Glaciers Shrank Thousands Of Feet Before 1902

Climate experts say that glacial melt is your fault, and can be stopped by you submitting to global communism. Only problem is that glaciers have been shrinking for 20,000 years since the end of the last ice age, and it has nothing to do with CO2 emissions.



About stevengoddard

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

109 Responses to Glaciers Shrank Thousands Of Feet Before 1902

  1. It may have nothing to do with CO2 emissions but man is a guilty sinner and must be punished. And banned.

    • rah says:

      The rate of recession of the glaciers is exceeded by the rate of recession of intelligence and integrity in those that point to them as a sign of CAGW.

  2. Jim Steele says:

    You are the master at finding newspaper clippings that reveal fear mongerers are just recycling the same comments from past changes.

    I tried to address the same issue in Why Vanishing Ice Is Likely All Natural?

  3. gator69 says:

    Obviously it was the hotels that caused the melting.

  4. sfx2020 says:

    This is why your blog is one of the first things I check each morning. You are indeed a national treasure.

  5. Chris Curnow (geologist) says:

    There is always a lot of talk about receding glaciers and how we humans are responsible. Why are the fjords in Norway or New Zealand not mentioned as classic examples of retreating glaciers well before humans even ventured into northern Europe?

  6. Dave1billion says:

    Did the article above appear in a Peer Reviewed Scientific Journal?

    If it didn’t, then it didn’t happen, so shut up and go back and do whatever it is you Creationists do on Mondays.

    • cfgj says:

      It’s always funny when creationists and religionists are proud of their critical thinking skills.

      • Dave1billion says:

        Unless birth was announced in a Peer Reviewed Scientific Journal (or a Honolulu newspaper in August of 1961 – I don’t want to be called a Birther) then you do not exist.

        Shut up and go back to your Flat Earth Society coven.

      • gator69 says:

        That is exactly why we laugh at you! Your faith in failed models and that nature no longer changes climates is hilarious.

        Still waiting on you to provide the basics…

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

        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.

      • Gail Combs says:

        cfgj says: “It’s always funny when creationists and religionists are proud of their critical thinking skills.”

        GEE, and here I thought I was an Agnostic married to an Atheist and that both of us were trained scientists (Physics and Chemistry)

        • rah says:

          Foolish people like his ilk seem to have very limited ability to understand that beliefs within Christianity come in every shade of gray imaginable and all that is required to be a Christian is to believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God and your savior. Where an atheist sees chaos I see order. And with many of the warmist, they see chaos everywhere except of course in the climate, which they believe man has the power to change significantly and the ability to predict the effects of that change.

        • Dave1billion says:

          “And with many of the warmist, they see chaos everywhere except of course in the climate, which they believe man has the power to change significantly and the ability to predict the effects of that change.”

          Well said and thumbs up!

        • Gail Combs says:

          Rah, Dave

          I have had it with all the Christian bashing. Especially the contemptuous assumption that if you think CAGW is a large Crock of Feces feed to the Sheeple in order to bamboozle them into accepting serfdom, you must be a superstitious Christian who knows nothing about the Scientific Method.

          It is the typical attack the person instead of defending the scientific conjecture that the Marxists are so good at.

        • gator69 says:

          Curiously, it appears Christians better understand the difference between “theory” and fact.

      • cfgj, the workers of the world rely on you. They are fortunate that at the crucial junctions of history you step away from your annotated copy of Das Kapital and beat the reactionaries back with your mighty pen.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Yes the workers of the world are relying on people like cfgj.

          Workers AFTER world wide communism

          cfgj of course is hoping to be rewarded with a position like the guy right front in blue after the Revolution.

        • cfgj says:

          Jesus was a communist hippie wasn’t he?

        • Discipline yourself, Comrade cntj. Don’t drink that moonshine. Your watch will be over in 18 hours.

        • gator69 says:

          No, Jesus was far from a communist hippie. For starters Jesus did not reject conventional values, or take drugs. Jesus preached that the only way to Heaven was through personal salvation, and not the state.

          Communism is a political theory that advocates class warfare and leads to a state that owns all property. Communism was developed by Karl Marx who said, “Communism begins from the outset with atheism”.

          Do you ever say anything even remotely intelligent?

        • Gail Combs says:

          Matthew 21:12
          “And Jesus went into the temple of God, … and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers”

          Jesus was no fan of the Banksters but cfgj certainly is whether he knows it or not.

          There is a reason I call cfgj a good little Bankster serf The Communists and Socialist are the serfs of the international bankers and have been for over one hundred years.

          The 1911 St. Louis Dispatch cartoon by a American Communist party member Robert Minor. Minor was later arrested in Tsarist Russia for revolutionary activities and was himself bankrolled by the Wall Street Banksters. We may assume, under those circumstances that he knew his topic well. His cartoon portrays Karl Marx with a book entitled Socialism under his arm, standing amid a cheering crowd on Wall Street. Gathered around and greeting him with enthusiastic handshakes are characters in silk hats identified as John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, Morgan partner George W. Perkins and Teddy Roosevelt, leader of the Progressive Party.

          This is backed up by the February 3, 1949 issue of the New York Journal American. Jacob Schiff’s grandson, John, was quoted by columnist Cholly Knickerbocker as saying that his grandfather had given about $20 million for the triumph of Communism in Russia.

          Jacob Schiff was head of the New York investment firm Kuhn, Loeb and Co. Schiff was also a major contributor to Woodrow Wilson’s presidential campaign. President Woodrow Wilson was the fairy godmother, who provided T*r*o*t*s*k*y with an American passport passport to return to Russia to “carry forward” the revolution. When T*r*o*t*s*k*y was arrested by Canadian naval personnel, when his ship, the S.S. Kristianiafjord, put in at Halifax, The US government intervened and saw to it he was released. (Antony C. Sutton, Ph. D.: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, published by Arlington House in New Rochelle, NY, 1974, )

          It is also backed up by the 1934 speeches in Congress by Congressman Louis T. McFadden who himself was a banker. McFadden served as Chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee for more than 10 years and was elected to Congress on both the Democratic and Republican tickets. After exposing the International Banksters McFadden was driven out of Congress and when he wouldn’t shut up was shot at twice and finally assassinated by poison.

          Congressman McFadden 1934 Remarks in Congress

          …Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation’s debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over….

          Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lender….

          These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this Country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us our hospitality by undermining our American institutions. Those bankers took money out of this Country to finance Japan in a war against Russia. They created a reign of terror in Russia with our money in order to help that war along. They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia, and thus drove a wedge between the allies in World War. They financed T*r*o*t*s*k*y’s passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian Empire. They fomented and instigated the Russian Revolution, and placed a large fund of American dollars at T*r*o*t*s*k*y’s disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden so that through him Russian homes might be thoroughly broken up and Russian children flung far and wide from their natural protectors. They have since begun breaking up of American homes and the dispersal of American children….

          We were opposed to the Aldrich plan for a central bank. The men who rule the Democratic Party then promised the people that if they were returned to power there would be no central bank established here while they held the reigns of government. Thirteen months later that promise was broken, and the Wilson administration, under the tutelage of those sinister Wall Street figures who stood behind Colonel House, established here in our free Country the worm-eaten monarchical institution of the “King’s Bank” to control us from the top downward, and from the cradle to the grave…

          Not only did Wall Street help T*r*o*t*s*k*y get from New York City to Russia they give him millions in American gold.

          (T*r*o*t*s*k*y is now a censored word.)

        • gator69 says:

          Jesus was not making commentary on bankers, he was outraged that a sacred place was being used for conducting commerce.

          To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”
          John 2:16

          He also had issue with the parttition of the temple courtyards that segregated Gentiles from the Israelites, which went against Old Testament teachings.

          You really have to read the entire book to even begin to know the whole story, and even then it can take a lifetime of further studies to truly understand the basics.

        • Gail Combs says:

          When Jesus cleared the money changers from the Temple, he dis so by overturning their tables and even used a whip.

          John 2:15
          And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;

          The market place in the outer courtyard of the Temple was bad enough but the Money Changers were even worse. Not only did the shulḥani charged a fee varying from 4 percent to 8 percent but, they also acted as a banker, and would receive money on deposit for investment and pay out an interest at a fixed rate (Matt. 25:27), although this was contrary to Jewish law.


          ….In the period of the Second Temple vast numbers of Jews streamed to Palestine and Jerusalem “out or every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5), taking with them considerable sums of money in foreign currencies. This is referred to in the famous instance of Jesus’ driving the money changers out of the Temple (Matt. 21:12). Not only did these foreign coins have to be changed but also ordinary deposits were often handed over to the Temple authorities for safe deposit in the Temple treasury (Jos., Wars 6:281–2). Thus Jerusalem became a sort of central bourse and exchange mart, and the Temple vaults served as “safe deposits” in which every type of coin was represented (TJ, Ma’as. Sh. 1:2, 52d, and parallels). The business of money exchange was carried out by the shulḥani (“exchange banker”), who would change foreign coins into local currency and vice versa (Tosef., Shek. 2:13; Matt. 21:12).

          People coming from distant countries would bring their money in large denominations rather than in cumbersome small coins. The provision of small change was a further function of the shulḥani (cf. Sif. Deut., 306; Ma’as Sh., 2:9). For both of these kinds of transactions the shulḥani charged a small fee (agio), called in rabbinic literature a kolbon (a word of doubtful etymology but perhaps from the Greek κόλλυβος “small coin”; TJ, Shek. 1:6, 46b). This premium seems to have varied from 4 percent to 8 percent (Shek. 1:6, et al.). The shulḥani served also as a banker, and would receive money on deposit for investment and pay out an interest at a fixed rate (Matt. 25:27), although this was contrary to Jewish law (see below; *Moneylending).

          Thus the shulḥani fulfilled three major functions: (a) foreign exchange, (b) the changing of large denominations into small ones, and vice versa, and (c) banking. Three terms for “money-changer” are found in the New Testament: (a) kermatistēs (John 2:14), (b) kollybistēs (Matt. 21:12), and (c) trapezitēs (literally, shulḥani; Matt. 25:27, et al.) It seems probable that these three terms correspond to the three functions of the shulḥani outlined above. Thus kermatistēs, from kermatizō. “to cut small,” is one who gives small change; kollybistēs, from kollybos, changed foreign currency; while the trapezitēs was a banker (from trapeza, “table”).

          The shulḥanim in Jerusalem used to set up their “tables” in the outer court of the Temple for the convenience of the numerous worshipers, especially those from foreign countries (Matt. 21:12–13). Excavations around the Temple walls have uncovered stores or kiosks, some of which, it has been surmised, were occupied by money changers. The Mishnah states that on the 15th of Adar, every year, “tables” were set up in the provinces (or in Jerusalem) for the collection of the statutory annual half-shekel, and on the 25th of Adar they were set up in the Temple itself (Shek. 1:3). The activity of the Jewish banker, shulḥani, was of a closely defined nature, as his transactions had to be in accordance with the biblical prohibition against taking interest (ribit). The Talmud records much information relating to his activities. An additional and interesting feature of his business was the payment on request of sums deposited with him for that purpose (BM 9:12).

          See also: Ṣarrāf.

          F. Heichelheim, in: T. Frank, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, 4 (1938), 224–7, 247–8, 256–7 (bibl.); F. Madden, in: Numismatic Chronicle (1876), 290–7; A. Gulak, in: Tarbiz, 2 (1931), 154–71. ADD. BIBLIOGRAPHY: D. Sperber, Roman Palestine, 200–400. Money and Prices (1974).

        • gator69 says:

          If Jesus was anti-banker, then why was it only in the temople, and never anywhere else, that he showed us this? Think Gail.

        • Gail Combs says:

          As far as captalism goes, the bible has no problem with that but does have a problem with lazy parasites.

          Matthew 25
          8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.

          9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.

          14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
          And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
          Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
          And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
          But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.
          After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
          And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
          His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
          He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
          His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
          Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
          And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine
          His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
          Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
          Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents….
          30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness…

          Seems pretty darn clear to me that the Bible shows wisdom and industry (capitalism) rewarded and slothfulness punished.

        • Gator, Communism developed long before Karl Marx. There is a 30-page article “Communism” in the 8th edition of Britannica, published in the 1850’s. Marx and Engels are not mentioned. Most of the early communists were French.

        • gator69 says:

          From Merriam Webster’s Dictionary…

          Full Definition of COMMUNISM
          1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property, b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
          2 a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production, c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably

          We are discussing political communism, not communes.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Gator, The bible has no problem with buying and selling but it is not approving of usury which is a different matter. Jesus was angry because the House of the Lord was being used for purposes other than worship and I understand that. However money-changers/lenders were different than people buying and selling.

          Ezekiel 22:12
          In you they take bribes to shed blood; you take interest and profit and make gain of your neighbors by extortion; but me you have forgotten, declares the Lord God.

          Exodus 22:25
          If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him.

          Ezekiel 18:13
          Lends at interest, and takes profit; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself.

          Deuteronomy 23:19
          You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest.

          Leviticus 25:37
          You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit.

          Luke 6:35
          But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.

          Proverbs 22:7
          The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender.

          Psalm 15:1-5
          (A Psalm of David.) O Lord, who shall sojourn in your tent? Who shall dwell on your holy hill? He who walks blamelessly and does what is right and speaks truth in his heart; who does not slander with his tongue and does no evil to his neighbor, nor takes up a reproach against his friend; in whose eyes a vile person is despised, but who honors those who fear the Lord; who swears to his own hurt and does not change; who does not put out his money at interest and does not take a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things shall never be moved.

          …The Old Testament “classes the usurer with the shedder of blood, the defiler of his neighbor’s wife, the oppressor of the poor, the spoiler by violence, the violator of the pledge, the idolater, and pronounces the woe upon them, that they who commit these iniquities shall surely die.” Id. at 2. The usurer was put in the same category with extortioners, Sabbath-breakers, those who vex the fatherless and widows, dishonor parents and accept bribes (Ezekiel 22). Id. at 17. The usurer was also classed with the liar, the unrighteous, the backbiter, the slanderer and perjurer, and denied the right to inherit the New Jerusalem (Psalm 15). Id. The usurer is further classed with the meanest and lowest of men and the vilest of criminals (Ezekiel 18). Id.

          Before the Babylonian captivity, Ezekiel denounced the practice of usury as a great evil and mentioned the practice of oppressing strangers as part of the great wickedness. Id. at 9. Interest repayments on loans, even to resident strangers was forbidden in the year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25:35-37) whereas in regular years it was permissible to charge interest to strangers (Deuteronomy 23:19-20). Id. at 3.

          Zechariah forbade “the oppression of the stranger, classing it with oppression of the widow, the fatherless and the poor…” Id. at 9. Malachi “enjoins regard for the stranger’s rights.” Id.

          Nehemiah, after the captivity, boldly denounced usury (Nehemiah 5:9-11), instituted a reform and had retribution made for all usurious holdings. Id. Those who can abide in the Tabernacle or dwell in the holy hill include (Psalm 15:1): “He that putteth not out his money to usury.” Id. at 9…..

          ….The New Testament continued the prohibition of usury: “In the fullness of time the Messiah came, and no part of the moral law was abrogated. The prohibition of usury as to the Jew was extended, to include mankind, and the permit as to the stranger was declared inoperative and void. The Jew was taught to sympathize with strangers remembering that they were once strangers in Egypt.” Id. at 9-10.

          Jesus taught (Luke 6:34-35) “love ye your enemies, and do good and lend, hoping for nothing again.” Id. at 10. Usury was the basis for Jesus’s calling the money changers thieves: “The commerce of the world is conducted on principles as much at variance with the teachings of the master, as are the practices of a sneak thief or burglar. So the Master taught, as with whip of cords, he indignantly drove its representatives, from the sacred precincts of the Temple, denouncing them as thieves…..

          In Jesus’ parable on the subject of usury (Matthew 25:26-27; Luke 19:22-23) “only the hard, austere man, one whose conscience will not interfere with his reaping where he has not sown, and taking up where he has not laid down, would extract usury, for he makes the lord of the parable tell the servant of it: You say I am a hard and austere man, then why did you not act accordingly, and earn me my usury as my nature demanded?” Id. at 3.

          Assuming there is a stranger exception, “where is the authority for the practice of usury on our brethren?” Id. at 3. The taking of interest is “subversive of the principles of a sound state policy, contrary to good morals, and opposed to the teaching of God’s Word.” Id. at 10.….

        • gator69 says:

          u·su·ry ˈyo͞oZH(ə)rē noun
          the illegal action or practice of lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest.
          archaic: interest at unreasonably high rates.

          That is not anti-banking, that is anti-scamming.

          Gail, banks today incur costs when they lend to people, and that cost is passed on in the form of interest. They must build facilities that they must maintain and pay taxes on, plus pave parking lots and pay wages to employees to service those loans. Etc, etc, etc…

          2000 years ago, it was a totally different story. Think Gail.

        • Gail Combs says:

          if you were talking gold or silver or copper (like the temple money-changers were dealing in) you might have a point but US banks are creating money out of thin air and then loaning it out. Therefore the principle as well as the interest is ALL PROFIT. It is F*R*A*U*D! There is no consideration (wealth) exchanged for the promissory note and yet that note is paid back in money representing the debtor’s labor. Contrary to most people’s belief the bank is not lending out Joe Plumber’s savings but is instead lending out the moral equivalent of monopoly money.

          Testimony by Mr. Morgan, the bank’s president,First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969)

          Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, . . . did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.

          This is backed up by Graham F. Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada.

          Some of the most frank evidence on banking practices was given by Graham F. Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada (from 1934 to 1955), before the Canadian Government’s Committee on Banking and Commerce, in 1939.

          Q. But there is no question about it that banks create the medium of exchange?

          Mr. Towers: That is right. That is what they are for… That is the Banking business, just in the same way that a steel plant makes steel. (p. 287) The manufacturing process consists of making a pen-and-ink or typewriter entry on a card in a book. That is all. (pp. 76 and 238) Each and every time a bank makes a loan (or purchases securities), new bank credit is created — new deposits — brand new money. (pp. 113 and 238) Broadly speaking, all new money comes out of a Bank in the form of loans. As loans are debts, then under the present system all money is debt. (p. 459)

          Q. When $1,000,000 worth of bonds is presented (by the government) to the bank, a million dollars of new money or the equivalent is created?
          Mr. Towers: Yes.

          Q. Is it a fact that a million dollars of new money is created?
          Mr. Towers: Yes. (p. 286)

          Q. Will you tell me why a government with power to create money, should give that power away to a private monopoly, and then borrow that which parliament can create itself, back at interest, to the point of national bankruptcy?
          Mr. Towers: If parliament wants to change the form of operating the banking system, then certainly that is within the power of parliament. (p. 394)

          US Banks Operating Without Reserve Requirements

          Banks typically have 3% of their assets in cash in order to meet customer needs. Since 1960, banks have been allowed to use this “vault cash” to satisfy their reserve requirements. Today, bank reserve requirements have fallen to the point where they are now exceeded by vault cash, which means lowering reserve requirements to zero would have virtually no impact on the banking system. US banks are already operating free of any reserve constraints. The graph below shows reserve requirements falling to zero over the last fifty years.

          In summary, today most depository institutions are satisfying their entire reserve requirement with this vault cash, which they hold to meet the liquidity needs of their customers and would hold even in the absence of reserve requirements. For these institutions, reserve requirements are effectively non-existent.

          The numbers used to create these charts come directly from the Federal Reserve….

        • gator69 says:

          Correction: The Federal Reserve is creating money out of thin air. Banks are not charities, and must charge for their services. I know, because I worked for a major bank for years and saw the audits.

          I know you hate banks, and it colors your view of them.

        • Gail Combs says:

          The URL for *****US Banks Operating Without Reserve Requirements*****

          (Word imperfect is censoring again.)

        • Gator:

          :From Merriam Webster’s Dictionary…

          Full Definition of COMMUNISM
          1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property, b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
          2 a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production, c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably

          We are discussing political communism, not communes.”

          I was not talking about communes. I was talking about political communism, definition 1a and 1b from the above. It developed long before Marx was born.

        • Gail Combs says:


          I have zero problem with banks charging a reasonable fee for services rendered. I will happily pay for a safe deposit box (as long as it is not in California ) Or for a checking account or checks or what ever.

          My problem is with Fractional Reserve Banking. Also I am well aware that there were fights among banks and the big boys got laws passed that allowed them to gobble up the smaller community banks.

          However no amount of dancing around can cover up the fact that the money supply total was
          50.1 billion in 1959
          $205 billion in 1985
          $ 406 billion in 1994
          $831 billion in 2008
          $1663 billion in 2009

          The cost of gold went from $354.20/oz in 1985 to $1,020.28/oz in 2009.

          That was 1613 billion dollars pulled out of thin air by the bankers in fifty years. That represents loans that the American people (or others) then must PAY BACK to the banks via their labor not thin air. That does not include the interest on those loans.

        • gator69 says:

          Gail, you are conflating banks with the Federal Reserve. That is nonsense.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Poor little cfnt … it has no thinking skills to be proud of.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Poor little cfnt has such deficient thinking skills that he is tossing an insult about Jesus at an agnostic whose family is from Syria.

          Hey cfnt just remember what happens to people who insult the Prophet (peace be upon him)

      • Terry says:

        Only a “Moran” would make a comment like that cfgj.

  7. Andy DC says:

    Even in 1902, greedy capitalist robber barons were extracting evil coal and petroleum from the good earth and spewing deadly CO2 into the pristine atmosphere.

    Not to mention their brutal oppression of women, Native peoples, blacks and the LGBT community! No wonder Gaia was angry and caused the glaciers to shrink! (sarc)

  8. rah says:

    This OT but I gotta tell this story. A couple days ago a blind guy that is a stand up comedian had his home hit by lightning. The guy is a HAM radio enthusiast and his ungrounded antenna on top of the house acted as a lightning rod for a very powerful strike. It fried all the plugged in electrical appliances in the house. Of course his radios are burned up and every TV is done for. The spare cable from his cable provider rolled up on the floor behind the TV burned the carpet. All of that is to be expected from a major strike but here’s what weird. Every outlet and return register vent from his HVOC system was blown out from the walls and ceilings. He and his significant other were not hurt, but the clap of thunder was heard all across Anderson.

    • Gail Combs says:

      A company I worked for had an X-ray machine they used for X-ray defraction on ceramics. The machine was in a shielded room in the middle of the building.

      It got fried in a lightening strike. It was the only thing in the entire building that was hit. All we could figure out was the lightening hit the underground grounding cable and traveled up through the wire to the machine.

    • gator69 says:

      The one downside of a metal roof that I have found so far, is that when my house was hit, it sent the current across the entire roof structure, and found my furnace, microwave, and stove. All three had metal connections to the roof. The upside is that there was not so much as a scorch mark to be found. I saw the strike from inside the house, yellow sparks flew off the roof like a roman candle on steroids. Boom! Lights out.

      • rah says:

        I have three grounded lightning rods across the ridge of my home. My home was struck and my only loss was the submersible pump in the well. About $2,500 installed for the new one. One of the braided copper ground cables from the lightning rods runs into the ground within 3′ of the well. Of course the 5″ well casing in steel pipe. I figure that is what go it. Really don’t know what to do about it though. There isn’t enough of the cable to move the ground very far. So what I did was go from a 4″ diameter submersible pump unit to a more expensive 3″ and I hope the extra clearance helps.

        • gator69 says:

          My house sits atop one of the the highest points in the county, and is highly exposed to lightning strikes. I consulted a few experts and was advised against installing lightning rods as they might actually attract a strike. In addition, homes built today are far different in construction to those when these rods were develpoed.

      • rah says:

        I really don’t know if I need those lightning rods. After all my neighbor has a big two story metal barn that is only 150 ft. from my home. Not a barn for live stock or even farm equipment. One that houses his camper, has an upholstery shop working area and a carpentry shop working area. and a play room up above. Includes a “Silo” that is about 2 1/2 stories high that is actually a windowed vista for observation.

        • Dave1billion says:

          Well, just play it safe, why don’t you recommend that your neighbor install lightning rods on each corner and one on the silo. :<)

        • rah says:

          It’s a metal building. The whole thing is a lightning rod!

  9. rah says:

    Now here is another one that is OT but interesting. I just checked Accuweather and the NWS has posted a Special Weather Statement that for something I have never seen before: Here is what it said:

    Special Weather Statement
    Special Weather Statement in effect until 9:00 PM EDT. Source: U.S. National Weather Service





    • Gail Combs says:

      When I lived in Indiana (tornado alley) we used to watch the funnel clouds form, touch the ground and then get sucked back up into the thunderheads.

      I haven’t seen that since the late 60s early 70s.

    • gator69 says:

      I have noticed that they are now reporting “radar indicated” tornadoes, and counting singular tornadoes as multiple tornadoes simply because they “skip”. All of this is to drive the numbers upward, and make it appear that weather is getting more extreme.

      • Gail Combs says:

        I have watched the clouds play funnel cloud yoyo. Forming a funnel cloud and then sucking it back up into the thunderhead and then having it form again over and over. Is that multiple tornadoes when the funnel never touches the ground?

        • gator69 says:

          “They” would likely be “radar indicated” tornadoes.

          The “Tri-state Tornado” of 1925 would now likely be counted as 40 tornadoes…

          With reanalysis beginning 70 years after the tornado, it was impossible to confirm the complete continuity of the damage path along the reported path. Even with extensive field work discovering 2,395 individual damage points, there were 32 gaps of at least one mile in length, but only 7 gaps longer than 2.5 miles in length. All of the longer gaps were in the Missouri portion of the path; within the sparsely-populated Ozark mountain area. Assuming that gaps shorter than 2.5 miles might still represent a continuous tornado, the continuous path was at least 174 miles long. Additional, previously unreported tornadoes were also found before the beginning and after the end of the Tri-State Tornado. The research also allowed for conclusion that the storm was a supercell; classic in its stages and high-precipitation in the later stages. The supercell also produced accompanying hail up to baseball size and non-tornadic damaging winds.

          Got to keep that funding flowing.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Gator the tornado that hit mid NC a few years ago wiped out the Tractor Supply jumped over the Hardees who shared the same parking lot and then touched down again to wipe out the Lowes Home Improvement center.

          Tornadoes jump. My Ex-in-laws built their house in Indiana below a hill and had several tornadoes jump straight over the house but destroy fields and out buildings. Thier farm was in the pathway of the 1965 Palm Sunday Tornado. I have stood on a ridge in Alabama (while cave hunting) and watched a tornado wipe out houses jump touch down wipe out a trailer court, jump…..

          That is the nature of tornadoes.

        • gator69 says:

          You are preaching to the choir Gail. I was the kid who would chase storms (much to the dismay of my mother), first on my bike, and later in my hotrod Buick. I have watched many funnel clouds skip across the the Earth and sky, and was even chased by a water spout once on Biscayne Bay.

          Knowing this is why it troubles me to see “authorities” and “experts” recounting the same tornado over and over. But then lefties love to redefine things in order to fit their worldview.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Gator, it is useful to spell it out in one or two syllable words for those in cities on the coasts who have never seen a tornado in their lives. This Yank was horrified the first time all the Hoosiers headed out to the porch to funnel cloud watch.

        • gator69 says:

          Twice I have found myself underneath funnel clouds. About thirty years ago my brother and I were fishing in the Ozarks, and we had to pull off the lake as lightning was hitting the water. Once on shore we saw a funnel cloud forming above the trees and took shelter in the basement of an abandoned house until it passed. The other time was while I was delivering papers on my bike, I heard branches snapping above me and looked up at a tree cuisinart, then I heard the tornado sirens and just kept peddling like mad. But the water spout in Florida was the most frightening. My family was in the bay fishing when we spotted a large spout form and start heading in our direction. It crossed Elliot Key and shredded some palm trees as we ran full throttle back to the marina, watching it gain on us. Thankfully it lifted back into the clouds before landfall.

        • rah says:

          I didn’t see any of those funnel clouds yesterday but we did have a gorgeous sunset. That great red ball on the horizon seeming to sit just above the trees bordering a mile wide field filled with soya bean plants and underlighting the clouds creating all of the pastel hues of a rainbow in broad bands stretching across the sky.

          BTW I was wrong about the Zucchini and squash still being a week away. Neighbor brought over two huge Zucchinis and a nice banana squash yesterday. Will get some fresh green beans to snap today from the same garden. Already have a ham hock to put in with those beans. The Zucchini will be used by my daughter to make a chocolate-Zucchini cake which tastes much better than it sounds. Unfortunately my wife and banana squash don’t get along well together. For some reason it’s just the Banana squash that bothers her. We both love Acorn squash. Some of the corn around here already have tassels.

          Concerning Tornadoes: Palm Sunday 1965 was the worst tornado outbreak in the history of Indiana. I was a kid visiting relatives in Kokomo, IN that day and watched three what were later classified as F4 tornadoes, one after another swirl and skid and jump down US Hwy 35 right through the town. All three of them jumped over the house we were in and over what was then Bunker Hill AFB (Later Grissom AFB).

          Back then the base was a SAC installation and had what I think is one of the most beautiful aircraft ever to grace the skies. The B-58 Hustler which was the first bomber aircraft that could sustain mach 2. A hit on that base would have caused serious damage to US defense capability because a great number of tankers were based there also.

        • Gail Combs says:


          My ex as a teenager lived through the Palm Sunday Tornado and helped clean up afterwards. He said the winds were so powerful straw was driven into electric poles. A few years later when I moved to Indiana you could still see the path. Absolutely nothing much higher than grass for miles in either direction.

        • rah says:


          Yes, a straw driven into a telephone pole. A 2 x 4 driven through the engine block of a tractor. People say that it is physically impossible to do that. It happened. The little town of Alto completely wiped off the map without a complete structure left standing. There was a special addition of the Kokomo Tribune put out the next day. I wish I still had it. It showed all of these things. The part on Alto showed the twisted city sign and said “The sign says Alto, but the town is not there”. Here is audio taken from the Church in Alto when it came through:
          There were three lines of deadly storms. The first hit NW going ENE across the Lake Country in the northern part of the state. The second and the worst, where I was, ripping across Kokomo through Rushaville in North Central Indiana. The third about 20 miles south of the second line. Those tornadoes killed more people, over 200, more than any natural disaster in the states history, and injured nearly 1,500. In doing a little research to remember I noticed that the actual F rating for some of the storms is questionable and there may have been several F5s. At least two tormados were observed with a base approaching a mile wide according to the Indiana State Police.

        • Gail Combs says:

          My Ex’s family lives about 40K west of Alto.

  10. D. Self says:

    cfgj is a good example of a Public Education. Can’t think on their own and are nothing more than a parrot.

  11. cfgj says:

    Seriously, do some people on this blog REALLY think that Earth Sciences are actually a form of communism? LOL, that would be both hilarious and retarded.

    ps. Would you describe Jesus as being pro-wealth, pro-business or pro-authority?

    • gator69 says:

      Seriously, do you ever have anything intelligent to say?

      Yes Jesus was pro-wealth. Without wealth there is no charity. Without business there is no wealth, and God is the authority.

      As for science, it has no political affiliation, but zealots like you do. I spent 7 years as a geology student, and later was a climatology student beforte this whole AGW scam even started.

      I know you will just run away agian, but I must ask…

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

      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.

      • Gail Combs says:

        cfgj says: “Seriously, do some people on this blog REALLY think that Earth Sciences are actually a form of communism? LOL, that would be both hilarious and retarded….”

        Fine, then if you know so much about geology (Steve has a degree in Geology) then answer Gator’s question and also the following:

        3. Explain the 8° to 10° C increases in temperature over a few years to a few decades caused by Dansgaard–Oeschger events.

        4. Explain why the current interglacial was cooler than the preceding interglacials

        5. Explain why Lisiecki & Raymo are wrong when they say:
        “… In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398– 418 ka as from 250–650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the 21 June insolation minimum at 65°N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘‘double precession cycle’’ interglacial…”
        (Translation: It ain’t going to warm for another 65,000 years and if mankind doesn’t do something, like emit CO2 we are headed into the ice box.) A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic D18O records

        Were waiting for you to do something besides attack the messenger.

        • gator69 says:

          Gail, cfgj does not give answers that he knows will destroy his religion. He likes his childish drive-bys that wildly miss the mark, and congratulates himself on being so bold as to confront people with real knowledge. It is a sort of auto-erotic pseudo-intellectualism that gets him off.

    • No cf. The corruption of science is a form of communism. It is YOU who have the science all wrong.

  12. cfgj says:

    Aren’t the D-O events customarily explained by abrupt changes to the thermohaline circulation?

    • gator69 says:

      “Customarily” 😆

      How about “scientifically”?

      Only if you could list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

      Care to try?

      • cfgj says:

        If you wish to learn about climate and forcings you can comb through this rather comprehensive report:

        • gator69 says:

          You should try reading the report sometime. AR5 was no improvement over AR4, in which they admit they know very little about forcings. In fact AR5 went backwards. From AR4…

          2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing

          When it comes to understanding climate drivers, 13 out of 16 forcings are listed as ‘low’ to ‘very low’.

          Chapter 8, Table 8.5 (page 41)

          Click to access WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter08.pdf

          Only 14 forcings identified this time, appears they are getting dumber, and only 1 (ghg) has ‘Very High’ confidence. We all have seen the relationship between CO2 levels and temperatures over the past 18+ years, so they are lying. 4 are listed as ‘low’, and the only solar mention is ‘irradiance’.

          And this is your answer? 😆

          So let’s try again!

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

          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.

          You, like the IPCC. appear to be getting dumber with each new writing.

      • rah says:

        Now I’m losing my patience. Who are you who can’t provide the list requested repeatedly to claim to school Gator on forcings? Provide the list in the manner Gator proscribed, or STFU your sniveling little turd!
        The whole CAGW argument relies on CO2 causing other forcings to be enhanced and they can’t even quantify them all accurately nor account for all of them. That is why you can’t answer the question. That is one reason why their scientists duck directly debating skeptical scientists and why their models are so miserably wrong. But you, like they, are too dishonest to admit that TROLL! You don’t want to learn nor share . All you want to do is snipe with snarky insulting little posts like some HS girl on twitter or face book. Go back to the playground where you belong you sniveling little puke! In the real world if you talked to me like you write I would plant a size 11 boot so far up your ass that you would taste Kiwi for a week!

        • gator69 says:

          Arrogance is ignorance, but then so is ignorance 😆

          Having cfgj tutor us on science and religion is like getting sex advice from a virgin.

          Childish frivolous gormless jabbering.

        • cfgj says:

          Have you guys ever even talked to a scientist?

        • gator69 says:

          Do you ever make an intelligent comment? I have yet to see one. Your last leap of faith ithat only pointed out the ignorance of the IPCC “experts” was great. Keep it up!

    • Gail Combs says:

      cfgj says: “Aren’t the D-O events customarily explained by abrupt changes to the thermohaline circulation?”

      Not necessarily. That is one possible, but the science is still not settled.

      • cfgj says:

        Thermohaline-explanations seems pretty darn plausible, but what are the other leading candidates?

        • Gail Combs says:

          This paper says it is due to the ocean circulation having a swap of ‘mode’:


          Abrupt changes in climate, termed Dansgaard-Oeschger and Heinrich events, have punctuated the last glacial period (~100 – 10 kyr ago) but not the Holocene (the past 10 kyr). Here we use an intermediate-complexity climate model to investigate the stability of glacial climate, and we find that only one mode of Atlantic Ocean circulation is stable: a cold mode with deep water formation in the Atlantic Ocean south of Iceland. However, a `warm’ circulation mode similar to the present-day Atlantic Ocean is only marginally unstable, and temporary transitions to this warm mode can easily be triggered. This leads to abrupt warm events in the model which share many characteristics of the observed Dansgaard-Oeschger events. For a large freshwater input (such as a large release of icebergs), the model’s deep water formation is temporarily switched off, causing no strong cooling in Greenland but warming in Antarctica, as is observed for Heinrich events. Our stability analysis provides an explanation why glacial climate is much more variable than Holocene climate.

          One possible reason for the swap is the north/south component of lunar tides that most people do not even think about. The timing is the same ~1500 years.


          Long-Term Lunar Atmospheric Tides in the Southern Hemisphere.

          Papers on Shorter Cycles
          The influence of the lunar nodal cycle on Arctic climate

          Ancient eclipses and long-term drifts in the
          Earth–Moon system

          …This anomaly may be caused by subtle differences in the Moon’s location compared to the values used in the NASA calculations. We then study the location of the Moon during these anomalous periods and find that it is significantly closer to major standstill during this period. We then calculate the differential acceleration of the Earth due to its varying oblateness because of the fact that water mass has a much greater displacement compared to land mass due to lunar gravity. We show that this difference in moment of inertia of the Earth is consistent with fluctuations in the length of day and the errors in location of the Moon derived from our calculations. This is consistent with the fluctuations observed in East Asian records and the fluctuations in length of day recorded since the advent of atomic clocks….

          In short NASA’s model is wrong. The data are right. It shows changes in lunar orbit change the tides, the distribution of water on the planet, and through that the Length Of Day along with the shape of the Earth.

          Discussion of paper

        • Gail Combs says:

          Another possible candidate is geomagnetic changes. And just in case you were wondering the magnetic north pole is wandering at an accelerated rate and weakening.
          Vukcevic has done a lot of work on the subject.

          RPI is Relative Paleo Intensity (of magnetism in sediments)
          Geomagnetic moment variation and paleomagnetic excursions since 400 kyr BP: a stacked record from sedimentary sequences of the Portuguese margin

          …RPI lows often coincide with the end of interglacial or interstadial stages. The geomagnetic moment loss (330%) over the last two millennia deduced from archeomagnetic results (e.g. [38,39]) might foreshadow the next excursion for the end of our present interglacial, even though this loss started 2200 years ago from an exceptionally high geomagnetic moment value….

          This paper finds a correlation between some kinds of magnetic field weakening / changes and onset of the end of warm periods (both interglacials and interstadials).

          Possible relationships between changes in global ice volume, geomagnetic excursions, and the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit

          A possible relationship between major changes in global ice volume, geomagnetic variations, and short-term climate cooling has been investigated through a study of climate and geomagnetic records of the past 400,000 yr. Calculations suggest that redistribution of the Earth’s water mass can cause rotational instabilities that lead to magnetic excursions; these magnetic variations in turn may lead to rapid coolings through several proposed mechanisms. Such double coincidences of magnetic excursions and sudden cooling and glacial advance at times of major ice-volume changes have occurred at about 13,500, 30,000, 110,000, and 180,000 B.P. The last four and possibly five times of maximum eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit were closely followed by magnetic excursions; catastrophic cooling and rapid ice buildup accompanied several of these excursions. Thus, Milankovitch cycle parameters may lead to glaciation through both insolation changes and geomagnetic effects on climate.

        • Gail Combs says:

          My SWAG, is it is a combination of lunar, geomagnetic and solar. (Don’t forget there was a link found – maybe – between solar activity and volcanic eruptions too. Volcanic eruptions and solar activity and Possible correlation between solar and volcanic activity in a long-term scale )

          I think the lunar component is probably the strongest. So yes it is the oceans but it is the sudden switch from the north to the south component of the lunar tides that moves the Gulf Stream and changes the climate.

  13. Gail Combs says:

    cfgj says: “If you wish to learn about climate and forcings you can comb through this rather comprehensive report….”

    OH MY you do not even know that the IPCC is NOT a comprehensive report by any means!!!!

    “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

    That’s from the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ( The term specifically excludes all natural climate change, and even excludes any caused by humans due to, for example, land clearance or city building, considering only atmospheric changes.

    The IPCC mandate is similar:

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

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

    The IPCC’s ROLE

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

    Click to access ipcc-principles.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

    • Neal S says:

      It has been said that the TSA is security theater. Perhaps one could similarly say that the IPCC report is at best, science theater.

  14. cfgj says:

    Isn’t it terrible that science just marches on when skeptics bark at the fringe?

    • Gail Combs says:

      cfgj says: “Have you guys ever even talked to a scientist?”

      HELL YES!
      I ran a Lab for years. Half my friends have Phds in Chemistry, Nuclear Physics, Geology…

      It is you who does not seem to have any inkling as to what science is.

    • gator69 says:

      Funny you should mention barking. The IPCC has been crying wolf for decades, and no wolf has ever been found.

      Is it just impossible for you to make an intelligenr comment? Can you list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them?

      Can you 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.

      Keep digging idiot.

    • rah says:

      Another tweet like HS level comment from the TROLL! How many selfies did you take today cfgj?

    • Chewer says:

      Find a scientist who thinks mankind will be able to measure what resides in one cubic meter of space and I’ll sell you a bridge quite cheap.
      The always changing electromagnetic realm which lies within our magnetosphere touches and interacts with all mater (from our planets core to the topside and beyond) and we have zero chance of ever measuring these interactions.
      EMF is most certainly a forcing along with the other 430 that have not been used in GCM’s.
      The volume held between the surface (land and sea), the tropopause and the volumes held within each sphere (tropo, strato, meso, iono, thermo, magneto) are always changing and C02 is not a driver. The molecular and atomic states of matter from our core to the edge undergo changes, which mankind cannot measure, but that hasn’t prevented folks from developing working hypothesis with like minded psychotic individuals.

  15. @Gail
    Hi Gail. I have not heard from you time for quite some but am so glad I found you back here! Although it may seem that temperature trends are complicated, related to volcanic, and other factors,
    those differences seem to disappear looking at minima and maxima.
    I looked at 800000 data

    I don’t have a picture for the drop in the rate of max. temp. in K/annum , the relationship there is:

    y=0.039ln (x) – 0.1112 (where y= years in the past)
    with r2 = 0.996
    valid for 1973 -2014

    Trends in minima and maxima clearly follow the trends shown by the behavior of the sun.
    (87 year Gleissberg clearly identified)

  16. sorry
    got my wires crossed again
    y=rate of warming/cooling in K/annum
    x= years in the past

    the study shows there is no “pause’
    it either warming or cooling

  17. I am wondering why all my comments here are in moderation?

  18. Adrian O says:

    The Swiss National Academy of Sciences has the longest track record of glacier monitoring here

    It shows a 60 year (multidecadal) periodicity, by the (Swiss) clock.

    I also remembered from when I was a child articles on melting glaciers illustrated by postcards.

  19. Caleb says:

    Is “cfgj” Jim Hunt AKA “Snow White” in a new AKA? Just wondering.

  20. Gail Combs says:

    gator69 says: “Gail, you are conflating banks with the Federal Reserve. That is nonsense.”

    Sorry gator you can not divorce the Fed from the private banks since the private banks “own” the FED. Or at least they think they do since 100% of the “stock” is owned by the private banks and the FED is now under the control of Bankers and not under the control of the US government. In 1935 the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System was changed. Membership no longer included the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller of the Currency.

    “Since the signing of the so-called accord, in March of 1951, this event has been widely interpreted as an understanding, reached between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, that the Federal Reserve would henceforth be “independent.”….The [Eisenhower ] administration announced at the outset that it would rely on monetary policy exclusively for its economic regulation and would respect the complete independence of the Federal Reserve to carry out these policies as it saw fit …..”

    More excerpts from
    WRIGHT PATMAN Chairman 1964

    What amount of Government securities have the private banks acquired with bank-created money?
    On January 31, 1964, all commercial banks in this country owned $62.7 billion in U.S. Government securities. The banks have acquired these securities with bank-created money. In other words, the banks have used the Federal Government’s power to create money without charge to lend $62.7 billion to the Government at interest.

    On January 29, 1964, commercial banks had total assets amounting to $304.7 billion, and all of these had been paid for with bank-created money, except $25.4 billion which had been paid for with their stockholders’ capital. In other words, less than 10 percent of the banks’ assets have been acquired with money invested by stockholders in the banks. [pg 46]

    Do bankers believe that they own the Federal Reserve banks.
    Yes.< 100% of the “stock” is owned by the private banks.

    Also after instigating “the Accord” It was later revealed by testimony of some of the Federal Reserve officials to committees of Congress that the Open Market Committee had held a meeting on August 18 and decided not only to raise the discount rate, but to “go their own way” on the Government longer term bond rate as well, despite what the President, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the head of the Office of Defense Mobilization might do”….Therefore the Federal Reserve is not answerable to the President or Congress or the electorate, nor even to a government audit or even Congressional funding!

    The original act required that the banks invest 6 percent of their capital stock in the Federal Reserve banks….

    The 1933 act also prohibited commercial banks from making stock market loans, and investment banks from accepting public deposits. [The Glass-Steagall Act or Banking Act of 1933] This was an effort to prevent a wave of stock market speculation like that of the twenties by keeping commercial banking and investment banking separate and distinct. [pg 84] [This is no longer the case thanks to Clinton and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 which repealed last vestiges of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933]

    What changes were made the Banking Act of 1935?

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was made permanent, and the Board of Governors was given power to change reserve requirements. The act of 1935 had other important revisions :
    (1) The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System was changed. Membership no longer included the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller of the Currency, and the number of members was cut from nine to seven. The name, the Federal Reserve Board, was changed to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The reorganized Board, with its increased powers really gave us a central bank for the first time, in place of a system of individual Federal Reserve banks which were largely on their own.
    (2) Also of primary importance in creating a true central bank was the establishment of the Federal Open Market Committee to determine purchases and sales of Government securities for the entire System.
    (3) Another change made by the 1935 act related to loans of the Federal Reserve banks. This act allowed the Federal Reserve banks to extend reserve bank credit on any type of credit which the commercial bank possessed.
    4 ) The 1935 act also contained provisions concerning regulation of bank holding companies. [Pg 84]

    ….Private banks enjoy a very special relationship with the Federal Government. After all, most business firms employ private capital or privately owned resources to produce a product or provide a service which can be profitably sold in the marketplace. Most business firms pay for the raw materials and services they receive, and, furthermore, in the case of most kinds of business firms, the business itself is a risk-taking venture. The firm succeeds or fails in competition with other business firms.

    But the conditions under which private banks operate are very different. In the first place, one of the major functions of the private commercial banks is to create money. A large portion of bank profits come from the fact that the banks do create money. And, as we have pointed out, banks create money without cost to themselves, in the process of lending or investing in securities such a Government bonds. Bank profits come from interest on the money lent and invested, while the cost of creating money is negligible. (Banks do incur costs, of course, from bookkeeping to loan officers’ salaries.) The power to create money has been delegated, or loaned, by Congress to the private banks for their free use. There is no charge.

    On the contrary, this is but one of the many ways the Government subsidizes the private banking system and protects it from competition. The Government, through the Federal Reserve System, provides a huge subsidy through the free services the System provides for member banks. “Check clearing” is one of the services; i.e., the collection and payment of funds due one bank from another because of depositors’ use of their checkbook money. The costs of this service alone runs into scores of millions of dollars.

    The gross expenses of the combined Federal Reserve banks totaled $207 million in 1963, most of which was incurred as a cost of providing free services to the private banks. Other Federal agencies also receive services from the Federal Reserve. But these are not free. The System received about $20 million for “fiscal agency and other expenses” in 1963.
    In addition, the Federal Government provides private banks with a large measure of protection from competition, and the hazards of failure. … This means, in brief, that nobody can enter the banking business by opening a national bank, unless the proposed bank is to be located where it will not cause an inconvenient amount of competition to other banks already in business. [pg 89]

    From another source

    …on October 3, 2008, the Fed acquired the ability to pay interest to its member banks on the reserves the banks maintain at the Fed. Reuters reported on October 3:

    “The U.S. Federal Reserve gained a key tactical tool from the $700 billion financial rescue package signed into law on Friday that will help it channel funds into parched credit markets. Tucked into the 451-page bill is a provision that lets the Fed pay interest on the reserves banks are required to hold at the central bank.”

    The above is quite interesting since A Primer on Money says

    …[An incorrect but ] typical explanation runs this way: John Jones deposits $100 in cash with his bank. The bank is required to keep, say, 20 percent of its deposits in reserves, so the bank must deposit $20 of this $100 as reserves, with a Federal Reserve bank. The bank is free to use the other $80, however, to make loans to customers or invest in securities. The expansion of money thus begins. This kind of explanation not only leads to misunderstanding, it also leads to misguided Government policies and rather constant agitation on the part of bankers for other such policies. Many of the smaller bankers who are, on the whole, not as well versed with the mechanics of the money system as they might be, actually believe that they have deposited a portion of their money, or their depositors’ money, with the Federal Reserve. Thus they feel they are being denied the opportunity to make profitable use of this money. Accordingly, there is always agitation to have the Federal Reserve pay the banks interest on this money which they think they have “deposited” with the Federal Reserve.

    Furthermore, they are quite certain that the Federal Reserve System has “used” their money to acquire the Government securities which the Federal Reserve may buy in the process of reserve creation. Believing this, the bankers naturally feel that they are entitled to some share of the tremendous profits which the System receives from interest payments on its Government securities. Many bankers know better. The leaders of the bankers’ associations certainly do. But some of these leaders have not hesitated to play on general ignorance and misunderstanding to mobilize the whole banking community behind drives that are nothing but attempts to raid the Public Treasury.
    The truth is, however, that the Private banks, collectively, have deposited not a penny of their own funds, or their depositors funds, with the Federal Reserve banks. The impression that they do so arises from the fact that reserves, once created, can be, and are, transferred back and forth from one bank to another, as one bank gains deposits and another loses deposits. [pg 37]

    Under Secretary of the Treasury Robert V. Roosa, formerly a Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, while testifying before the House Committee on Banking and Currency in 1960, described the misconception as follows:
    “There is another misconception which occurs much more frequently-that is, the banks think that they give us the reserves on which we operate and that, too, is a misconception. We encounter that frequently, and, as you know, we create those reserves under the authority that has been described here.”

    The writer [Wright Patman] has had a couple of personal experiences which ‘have provided some amusing confirmation of the fact that the source of bank reserves is not deposits of cash by the member banks with the Federal Reserve banks. having seen reports that the Federal Reserve System had, on a given date, Government securities amounting to a proximately $28 billion, I went on one occasion to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York where these securities are supposed to be housed, and asked if I might be allowed to see them. The officials of this bank said, yes, they would be glad to show them to me; whereupon they opened the vaults and let me look at, and even hold in my hand, the large mound of Government securities which they claimed to have and which, in fact, they did have.

    Since I had also seen reports that the member banks of the Federal Reserve System had a certain number of millions of dollars in “cash reserves” on deposit with the Federal Reserve bank, I then asked if I might be allowed to see these cash reserves. This time my question was met with some looks of surprise; the bank officials then patiently explained to me that there were no cash reserves. The cash, in truth, does not exist and never has existed. [pg 38]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s