Summer Temperatures In Greenland Have Plummeted To Record Lows

The last three Junes in Nuuk, Greenland have been very cold. Red line below shows the three year mean.

ScreenHunter_9786 Jun. 26 08.03

This is due to very cold water in the North Atlantic

sst_anom (8)

sst_anom.gif (800×600)

They still have snow on the ground on June 26, with only a few weeks left in the melt season.

arcticomm_webcam (8)

arcticomm_webcam.jpg (640×480)

Vikings farmed southern Greenland , but that would be impossible now because it is much too cold.

Meanwhile, evangelical Christian Katherine Hayhoe continues to lie to her useful idiots – publishing spectacularly fraudulent graphs like this one  showing that temperatures are much warmer now than when Vikings farmed Greenland.

ScreenHunter_9787 Jun. 26 08.13


About stevengoddard

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

64 Responses to Summer Temperatures In Greenland Have Plummeted To Record Lows

  1. cfgj says:

    Did AGW break the jet-stream? I bet the vikings didn’t have the same problem 😀

    • rah says:

      Ha, I wish you were there with Lief to have to deal with the problems he and his tribe did instead of sitting at a computer posting vapid crap and competing with Robin Bronen to demonstrate which one of you is least conversant.

      Have you ever been inside the Arctic circle anywhere? How many days and nights have you spent outside up there?

    • Realist says:

      No AGW did not break the jet stream because its not broken. Low solar activity causes the atmosphere to rise at the equator, which pulls atmosphere away from the poles, this causes the polar jet stream to have bigger dips. High solar activity has the opposite effect. To claim AGW is breaking the jet stream is asinine.

    • AndyG55 says:

      The Vikings had such big problems, they were forced to move away from Greenland, because it froze and became unliveable.

      Unfortunately, Greenland still hasn’t recovered very much from the freezing episode, Obviously they need a couple more degrees warming at least to get the place back to liveable and properly farmable, like it once was, in warmer times..

  2. You really know how to dig the knife in!

    Very recently I had a look to see whether anything at all stacked up for the alarmists and I was happy to find that there was still one metric which was Greenland ice which I stated was credible (the rest being either for us sceptics – just a proxy for temperature – or lack of evidence).

    If Greenland is at record lows, I can only say this: there is now far less evidence that I would believe likely from shear dumb chance supporting these alarmists.

    it must be the most debunked theory in history – yet still apparently sensible well educated people believe the non-science. What does this tell us about human nature?

    • cfgj says:

      You honestly believe that AGW is a “most debunked” theory? Did you learn this on some blogs or what as the vast majority of published papers still disagree about that…

      • Andy DC says:

        Yes, it is very true. 97% of climate scientists that accept billions in grants to say there is global warming, say there is global warming. That is not very difficult to figure out when you think about it The other 3%, the ones with integrity, refuse to sell out, but then they are systematically excluded from the incestuous and corrupt process.

        • cfgj says:

          Yeah, right, as if the industrial lobby and the Kock-brothers are not protecting their businesses where vastly larger sums of money are involved (trillions). Dream on.

          It’s also funny that almost every creationist is a christian in the same way almost every denialist is republican. I have a hint for you: if your religion or politics decides what part of science you choose to believe in, you’re a moron.

        • gator69 says:

          This document shows a $21,408,000,000 budget for 2014 for the US alone. I am sure there is more that this budget does not show, but 21.4 billion dollars is still at least 21 billion too much.

          The total is found on page 45, and page 5 explains figures are in millions of dollars.

          Click to access fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

          Care to share your figures?

        • Skeptical scientists struggle to find any funding. You have no idea what you are talking about. Your bigotry and misinformation is very ugly.

        • Andy DC says:

          cfgj, you have it exactly backward. I was a lifelong Democrat, until the large amount of research I did on the subject over many years (like looking at actual weather records) convinced me that the Democrats were totally on the wrong side of this issue. I am no longer a Democrat, thus the science I independently researched determined my politics, not the other way around.

          Now you on the otherhand sound exactly like someone that has done no serious research into the subject and is merely parroting political propaganda and prefabricated talking points that have little, if any, basis in fact.

        • Ted says:


          Almost half the world is either Muslim or Hindu. Both religions are creationist, as are almost all others. Why is it that western atheists focus exclusively on Christianity? Do you see the Muslims as more correct? Or the Zoroasters? The Choctaw? You’re not much of an atheist, if you do. So why do you hate Christians so much that you’ll throw out random slurs, completely without context, in a discussion of temperature records? No one else mentioned religion, in any way. This came from your own id. If hating Christians is such an integral part of your being, you need to work on whatever is really bothering you. Could it be that you need to project hatred of another group, in order to protect your ego from the realization that your own religion’s prophecies of doom have proven false? Every last prophecy of the Church of Global Warming has failed. Spectacularly, in many cases. The Arctic is not ice free. Children still know what snow is. New York isn’t under water. Typically, when apocalyptic prophecies fail to pan out, the true believers hold it up as a sign that the REAL apocalypse will now be even worse. Is there anything that could happen, or fail to happen, that would shake your faith? Is there a theoretical scenario that would convince you that CO2 isn’t causing catastrophic warming? If you can’t answer that question, then you’re not arguing science. You’re arguing faith.

          I’m not one to believe anything, without solid evidence. Frankly, I stopped reading the Bible when I realized that I HOPED it was wrong. But I feel no reason to trash those who do believe it. Why do you?

        • AndyG55 says:

          “if your religion or politics decides what part of science you choose to believe in, you’re a moron”

          cfnt has just admitted he’s a democrat and that is where his rabid, but empty belief in CAGW stems from. He is democrat, therefore he believes, and no science, no data, nothing will shake that empty belief..

          by his own words……HE IS A MORON.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “protecting their businesses where vastly larger sums of money are involved (trillions). ”

          Ohh.. you mean the AGW scam, that is where the trillions of money has been spent.

          Peak Renewable will happen when the subsidies run out.

      • gator69 says:

        cfgi, please do me two favors.

        1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

        2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

        There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

        • cfgj says:

          C02 is a greehouse gas and warms up the planet, the only question is: by how much? It’s scientists’ job to figure out the answer to that.

        • gator69 says:

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

        • Ted says:

          I thought your position was that scientists have already figured out that answer. It appears that you’re now admitting they haven’t.

          If sensitivity can be demonstrated to be 25 degrees per doubling, I can’t imagine anyone arguing with making serious changes. If it’s demonstrated to be .004 degrees per doubling, it’s utterly irrelevant. The simple fact that it’s something other than zero, does not make it dangerous. The burden is on those who claim it will be dangerous, to prove their claim. The basis of science is that the status quo is always the default position.

        • Gail Combs says:

          So cfgj, you say that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and warms the planet.
          Answer the following:
          1. How much will CO2 warm the planet? (I already gave you that number more than once with the reference to the authors and paper)

          2. How much will CO2 warm the planet if you take away the sun?

          3. Prove that not only is the sun constant (TSI) but that the distribution of wavelengths are constant.

          4. Explain what causes Dansgaard-Oeschger events and why the temperature increase 8 – 10 C up to 16 C within a decade or two. If you can not explain a NATURAL temperature increase an order of magnitude more than the modern increase, how do you justify saying the tiny increase recently was caused by man’s emmissions of CO2?

          5. Explain why the Holocene is not about to descend into glaciation and give scientific reasons why (back these up with papers)

          6. If more CO2 is what kept the Holocene from entering glaciation on scedule during the Little Ice Age, [Ruddiman, W., 2003] explain why anyone in their right mind would want to strip the earth of the CO2 security blanket that might be keeping us out of the next ice age. Especially explain why anyone wnats to sequester CO2 when according to papers C3 plants (99% of the plant species) were undergoing CO2 starvation when the earth was in the recent glaciation phases of the Milankovitch Cycle.

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

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

          We have handed you peer-reviewed paper after peer-reviewed paper. Time to put up or shut up.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “C02 is a greehouse gas and warms up the planet, the only question is: by how much? It’s scientists’ job to figure out the answer to that.”

          Yes, and they are gradually getting closer and closer to ZERO, the correct answer.

          Even the most rabid political propaganda of the IPCC has greatly reduced its estimate of sensitivity over time, as they learn from nature and reality.

          LEARN??? , now that’s something you should try, once in your life
          You sadly missed out on all previous attempts.

          Gail has shown you that CO2 only radiates above 11km, above the tropopause.
          The troposhere is dominated by convective cooling by water, there is ZERO effect from CO2. That is what the REAL DATA and measurements show.

          But you just stick to your baseless brain-washed mantra, because it all that you have.

      • 97% of chiropractors say they can cure scoliosis by cracking your back. And all the Chiropractor magazines are peer reviewed by other chiropractors, who are the experts.

        97% of homeopaths say they can cure cancer with water. Same thing.

        Climateers are the profiteers of our day, more like mouscateers

    • Gail Combs says:

      It tells us that money and self preservation trumps honesty and integrity but the Nazi’s and Stalin’s genocide already proved that.

  3. Anthony S says:

    It’s almost July, and the Boston snow pile is still alive. The mayor’s office has announced a contest to guess the date the snow is finally gone, the prize being a meeting with the mayor.

  4. cfgj says:

    Skeptical scientists have not managed to produce very much science – perhaps they are not very good or they have chosen the wrong paradigm? (as have creationists)

  5. Don says:

    When a troll refers to the Koch Bros. as “the Kock-brothers “, it is time to pull the plug. It will only get worse if left to run its course.

    • Whether formally trained or not, cfgj argues like a trained Marxist. And yes, it always gets worse.

      • rah says:

        They are always the same. Ask for the proof of what they claim they divert. They are not honest people and in fact the exact the very opposite of a “stand up guy”. Time again they start a dialogue and make claims and accusations, and then when questioned or required to prove their claims they ignore the questions or do their best to deflect the conversation or change the parameters of what it being discussed.

        • gator69 says:

          It is why the alarmists refuse debates, and why they lose them in the rare instance they accept. Notice that we can answer cfgi’s questions, but that he cannot answer ours. And when he feigns answering, it is as you point out, by changing the subject or moving the goalposts. In an open forum debate, tactics of this kind turns off an unbiased audience, and turns them against the user.

          He points to models as proof of something, but then refuses to list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them. Because he cannot, the alarmists cannot, and this should tell him that models are incapable of reproducing our climate.

          He also claims man made CO2 as the driver of climate, and yet cannot disprove natural variabilty, which is the most obvious answer. It is anti-science and anti-logic at the most fundamental of levels.

          He claims warming oceans, and yet refuses to tell us how much the observed warming is, or where it is located.

          Intellectual dishonesty is a mental disorder of leftists, and Orwell described it beautifully in his warning, “1984”.

          “To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word “doublethink” involved the use of doublethink.”
          -George Orwell, “1984”

        • rah says:

          I used to think that leftists like the subject in question just suffered from a kind of cognitive diarrhea. Now I know they’re not sick but are just liars that can’t even be honest with themselves. They believe that everyone should behave like a politician.

        • Billy Liar says:

          They’re all part of Al Gore’s bot net.

  6. markstoval says:

    Interesting thread, almost as if some skeptic was playing the troll to have a little fun.

    When I was trained in math, logic, and science decades ago we were told that gravity, the mass of the atmosphere, the sun, convection, conduction, advection, H2O, and phase change was the main items governing the climate of the planet. CO2 was nowhere to be found in the equation.

    One would think that “science” would have to prove that CO2 was the driver of the climate rather than skeptics having to prove it is not. It used to be that we people made extraordinary claims that they were the ones who were supposed to gin up some proof. My how times have changed.

    • gator69 says:

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And we skeptics are still waiting on the extraordinary evidence, not to mention the refutation of natural variability, which is the very first step in proving that man is responsible.

    • Ted says:

      “almost as if some skeptic was playing the troll…”
      What do you mean, almost?
      We don’t have a “don’t feed the trolls” policy here. Most of us are genuinely looking for the truth, whatever that ends up being. Personally, I hope Cfgj can teach me something. I’m completely open to any evidence he’d like to present. I’d like very much to see him legitimately respond to Gator’s questions. Whether or not I find his evidence convincing, at least I’d come out with more information.

      As for the burden of proof, that all goes back to Lenin’s famous, “Who, whom?” Our society is quickly shifting to the position that truth is determined not by objective reality, but by status of the person saying it. When science was still real, a patent clerk was able to topple some of the theories of Newton. Today, you’re labeled a charlatan if you read a thermometer without a PhD.

      • markstoval says:

        “Today, you’re labeled a charlatan if you read a thermometer without a PhD.”

        So true. But then a PhD is so much more common these days. 🙂

      • gator69 says:

        “There are but two ways of forming an opinion in science. One is the scientific method; the other, the scholastic. One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all-important, and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything, and facts are junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority.
        -Robert A. Heinlein, “Life-Line” – 1939

  7. omanuel says:

    Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard has so embarrassed Big Brother’s AGW fable with factual information about the climate, the Supreme Court had to rescue Big Brother from the front page news with headline-grabbing divided decisions on gay marriage and Obamacare.

    The main objective of these decisions – divide and conquer – is regretfully working well !

    Society is now guided by remarkably clever and dangerous propaganda artists.

  8. Gail Combs says:

    Gator says: “…List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all….”

    This is the first step that has to be done before any realistic climate model can be produced.

    So what does the IPC say about climate models?

    The IPCC actually said in the Science Report in TAR:

    “in climate research and modeling we should recognise that we are dealing with a complex non linear chaotic signature and therefore that long-term prediction of future climatic states is not possible”

    IPCC 2001 section page 774

    Alex H (@USthermophysics) was shocked to find validation procedures on climate models were useless to nonexistant.

    ….I was the principal developer of large, 3-D electromagnetic codes for radiation transport modeling, which have been run on several thousand processors on one of the largest and fastest computers in the world; much like GCMs. After the initial architecture was in place, one of the first orders of business was to perform a rigorous set of validation exercises. This included comparing to analytical solutions for radiating dipoles and light-scattering spheres, which Gustav Mie on the shoulders of Hendrik Lorentz impressively accomplished. These validation procedures were *absolutely* necessary to both debugging, model verification and validation (separate things) and providing the incremental confidence we needed to eventually perform our own studies, which ended up demonstrating–through both model and experiment–the breaking of the optical diffraction limit using nanoscale transport mechanisms. I can’t overstate how important this validation was. The writeup fo this work was later awarded the national Best Paper in Thermophysics, which I mention for appreciation of co-authors Theppakuttai, Chen, and Howell.

    But descriptions of climate modeling by news and popularized science didn’t satisfy my sniff test…..

    I was immediately shocked by what I saw in climate science publications. There is much to say, but the only thing I want to comment on here is the lack of rigorous validation procedures in the models, as far as I can tell. Various modules (and I’ve looked at NCAR and GISS, primarily) seem to have limited validation procedures performed independently of other modules and within a limited scope of the expected modeling range. I have not found any conjugate validation exercises using the integrated models (though I am hopeful someone will enlighten me?). To not have the coupled heat transfer and fluid dynamic mechanisms validated to even a moderate degree, let alone extreme degree of confidence required when projections are made several orders of magnitude outside the characteristic timescale of transport mechanisms is no better than playing roulette. It is like obtaining a mortgage with no idea what your interest rate is…absurd. The uncertainty will be an order of magnitude larger than the long-term trend you’re hoping to project. This is not how tier-1 science and engineering operates. This is not the level of precision required to get jet engines capable of thousands of hours of flight and spacecrafts in orbit and land rovers in specific places on other planets. Large integrated models of individual component models cannot rely on narrow component-level validation procedures. Period. It is an absolute certainty that the confidence we require in the performance of extremely complicated life-supporting vehicles cannot be claimed without integrated validation procedures that do not appear to exist for GCMs. This is one reason, I believe, why we see such a spread in model projections: because it does not exist. V&V is not a trivial issue; DOE, NSF, and NASA have spent many tens of millions of dollars in efforts begun as late as 2013 to determine how to accomplish V&V, for good reason. I support the sentiment behind those efforts.

    So where does that leave us? GCM’s can’t be validated against analytical solutions of actual planetary systems, of course. That is a statement that can’t be worked around and should provide a boundary condition in itself for GCM model projection confidence. But there are analytical fluid dynamics solutions that are relevant, idealized planetary systems that can be modeled and compared to ab-initio solutions, as well as line-by-line Monte-Carlo benchmark simulations which can be performed to validate full-spectrum radiative transport in participating media. I’ve seen nothing that meets this criteria (though I am open to and welcome correction. I will give a nod to LBL radiation calcs which use the latest HITRAN lines but still don’t present validation spectra and are then parameterized from k-distribution form for use in GCMs)

    My conclusion is that current GCMs are like lawn darts. They are tossed in the right direction based on real knowledge, but where they land is a complete function of the best-guess forcings put into it. This is in direct contrast to the results of highly complex models found elsewhere in science and engineering, which are like .270 rounds trained on target by powerful scopes. And they bring home prizes because they were sighted in.”

    Others agree that the Climate models are nothing but CRAP!

    In 2007, Kiehle published a paper that assessed 9 GCMs and two energy balance models.
    (ref. Kiehl JT,Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GRL vol.. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007).
    One curious aspect of this result is that it is also well known [Houghton et al., 2001] that the same models that agree in simulating the anomaly in surface air temperature differ significantly in their predicted climate sensitivity. The cited range in climate sensitivity from a wide collection of models is usually 1.5 to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2, where most global climate models used for climate change studies vary by at least a factor of two in equilibrium sensitivity.

    The question is: if climate models differ by a factor of 2 to 3 in their climate sensitivity, how can they all simulate the global temperature record with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

    Kerr [2007] and S. E. Schwartz et al. (Quantifying climate change–too rosy a picture?, available at, 2007) recently pointed out the importance of understanding the answer to this question. Indeed, Kerr [2007] referred to the present work and the current paper provides the ‘‘widely circulated analysis’’ referred to by Kerr [2007]. This report investigates the most probable explanation for such an agreement. It uses published results from a wide variety of model simulations to understand this apparent paradox between model climate responses for the 20th century, but diverse climate model sensitivity….

    These results explain to a large degree why models with such diverse climate sensitivities can all simulate the global anomaly in surface temperature. The magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing compensates for the model sensitivity.

    And the “magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing” is fixed in each model by the input value of aerosol forcing.

    H/T to UK socialist R.S. Courtney for the info on Kiehle’s papwer. Courtney’ss paper showing similar problems —– Courtney RS An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999.

    Kiehl’s Figure 2

    Figure 2. Total anthropogenic forcing (Wm2) versus aerosol forcing (Wm2) from nine fully coupled climate models and two energy balance models used to simulate the 20th century.

    It shows that
    (a) each model uses a different value for “Total anthropogenic forcing” that is in the range 0.80 W/m^-2 to 2.02 W/m^-2
    (b) each model is forced to agree with the rate of past warming by using a different value for “Aerosol forcing” that is in the range -1.42 W/m^-2 to -0.60 W/m^-2.

    In other words the models use values of “Total anthropogenic forcing” that differ by a factor of more than 2.5 and they are ‘adjusted’ by using values of assumed “Aerosol forcing” that differ by a factor of 2.4.

    So, each climate model emulates a different climate system. Hence, at most only one of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth because there is only one Earth. And the fact that they each ‘run hot’ unless fiddled by use of a completely arbitrary ‘aerosol cooling’ strongly suggests that none of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth. And that is before you get into the problems of dealing with trying to predict a chaotic system.

    • bit chilly says:

      and here endeth the argument 🙂 .

    • gator69 says:

      You cannot model that which you cannot measure, or as a former employer once told me, if you cannot measure it you cannot manage it.

      Nobody knows all climate forcings, which means that nobody can list them by efficacy, and obviously nobody can quantify them. Therefore models are pure fantasy, and only reflect the wishes and fancies of their creators.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Well said , Gator. !!

      • Brian H says:

        I recall one survey of GCM model validation tests concluded they had “no skill on any time scale”, encompassing both fore- and hind-casts. Yet they are pushed as “best available science” in justification of multi-trillion policy decisions. Un-sane.

      • Gail Combs says:

        They can’t even quantify the knowns like clouds much less the unknown unknowns. The ClimAstrologists might as well be using

        and save the tax payers a bundle of bucks.

        • gator69 says:

          There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.
          -Donald Rumsfeld

          Of course lefties think they know everything, and you will never convince them otherwise.

        • Gail Combs says:

          It is the nature of the beast Gator.

          When you start from The Hegelian Basis of The Philosophy Of Karl Marx A philosophy that “…accept[s] as real only that which exist[s] in the mind. [Then] [o]bjective phenomena and events [a]re of no consequence; only the conceptions of them possessed by human minds [a]re real.” With that as your basis for thinking, the idea of unknown unknowns has no meaning.

          Yesterday we booked a birthday party with a sociologist and this was her philosophy. Hubby did some delicate probing just to see if this was the philosophical training sociologists got and yes it is.

          One of the reasons to kick Americans off their farms was to open their children to this type of idiotic philosophy. No farm kid who has been kicked by a mule, pecked by the chickens, stomped on by the cows and bitten by the pigs is going to believe that complete and utter Bovine Feces served up as serious philosophy. Only the molly coddled intellectuals in academia and in the cities are insulated enough from reality to believe it.

          This is also why Child Labor Laws were needed and Welfare. You can only feed Bovine Feces to those who are isolated from the cold nasty universe. Those, like us who are producers of wealth and don’t believe the Bovine Feces are labeled Bourgeoisie Deniers, Rednecks, Simpletons, or Hick, …. and are the subject of targeted hatred.

          The term redneck and the ridicule of America’s independent farmers started in the 1890s and expanded after WWII when the Committee on Economic Development decided it was time to get rid of US farmers. It included journalists making jokes and cartoons about ignorant rednecks.

          From the progressives:

          Disparagements of farmers, of small towns, of anything identifiable as “provincial” can be found everywhere: in comic strips, TV shows, newspaper editorials, literary magazines, and so on. A few years ago, The New Republic affirmed the necessity of the decline of family farms in a cover article entitled “The Idiocy of Rural Life.” And I remember a Kentucky high school basketball cheer that instructed the opposing team:
          Go back, go back, go back to the woods.
          Your coach is a farmer and your team’s no good.

          And the conservatives.

          …why is a columnist for the New York Daily News still using the slur today? How did both Obama and one of his key allies get away with insulting “the cracker vote” and still get elected?

          The answer may be found in these words from a college student at the University of Washington, written after the presidential election last year:

          People on the East and West Coasts tend to think of themselves as superior to everyone else. I am part of this imaginary “master race,” as are most of us at the UW. We are given to imagining ourselves as more sophisticated, more tolerant, more world-wise and, essentially, above the ignorance of the hillbillies that inhabit the rest of the country.

          [W]e coastal snobs, conservative and liberal, have at least managed to largely overcome our innate racial and gender prejudices. However, given the political baggage that the overly simplistic and wantonly polarizing “colored state” dichotomy has created, we’re going to have a tough time overcoming our regional biases.

          For whatever reason, it remains perfectly acceptable to openly insult a large swath of the U.S. population — the common folk who live in “flyover country” — as “bitter” or “racist” or “redneck.”….

  9. What happened to the Greenland ice updates…let me check the website directly…oh, I see why you’ve dropped it.

    • gator69 says:

      Do we expect ice gain, or loss, during an interglacial? I know this is tough for idiot alarmists, so take your meds, and your time.

    • AndyG55 says:

      But Gator, we have had massive ice gains in the last 3500 years of this Holocene Interglacial.

      They even give it a name to distinguish it from the first 6000-7000 years , “NeoGlaciation”

      The Ice level on Greenland is anomalously HIGH compared to the rest of the Holocene.

      The small amount of melt in the last couple of hundred years still hasn’t even uncovered many of the old Viking settlements.

      These moronic alarmista bozos base all their “norms” on a short spell of highly beneficial warming coming out of the COLDEST period in the last 10,000 years, the LIA.

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