelled it out of contempt. I am not anal like you. And no, he was SUSPENDED, but has since had his privileges restored. Seems while I disdain cut and paste, you just merely hate facts.

          Still waiting for the first fact. Guess that will be a long wait from the troll.

        • transrp says:

          “I misspelled it out of contempt.” Of course you did. As to Connolley having his privileges restored — You supplly no evidence for that. Probably another lie, like your first statement. I found no evidence that he is currently editing, of course I did not look long.

          I think that you think that anything that comes out of your body constitutes a fact. Your mother must have been so happy when you were finally potty trained that your neurological wiring got messed up, and not you think that anything that comes out is important or a fact, or something.

          In the future — as I have said to others. No links. No response.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          So you lied about knowing about William Connelley? What a surprise. NOT. And now you are denying he mangled Wiki? Figures. That is the basis of all your non-data.

          Here’s a clue. Go to Wiki and check out the editors. And then tell us why he is still listed AND doing edits? I know you will not. You hate the truth. You even cannot keep up with your lies, so you lie on top of lies!

          LOL! Trolls are so easy to trip up. They never had much upstairs.

        • rah says:

          Reality is that Greenland gained ice this year.
          Reality is that on balance the Arctic has been gaining ice since 2012 and is set to have a great increase in multiyear ice come this September.
          Reality is that the Antarctic has been gaining sea ice and that thus combined with the recovery of the Arctic sea ice the global sea ice extent has set many daily records over the last two years.
          Reality is that Polar bears are doing just fine.
          Reality is that the Satellite temperature sensors have clearly shown that 2014 was not the hottest year on record contrary to the very limited terrestrial thermometer records. So Reality is that not a level of the atmosphere has warmed even close to the extent predicted by the models even if CO2 were held to a level 100 ppm than the current level of 400 ppm
          Reality is that neither hurricanes or tornadoes nor wildfires have shown increased incidence or intensity contrary to claims that they would due to AGW.
          Reality is that not a single catastrophe predicted by Al Gore nor any other climate alarmist from Mann to Hanson has happened nor appears to be imminent.
          And thus the reality is that the models and calculations upon which the whole AGW hypothesis is based and the predictions predicated on them are WRONG!

          Now I can’t stick around to defend any of these statements because I am out the door to do my job and will be gone but I’m sure others here will.

        • transrp says:

          Reality is that Greenland gained ice this year. Clearly a lie. Unless you can provide information that refutes this:
          or show me why:
          July 17, 2015
          Warm conditions arrived on the Greenland Ice Sheet in late June, causing a sudden spike in melting that increased in early July and led to a sharp reduction in surface albedo (brightness of the snow). However, as of mid-July surface melt remained less extensive than during 2012, the record melt summer.

          increaded melting is actually a gain in ice.

          LIe2: Explain exactly where this 35 year graph turned around. Have you ever taken let alone passed a course in statistics? No you have not. The fact that you can not differentiate between extreme points and a pattern makes you stupid., According to you we had warming from 1994 to 2002. But we did not really did we?

          not a lie: have a great increase in multiyear ice come this September. But what is your point. This has happened before and will happen again. It still lies within the 2sd marks on the downward trend.

          Reality is that the Antarctic has been gaining sea ice. Of course it has. If you were not an idiot, you would be aware that fresh water (from the massive melt off of land) freezes at a higher temp then sea water, so when this water hits the colder sea water it freezes. What you ignore is that the land has been loosing ice at the rate of 3 cubic miles a year. This is not a tiny amount. In fact, it would cover every building on manhattan under 50 stories.
 It represents about 1% of lake ontario for example, and the rate is accelerating.

          Polar Bears. Not a lie, but not relevant either. Al Gore is not a climatologist, and I do not know of any actual scientists who have made drastic predictions about their future. You may know of some, but your did not post such predictions. My guess is that, like others on this site, you are simply repeating what you heard in the echo chamber

          2014 not warmest year on record. and your point is? That some commentators did not understand the data. Perhaps you can post links to the actual science papers that claimed that 2014 was the warmest year on record. Which would not prove much since, surprise, surprise, scientists often make errors. That is what peer review is about.

          Tornadoes: There was a down year in 2014, but 2015 looks to be on track to break records. It will also be the warmest year on record by ay measure. Want to bet? my $100 to your $20 🙂

          As to wildfires. You are not serious are you?

          and bear in mind, that once an area has burned, that it can not burn again for many years. And that after a few bad seasons, people will get more careful for a year of two. Of course, there are few people in alaska so we get to see nature and AGW in a sort of pure state. 5M acres so far this year, in that state alone. More than all fires in either 2013, 0r 2014

          Now I can’t stick around to defend any of these statements because … They are mostly lies, based on ignorance, unsupported by any actual information, and are, in general, indefensible.

          You lack a degree in any field of science, never took, let alone passed an upper devision physics course, or a 2nd year statiustics course, so you can not even begin to understand the math and science behind AGW. You just repeat what you hear from other right wing, conservative, fundamentalist Young Earth creationists.

          Quick test of ability to think logically which no one else has answered. Which is pretty pathetic since you have had three days to find the answer on the internet. But apparently no one here is smart enough to do even that basic simple research. All you do is repeat what is in the echo chamber.

          You are shown a set of four cards placed on a table, each of which has a number on one side and a colored patch on the other side. The visible faces of the cards show 3, 8, red and brown. Which card(s) must you turn over in order to test the truth of the proposition that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is red?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Poor little trace.. your link to anything remotely real seems to be tenuous at best.

          First step for you……. Put down the dong for 5 minutes.
          Tomorrow, try for 10 minutes..

          You can do it…. if you try.

        • AndyG55 says:

          And no Trace, I am not a registered “Climate scientist™”..

          ….. therefore you need not worship me. 😉

          I do not need a flock of sheeple, like they do.

        • AndyG55 says:

          REALITY is that if you use Wikipedia for any reference in Science or Engineering, your paper will get rejected. Students get down-graded heavily for doing so.

          Wikipedia is specifically and totally UNRELIABLE for anything to do with climate science because of the “adjustments” by one W.C.

          But naturally.. it is your choice of reference.. UNRELIABLE, and MASSIVELY TAINTED.

        • transrp says:

          I have no idea if this information is accurate or not. I will not be responding to any more of your posts unless you provide links to support your claims. Preferably you should not cherry pick your data, but that is way to much to ask.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          I have no idea if this information is accurate or not

          Translation. You have no clue what you are talking about, no idea of even the sources you quote or what they say, and no idea about the subject at hand.

          Perfect definition of a troll.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Re Sydney record. The AWS summary for the next day showed 45.3ºC, there has never been an explanation where the other 0.5ºC came from.
          (Yes, I have emailed BOM to ask.. no response of course.. gotta keep it secret.)

          So basically, the same temperature as 74 years earlier. That’s warming for you. 🙂

          Also, there are many temperatures discounted by BOM from before 1910 which are quite a bit higher.

          In UAH Australia if you look at the 3 month period DJF, then 2013 (ending Feb 2013) had the 11th highest DJF anomaly in the UAH record.

          An angry summer, IT WAS NOT…. just a few warm days.. weather.

          So Trance, if you have the ability (yeah right) you could download and verify this result.
          But you need to get yourself off whatever you are smoking, first.

        • AndyG55 says:

          The data is accurate, just a simple analysis..

          Go and find the data, download it and check for yourself.

          I am not here to do your homework for you. !

        • AndyG55 says:

          Just for the brain-washed Trancer..

          and wow, look at the ultra short melt period this year..

        • AndyG55 says:

          for some reason the graph isn’t up to date here.. right-click and open in new tab

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s