Tips And Suggestions

80 Responses to Tips And Suggestions

  1. D.S. says:

    Found this article which you might be interested in – I find it fascinatingly delicious:

    http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

    Here is the text of Newsweek’s 1975 story on the trend toward global cooling. It may look foolish today, but in fact world temperatures had been falling since about 1940. It was around 1979 that they reversed direction and resumed the general rise that had begun in the 1880s, bringing us today back to around 1940 levels. A PDF of the original is available here. A fine short history of warming and cooling scares has recently been produced. It is available here.

    We invite readers interested in finding out about both sides of the debate over global warming to visit our website: Climate Debate Daily — Denis Dutton

    The Cooling World
    Newsweek, April 28, 1975

    There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

    The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

    To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

    A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

    To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

    Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

    Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

    “The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

    Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

    —PETER GWYNNE with bureau reports

  2. D.S. says:

    It dawned on me that I could include the image of the article itself from searches:

  3. northernont says:

    Good anti-wind documentary of the Wind Industry in Ontario Canada.

  4. Peasant #2 says:

    An open letter to Barack Obama, The New York Times et al

    I get more upset every time Obama says global warming is settled science and the minions run around regurgitating “settled science” like they knew what they were talking about. Rightttttt, Mr. president, every single thing there is to know about our climate is known, postulated and confirmed and not only that, man can control the weather. Apparently someone is getting super powers for his birthday.

    What exactly is settled science? Is the law of gravity settled science? My bet is that most would say yes because, Newton, duh! But you would be wrong, gravity is not settled science. In reality at the most basic level, no one actually knows what gravity is. Newton and Einstein did a lot to further our understanding but scientists are still looking for the answer to “what is gravity.”

    In science virtually nothing is settled, there are only theories, hypothesis, and studies that have yet to be proven false. What does it take to prove a theory false? If the same results are not replicable using the same data points and procedures as the original theory – the original theory is proven false, if it can’t be replicated it is a false theory, if the results are different than the ones predicted it is a false theory and that is the end. No believers no deniers it is just time to use what was learned from the failed science and try again. That is how real science works.

    In science there is no inquisition, no punishment for non believers, no name calling, no character assassination, no call to terminate a deniers employment and no attempt to silence science. If you are involved in or agree with personal and professional assaults on climate scientists it is clear that you do not respect science. Real science welcomes challenges and does not try to silence competing theories. Real science is neutral. Real science does not manipulate data or skew results for political purposes. Real science shouldn’t be complicit in hiding competing scientific inquiries. There is no consensus in science. Getting other scientists, school children, politicians and celebrities to believe and repeat your theory is not science. Real science does not believe or deny (belief is the province of religion and never, never, never,never, never science). In real science, if you have scientists with differing theories, study outcomes and hypothesis on the same subject you have unsettled science not believers and deniers. Real science presents for consideration or proves something false but it cannot prove something is true. Real science knows virtually nothing is settled that there are only studies, theories, hypothesis, and protocols that have been put forth and have not yet been proven to be false. Real science cannot be built on a deliberate lie.

    If someone who can destroy the quality of your life and diminish you and your family tells you “science is settled” and that they know what is best for all mankind and you are just going to have to endure for the cause, you should know immediately that you are being lied to. If the people that govern you, those that have sworn to represent you, the journalists who report to you, or a teacher responsible for your education makes the blatantly false statement “science is settled” be afraid, be very afraid because they are not being truthful. Not only are they being less than truthful, they think you are stupid and gullible and most likely they have an agenda that is not in your best interest or they wouldn’t be running the con.

    Some people think that it is okay to lie in order to promote their agenda that they claim is for the greater good, but nothing is farther from the truth. Because they refuse to look at and consider all of the science and because they have been less than truthful it would be wise to assume the sole purpose of global warming purveyors is to scare and intimidate the peasants into compliance with their own demise and expanding the power and wealth of those telling the lies.

    To stand up and proclaim that we know everything there is to know about our climate and how to control it and there is “nothing else to see here, folks,” would be a joke if those spouting such nonsense weren’t deadly serious about what they are prepared to inflict on the peasants in the name of settled science.

    I am not a fortune teller or a scientist so I don’t know if earth-scorching, man-killing, end-of-the-world global warming is real. I cannot claim to be a “believer” or a “denier” of global warming because I am not a stupid person. I have no political agenda – I just said no to gangs especially those that headquarter in Washington D.C. because they are far more vicious and destructive than any gang in the hood. I do know there is no such thing as “settled science.” I am afraid if you will lie about “settled science” and desperately try to discredit any science not in lock step with your “beliefs” I should be wary of what else you are willing to lie about or do in order to push your “beliefs.” It becomes more evident everyday that we know far less about our changing climate than we thought we did and far less than is necessary to be making life altering decisions,

    Science cannot be settled, ask a scientist Mr. President and then send her over to talk to John Kerry. Apparently the smartest man in the room and his cronies slept thru science and didn’t even bother taking ethics.

    Sincerely,
    Peasant #2

  5. Alec aka Daffy Duck says:

    If you thought the folks in Washington couldn’t get any dumber….

    House Dem Warns Climate Change Will Force Millions Of Poor Women To Engage In ‘Transactional Sex’ « CBS DC
    http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/03/26/house-dem-warns-climate-change-will-force-millions-of-poor-women-to-engage-in-transactional-sex/

  6. Mohatdebos says:

    Could this be true? Antarctica hits highest temp recorded—63 F. http://www.cnbc.com/id/102541217

  7. The purpose of FERGUSON is to reveal the truth about what really happened on August 9, 2015 in Ferguson, MO and to look at why and how the Grand Jury came to the decision they did. FERGUSON is a staged version of the Grand Jury testimony exactly as they heard it. But this time the audience gets to be the Grand Jury. The performances in Los Angeles will be dramatized staged readings with interactive voting. Every night the audience will  decide who’s telling the truth, decide who’s lying, and decide if they would indict Darren Wilson for the shooting of Michael Brown. How will you vote?
    https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ferguson-the-play

  8. This site is laughable. There are so many errors on it it’s embarrassing.98% of peer reviewed science is neither wrong, nor a hoax. This site is for people who are too afraid to learn the facts….or have too much vested $ interest in proving science wrong. The site has nothing to do with “real science” Nothing whatsoever

    • sam says:

      yea well some of us kinda lost confidence in nasa/noaa/ipcc the 10 times they got caught cheating or showing a ridiculous bias toward warm. like that fiasco where they changed the hottest day from the 30’s to 2012, or maybe it’s the record snows and vortex that slammed into the us, southern us, middle east, etc in the 2014-15 winter and then these psuedo-scientists tried to tell us that the ‘heat went into the ocean’ , ‘global warming is making it colder’ non-sence. BTW : Iraq having weapons of mass destruction was ‘real intelligence’, a ‘consensus in the intelligence and security aparatus of professionals’ etc.

  9. You absolutely HAVE TO cover Teslagate! The evidence is finally together in the same article.
    http://doubtingisthinking.blogspot.com.es/2015/04/whopperpedia-ultimate-guide-to-teslagate.html

  10. Scott says:

    Thought you’d like to know about the Little Rock VA’s solar panels. After over 8 million dollars to install them 2 years ago, they’re being torn down to build a parking garage and they’ve never even worked. They do add that the North Little Rock VA’s are working with a $100k a year savings to taxpayers. No word on what the $100k savings cost though. http://talkbusiness.net/2015/04/lawmakers-calling-for-investigation-into-little-rock-va-solar-panel-project/
    http://www.katv.com/story/28766251/little-rock-va-built-solar-panels-knowing-they-would-be-relocated

  11. Mom2Girls says:

    Any idea where I might find the observational data from Sir William Dunbar’s records from the late 1700’s/early 1800’s? This would be in Natchez MS or thereabouts.

  12. Tom In Indy says:

    A MOOC on Climate Change and the psychology of denialism taught by Cook et. al.
    https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x

  13. Magnum says:


    I hope you have seen this story, particularly the enquiry by GWPF.
    Kind regards
    JJ in the UK

    • sam says:

      excellent work dude tx for the copy, as usual back paged somewhere in the mainstream media while bloomberg.com front pages the latest climate change hoax, just saw the copy the other day front paged how global warming is responsible for cold winters.

    • sam says:

      also date name of publication? tx

  14. Stephen Richards says:

    Tony
    I wrote to the GWPF about seeking a contribution from you. Below is Benny Peiser’s reply.

    It is not what I’d hoped for but it is an opportunity you might wish to take.

    —————————————————————————————————————————-
    Dear Mr Richards

    Thank you for your interest in our inquiry.

    The panel has called for evidence and would welcome any relevant submission by members of the public.

    With best regards

  15. gator69 says:

    This may be something we can do to counteract the pro-CAGW petitons. Respectful contact will leave a greater impression than belligerent rantings.

    Contact Pope Francis by mail, at

    His Holiness, Pope Francis PP.
    00120 Via del Pellegrino
    Citta del Vaticano

    Or e-mail him in care of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, at cdf@cfaith.va, and copy Jim Lakely at The Heartland Institute (jlakely@heartland.org) and he will post your message on this site.

    Become more informed about the issue. Don’t just “believe” in global warming, truly understand it. A great way to learn the real science of climate change is to read the summaries for policymakers of the Climate Change Reconsidered series:

    Climate Change Reconsidered (2008)
    Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (2013)
    Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts (2014)

    https://www.heartland.org/Vatican-Environment-Workshop

  16. Adam Gallon says:

    That Californian heatwave & drought’s screwing things up again.
    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/forecasts-for-snow-leave-tour-of-california-time-trial-in-limbo

  17. AndyG55 says:

    Hopfully this , with the removal of anti-competitive feed-in and subsidies, will see the end of the environmentally devastating wind energy agenda in the UK.

    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/will-david-cameron-make-britain-an-energy-powerhouse.html

  18. Cam says:

    Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.htm

  19. Bob Koss says:

    Didn’t see this mentioned yet on the USHCN site. Thought I’d give you a heads-up.

    GHCN-M is moving to version 3.3 and USHCN is moving to version 2.6.

    This is supposed to be happening early in June and it seems there are going to be flag changes to USHCN. Probably affect how you count estimated months as there won’t be as many ‘E’ flags. Don’t know if anything else would affect your analysis.

    In USHCN v2.5.0 the days missing flags for USHCN v1 stations were presented in upper case. In USHCN v2.6.0 and GHCN-M v3.3.0 the days missing flag for these stations is changed to lower case.

    In USHCN v2.6.0 appropriate flagging is now applied as follows: ‘E’ – absent from the original record and estimated, ‘X’ – removed by the PHA as unadjustable and estimated, ‘Q’ – removed after failing quality control checks and estimated.

    Here is the report if you wish to look it over.
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/techreports/Technical%20Report%20GHCNM%20No15-01.pdf

  20. Windsong says:

    The NWS Lubbock forecast map and radar page are lit up like a Christmas tree as of 1745 CDT 5/28/15. I hope Ms. Hayhoe is safe and will not be adversely impacted by all of the rain.
    http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lub/

  21. Oslo says:

    Norway 2015/06/02

    French tourists in Norway stuck in the snow.
    http://www.dagbladet.no/2015/06/02/nyheter/sognefjellet/snokaos/ver/39465913/

  22. Science Says American Pharoah Won’t Win the Triple Crown | WIRED
    Comments: (a bunch of them…)
    Jeffrey Coley 21 hours ago

    Actually, scientists have run their models backward and “normalized” previous results which now show that no horse has ever won the Triple Crown. Furthermore, looking forward into the future no horse will ever win any race unless global warming is stopped.
    http://www.wired.com/2015/06/science-says-american-pharoah-wont-win-triple-crown/

  23. Clay says:

    I saw an article in Bloomberg today stating that scientists had observed the polar bear eating dolphin for the first time, and that this was most likely a result of global warming. I did a quick search in Google Books and found on page 7 of the Royal Natural History: Mammals (1894) a print of a polar bear and her cub consuming dolphin. That was most likely an artist making the observation though..

    https://books.google.com/books?id=3DxKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA6&dq=%22polar+bear%22+diet&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBGoVChMIq4KDm4KLxgIV1BWSCh3hTw73#v=onepage&q=%22polar%20bear%22%20diet&f=false

  24. amirlach says:

    Completely offensive post by drewski on http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/obama-moves-to-regulate-co2-from-airplanes.html#comment-50736
    “http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/obama-moves-to-regulate-co2-from-airplanes.html#comment-50736”
    I reported this and Tom should take it down soon. I also suggested he archive it.

  25. http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/the-pause-in-the-stratosphere.html

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is awfully certain that solar activity doesn’t meaningfully impact climate. In fact, their 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers offers only one passing reference to solar activity in the entire document. On page 10, the report notes a curious caveat regarding predicted surface temperatures from 2016–2035: “This assumes that there will be no major volcanic eruptions …or unexpected changes in total solar irradiance.”

    Other than that, solar variability is essentially dismissed in the IPCC worldview. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary driver of climate change, and that’s that.

    But mankind has recognized the sun’s primal importance for eons. So how did the IPCC arrive at such certainty in discarding the impact of solar activity? After all, the sun’s variability appears to track rather closely with climate on millennial, centennial, and decadal timescales. For example, the Roman, Medieval, and Modern Warm periods all correspond with heightened solar activity. And the Little Ice Age suffered the cooling effects of not one, but three, solar minimums.

    The IPCC’s aversion to solar irradiance apparently stems from two concerns.

    First, there’s the divergence in trajectories over the past 30 years of measurements for temperature and solar activity.

    The argument goes: Since solar activity stopped climbing around 1985 (and essentially peaked at that point), while surface temperatures kept climbing, this divergence proves that the sun isn’t driving temperatures.

    But this is a mischaracterization. The Modern Solar Maximum peaked twice, first in the late 1950s and again in the mid 1980s. Starting around 1985, solar activity plateaued—but at levels higher than anything seen in the last 1,000 to 2,000 years. In essence, the sun remained at roughly full throttle until the mid-1990s—close to the starting point for the now infamous “pause” in surface temperatures.

    Second, there’s the observation that, during the period ranging from about 1960 to 1995, stratospheric temperatures showed a net cooling. This decline occurred at the same time that surface temperatures were rising (driven, presumably, by increasing concentrations of CO2.) The absence of a parallel rise in stratospheric temperatures is thereby seen as negating the possibility of a solar connection.

    A November 2013 statement from the World Meteorological Organization says: “…if warming had been caused by a more active sun, scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere.”

    The stratosphere is a funny bird, though. Unlike the troposphere, the stratosphere is a cold and inhospitable place. Not only is it riddled with ozone and ultraviolet radiation, but it displays the curious phenomenon of temperatures increasing with altitude (the inverse of what occurs in the troposphere.)

    Significantly, ozone is the primary “greenhouse gas” of the stratosphere. As NASA explains it, “Ozone is both a major absorber of incoming ultraviolet in the stratosphere (leading to stratospheric heating) and a strong emitter in the thermal infrared spectrum.” Simply put, stratospheric temperature is maintained by concentrations of ozone. If ozone levels decline, for instance, temperatures in the stratosphere will fall.

    This direct relationship between ozone and temperature became apparent during the mid-twentieth century. Ozone suffered an existential threat as the continued release of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) ate away at its concentrations. Stratospheric ozone levels tumbled steadily from the late 1950s onward, creating a serious, and recognized, international problem. It wasn’t until the implementation of the Montréal Protocol in 1989 that real action to reduce CFCs took effect. Revisions to the Protocol subsequently led to a more complete ban on CFC production in 1996.

    As NOAA’s Ozone Depleting Gas Index demonstrates, the Montreal Protocol has succeeded in gradually restoring ozone concentrations in the stratosphere. Specifically, CFC levels in the stratosphere continually rose until roughly 1996, the point at which the effects of the Montreal Protocol began to fully register. Starting in 1996, stratospheric CFC levels actually began to decline.

    This action to restore ozone shows a remarkable correlation with recent stratospheric temperatures. Whereas cooling in the stratosphere was continually evident from 1960-1996, and tracked closely with falling ozone levels, temperatures have subsequently leveled off. Specifically, net temperatures in the stratosphere have remained essentially unchanged since the late 1990s.

    It appears that the progressive cooling in the stratosphere during the twentieth century was forced by declining ozone, even as increased solar activity was driving a rise in surface temperatures.

    The question, then, is whether the IPCC has considered this variable when citing stratospheric cooling as an invalidator of the solar activity thesis.

    Certainly, the IPCC recognizes the connection between declining ozone and stratospheric cooling. Various reports establish this link, including a 2005 report, ‘Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System,’ which notes: “Stratospheric ozone depletion has led to a cooling of the stratosphere. A significant annual-mean cooling of the lower stratosphere over the past two decades (of approximately 0.6 K per decade) has been found over the mid-latitudes of both hemispheres.”

    One has to wonder why the IPCC has chosen to deny solar variability on the basis of cooling stratospheric temperatures. The evidence seems fairly clear that a decline in stratospheric temperatures was driven by declining ozone, a factor wholly unrelated to solar variability.

    What’s rather striking is that the flat-lining of stratospheric temperatures since roughly 1998 corresponds quite remarkably with the current “pause” in surface temperatures. This prompts a question: Could the stabilization of ozone levels in the stratosphere help to explain the subsequent ‘pause?’

    If so, would the IPCC wish to promote this fact? Such a correlation would finally solve a vexing, recent climate mystery. But it would also establish a more concrete solar connection to temperature variability.

    The evidence is compelling, and the subject deserves further scrutiny.

  26. scrooge_74 says:

    Found this by ramdom change

    Flooding on the Red River, the source for Lake Texoma, has caused the lake to increase to record levels, to the point where it has flowed over the Denison Dam spillway – for the first time in history.

    And they say there is a drought in the midwest

    http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-vortex-of-lake-texoma

  27. I am still waiting for the approval of my comments on this site?

  28. Norway says:

    Earth’s Most Famous Climate Scientist Issues Bombshell Sea Level Warning. James Hansen at it again.

    3 meters in 50 years!

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/20/sea_level_study_james_hansen_issues_dire_climate_warning.html?wpsrc=sh_all_tab_tw_top

  29. David A says:

    Tony , some concepts that the master, you, may consider displaying more precisely and eloquently.

    Concerning the pause, trends from ever changing baselines, as well as ranking of 1st, 2nd, 3rd warmest etcetera, often hide the most cogent facts showing a pause or decline in global mean temperature.

    The best question is; do either UAH or RSS show any year close to as warm as 1998? The answer is no, they do not. Both show 1998 as the “warmest year ever” to quote the CAGW phrase, and not by a little bit.

    Both UAH and RSS are ballpark .3 degrees below 1998. Both RSS and UAH show 2010, 2014, 2015 and other years as at least .3 degrees 0R MORE cooler then 1998.

    Schmitt proclaimed a what, 34% chance that 2014 was the hottest year ever based on what .04 degrees? By that measure there is a 100 percent chance that RSS and UAH show that 1998 was the “warmest year ever”.
    ==================================================================

    A further thought. Perhaps you have done this and I missed it. The USCRN network is much closer to the raw data for USHCN. Have you shown this? Is it possible to isolate RSS over the US, and compare the three, USHCN raw, USCRN, and RSS?

  30. Chris says:

    can you be followed on Facebook or Twitter?

  31. Tom Moran says:

    When the Ash and Pine trees in CT all die, won’t they be replaced by tropical vegetation due to”climate change”. Coconuts will float down from Greenland and grow in Connecticut’s estuaries . Won’t the palm trees look pretty? Think of the revenue we can generate from filming Corona commercials here?

  32. Caleb says:

    It has been very cold along the spine of the Andes Mountains this August, and killed lots of cattle, and also the native alpacas and even some wild guanacos (wild llamas). This might be worth a post, as Alarmists said the warmth should go up the slopes, not cold come down the slopes.

    Here’s a couple short posts I did with links to South American papers.

    https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/pope-francis-call-home-argentinian-guanacos-freezing/

    https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2015/08/13/a-million-mountain-livestock-dying-of-cold-in-peru-and-bolivia/

  33. scrooge_74 says:

    Found news today from Spain about dead polar bears, they got it from facebook page, here is the link:

    http://verne.elpais.com/verne/2015/09/15/articulo/1442326229_165870.html?id_externo_rsoc=TW_CM

  34. sam says:

    love the blog and the very convincing information about government corruption and fraud, Im in Thailand and the this IPCC/NASA/NOAA fraud is the worst and biggest case of corruption I have ever seen. and absolutely nothing done to prosecute it which means the US democracy is in failure. my suggestion is get rid of the nazi/jew gun control blog and other entries that are not related to climate science and government fraud. that should be on a separate blog as climate fraud IS NOT a conservative or liberal issue! I am discgusted the way these scamming nasa scientists work for a political profeteering group.

  35. Tom says:

    I think that it would be great to see an article that started with the phrase …
    “If global warming was hypothesized today, it would be rejected for publication, because of vague, untestable argument, lack of empirical evidence, over reliance on computer models, exaggerated proxy data, manipulated ground station data, failure to match satellite data, and lack of support from physicists and historians.”
    Board of review would remark, “All this for .01 degrees celsius?”
    The hypothesizing scientist would be required to post the raw data and methodology publicly, not deny the last 18 years of data, ensure that their mathematical statistics are not skewed by Monte Carlo analysis, not extrapolate tidal changes beyond the accuracy range of satellites, understand the history of Earth temperature and gases for the last billion years, not create a cabal of other researchers who manipulate data to ensure grant funding, and not deny the existence of Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

  36. David Mulberry says:

    On September 30, 1847, Congressman George Perkins Marsh delivered a speech on agricultural conditions in New England to the Agricultural Society of Rutland County, Vermont. This powerful address gave voice to ideas that would become a catalytic force in the movement to conserve America’s natural resources. Marsh recognized the human capacity for destruction of the environment and advocated better management of resources and active efforts toward restoration of the land–innovative ideas for the period.
    George Perkins Marsh
    But though man cannot at his pleasure command the rain and the sunshine, the wind and frost and snow, yet it is certain that climate itself has in many instances been gradually changed and ameliorated or deteriorated by human action.

    fear monger in 1847

  37. David A says:

    Perhaps your new idiot of the day,

    Steven Mosher
    October 1, 2015 at 12:35 am
    The historical record has already been COOLED.
    That fact must be hard for skeptcs to swallow.
    =====================================================
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/30/new-discovery-surface-of-the-oceans-affects-climate-more-than-thought/#comment-2038981

  38. Tom says:

    Farmers, by their nature, are often the ultimate weathermen and climatologists. Water and temperature is not just theory. It is money and survival. The reality of our climate can be found in hard facts like plant zones. For over a hundred years, the citrus zone has been forced more and more to the south. “”Today, counties like Orange and Citrus host little commercial production of their namesake fruit.””
    Witnessed by these articles
    2004 http://www.theledger.com/article/20040214/NEWS/402140357

    1986 https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19860115&id=bF8aAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pSoEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7145,5414511&hl=en

    1985 http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1985-03-24/news/8501110342_1_citrus-industry-new-groves-young-trees

    1894 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Freeze

    1790 — Savannah, Georgia, oranges were cultivated in some quantity along the coast, and in that year some 3000 gallons of orange juice were exported.
    1565 – Citrus was grown in coastal South Carolina
    http://www.tytyga.com/History-of-the-Citrus-and-Citrus-Tree-Growing-in-America-a/381.htm

    More details —
    https://fldpi.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/throwback-thursday-1980s-freezes-reshaped-floridas-citrus-industry/
    http://flcitrusmutual.com/industry-issues/weather/freeze_timeline.aspx

  39. David Mulberry says:

    http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/travel-maldives-the-island-of-paradise-1-3905726

    I thought the Maldives were doomed to fall in the ocean

  40. Tom says:

    Great! So they spent a lot of money on a satellite to discover and map that volcanoes, swamps, and warm soil high in humus (high in bacteria, low in vegetation), emit CO2 intermittently. How awkward that their map does not match the official narrative (they were expecting to see CO2 hotspots around every city). Meanwhile, plants and the ocean are absorbing CO2 as fast as it is released. Around a 5 year cycle. The trace levels of global CO2 are actually stable, considering the history of CO2. Human contribution to CO2 is trivial: just 3.75% [15 ppm] of the already historically low level of 400 ppm for CO2. 97% of carbon dioxide molecules are natural, and not from humans. This means that 97% of the trivial increase in CO2 from 300 PPM to 400 PPM has been natural. The warmer the ecosphere, the more CO2 is released by bacteria. Not the other way around, of CO2 magically warming the ecosphere.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/04/finally-visualized-oco2-satellite-data-showing-global-carbon-dioxide-concentrations/

  41. Cal Burke says:

    WE NEED MORE, NOT FEWER, BIG HURRICANES
    [From various sections of The Mass Hypnotist]
    BOOLE: Hurricane is a name applied to migratory tropical cyclones that originate over oceans in certain regions near the equator and particularly to those arising in the West Indies region, including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico.
    The tropics are defined as that area which lies between the Tropic of Cancer, 23.5 degrees north of the equator and the Tropic of Capricorn, 23.5 degrees south of the equator.
    Most hurricanes originate within the doldrums, a narrow equatorial belt characterized by intermittent calms, light variable breezes, and frequent squalls, and lying between the northeast and southeast trade winds. As the doldrums of the Atlantic are situated largely to the north of the equator, hurricanes do not occur in the South Atlantic Ocean.
    The Pacific doldrums extend north and south of the equator, thus hurricanes, or typhoons as they are known in the western Pacific, occur in the South and North Pacific oceans.
    After a hurricane develops, a tremendous amount of energy is released. A moderate hurricane is capable of taking up from the ocean 15 million tons of water vapor a minute through the process of evaporation. The amount of energy released into the atmosphere by this transformation is the major driving force of the hurricane and what a driving force it is.
    This transformation of such tremendous amounts of energy is why tropical cyclones are called “heat engines,” and when these engines “rev up” and produce winds of 74 miles per hour or more we call them hurricanes.
    BOOLE: In addition, an “average” hurricane produces over 200 billion tons of rainwater each day, an amount equal to the average annual flow of the Colorado river!
    Thus, hurricanes will refill the groundwater of inland aquifers at or above the water table.
    Hurricanes also clean-out and refill stagnant (and polluted) lakes, rivers, ponds and inland waterways.
    Hurricanes also clear-out dead ground vegetation, and the dead trees and plants, that liberals won’t allow to be cleared out of woods; and they also bring down rotting limbs in trees that humans cannot reach.
    Hurricane storm surges also create, and clean-out, shoreline estuaries.
    An “average” hurricane will release in 24 hours the energy equivalent to 500,000 Nagasaki-type atomic bombs or 400 20 Megaton hydrogen bombs (fusion) bombs.
    This energy, if converted to electricity, would satisfy the electrical needs of the entire United States for more than six months.
    A typical hurricane or tropical cyclone releases heat energy of about 50 to 200 exajoules a day. That’s equivalent to 70 times our worldwide energy consumption.
    Hurricanes, and tropical cyclones, as important rainmakers, provide 25 percent or more of available rainfall to places like Japan, India, and Southeast Asia—not to mention Texas, which desperately needs a dousing yearly.
    Hurricanes and tropical cyclones help maintain the global heat balance by moving warm tropical air away from the equator and towards the poles.
    Without them, the tropics would get a lot hotter and the poles a lot colder.
    Fragile barrier islands need hurricanes for their survival. Although hurricanes erode beaches on the ocean side of barrier islands, they build up the back sides of the same islands by depositing new sediments via winds and waves. This dynamical process keeps barrier islands alive.
    Hurricanes and tropical cyclones stir up the ocean and drive the process of upwelling, thus playing a part in the thermohaline circulation—another important transport mechanism distributing heat between the equator and the poles and keeping the earth’s temperature in better balance
    By stirring the ocean, hurricanes and tropical cyclones also cycle nutrients from the seafloor to the surface, boosting ocean productivity and setting the stage for blooms of marine life.
    We need more, not fewer big hurricanes. And much less fraudulent hot-air emissions from climate-change Chicken Littles.

  42. Cal Burke says:

    WE NEED MORE, NOT FEWER, BIG HURRICANES
    [From various sections of The Mass Hypnotist]
    BOOLE: Hurricane is a name applied to migratory tropical cyclones that originate over oceans in certain regions near the equator and particularly to those arising in the West Indies region, including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico.
    The tropics are defined as that area which lies between the Tropic of Cancer, 23.5 degrees north of the equator and the Tropic of Capricorn, 23.5 degrees south of the equator.
    Most hurricanes originate within the doldrums, a narrow equatorial belt characterized by intermittent calms, light variable breezes, and frequent squalls, and lying between the northeast and southeast trade winds. As the doldrums of the Atlantic are situated largely to the north of the equator, hurricanes do not occur in the South Atlantic Ocean.
    The Pacific doldrums extend north and south of the equator, thus hurricanes, or typhoons as they are known in the western Pacific, occur in the South and North Pacific oceans.
    After a hurricane develops, a tremendous amount of energy is released. A moderate hurricane is capable of taking up from the ocean 15 million tons of water vapor a minute through the process of evaporation. The amount of energy released into the atmosphere by this transformation is the major driving force of the hurricane and what a driving force it is.
    This transformation of such tremendous amounts of energy is why tropical cyclones are called “heat engines,” and when these engines “rev up” and produce winds of 74 miles per hour or more we call them hurricanes.
    BOOLE: In addition, an “average” hurricane produces over 200 billion tons of rainwater each day, an amount equal to the average annual flow of the Colorado river!
    Thus, hurricanes will refill the groundwater of inland aquifers at or above the water table.
    Hurricanes also clean-out and refill stagnant (and polluted) lakes, rivers, ponds and inland waterways.
    Hurricanes also clear-out dead ground vegetation, and the dead trees and plants, that liberals won’t allow to be cleared out of woods; and they also bring down rotting limbs in trees that humans cannot reach.
    Hurricane storm surges also create, and clean-out, shoreline estuaries.
    An “average” hurricane will release in 24 hours the energy equivalent to 500,000 Nagasaki-type atomic bombs or 400 20 Megaton hydrogen bombs (fusion) bombs.
    This energy, if converted to electricity, would satisfy the electrical needs of the entire United States for more than six months.
    A typical hurricane or tropical cyclone releases heat energy of about 50 to 200 exajoules a day. That’s equivalent to 70 times our worldwide energy consumption.
    Hurricanes, and tropical cyclones, as important rainmakers, provide 25 percent or more of available rainfall to places like Japan, India, and Southeast Asia—not to mention Texas, which desperately needs a dousing yearly.
    Hurricanes and tropical cyclones help maintain the global heat balance by moving warm tropical air away from the equator and towards the poles.
    Without them, the tropics would get a lot hotter and the poles a lot colder.
    Fragile barrier islands need hurricanes for their survival. Although hurricanes erode beaches on the ocean side of barrier islands, they build up the back sides of the same islands by depositing new sediments via winds and waves. This dynamical process keeps barrier islands alive.
    Hurricanes and tropical cyclones stir up the ocean and drive the process of upwelling, thus playing a part in the thermohaline circulation—another important transport mechanism distributing heat between the equator and the poles and keeping the earth’s temperature in better balance
    By stirring the ocean, hurricanes and tropical cyclones also cycle nutrients from the seafloor to the surface, boosting ocean productivity and setting the stage for blooms of marine life.
    We need more, not fewer big hurricanes. And much less fraudulent hot-air emissions from climate-change Chicken Littles.

  43. Windsong says:

    Katherine Hayhoe hard at work blocking real scientists who comment on her Twitter account. This time it is Dr. Susan Crockford http://www.polarbearscience.com for providing facts on polar bear numbers.
    See post for Nov. 4, 2015.

  44. AndyG55 says:

    Worth looking at for the Ocean/coral/CO2 non-issue

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/10/rapture-of-the-deeps/

  45. RealOldOne2 says:

    Interesting 1974 Hubert Lamb paper, ‘The Current Trend of World Climate – A Report on the Early 1970’s and a Perspective’ : http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/pubs/crurp/CRU_RP3.pdf
    I think it would be a good addition to your 1970’s Global Cooling Scare section and good resource for ongoing articles.
    Excerpts:
    – “Much has been written in recent years about climatic change, the global cooling since 1945 which reversed the earlier upward trend of temperatures, and so on.”
    – Fig. 1 shows a decrease in global mean surface air temp (5 yr running avg) of ~0.3-0.4C from 1945 to ~1970.
    – “The cooling during the last twenty years has been greatest in the Arctic (just as the warming in the earlier decades of the twentieth century had been).”
    – “some aspects of the climatic change that is going on emerge quite clearly. It is global in extent and is developing on a grand time-scale”
    – “There seem to be similarities between the course of the climatic fluctuations that have taken place during the present century and those that occurred just 200 and 400 years earlier.”
    – “In regard to the global cooling trend since the 1940s and concomitant phenomena, it may be important to observe that there appear to be common characteristics between this and most earlier global climatic cooling episodes.”

    There is much similarity between the agricultural dangers of the cooling to those in the 1974 CIA report, suggesting that Lamb may have been one of those at the 1974 San Diego Conference.

    Since Lamb is recognized as one of the most prominent climatologists ever, this decimates the climate alarmist historical revisionists’ claim that the 1970s global cooling scare was merely the popular media.
    It’s also significant that the report is from the UEA Climate Research Unit, which became a center for the current global warming scare.
    I archived the URL for the pdf on the webarchive Wayback Machine, just in case the historical revisionists might ‘disappear’ it. It was the first time it was archived. http://web.archive.org/web/20151112145742/http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/pubs/crurp/CRU_RP3.pdf

    Keep up the good work Tony. Your publishing all the historical documentation is devastating to the climate alarmists’ position, and exposes that they are peddling propaganda, especially when they ‘disappear’ historical documents which expose their false claims.

  46. Bea Ware says:

    New Zealand Sea Rise Report released today – complete with graphs, stormy sea images and all the usual AGW points.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11547974
    http://www.pce.parliament.nz/media/1380/preparing-nz-for-rising-seas-web-small.pdf

  47. AndyG55 says:

    In case its been missed..

    MASSIVE temperature data tampering for South Africa

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/massive-tampering-with-south-african-temperatures/#more-18662

    ALWAYS the same.

    1.. get rid of the 1940 peak… thus…

    2… fabricate an FRAUDULENT warming trend.

  48. amirlach says:

    Leonardo DeCraprio Bombs on Natural and Historic Alberta weather effect known as a “Chinook”, a name I assume the natives used for centuries.
    http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/12/09/its-a-chinook-leo-albertans-respond-to-dicaprios-climate-experience-while-filming-the-revenant

  49. Windsong says:

    Prof. Cliff Mass has another post on the U.S. Drought Monitor and the apparent disconnect with reality.
    http://www.cliffmass.blogspot.com/2015/12/wet-drought.html

  50. oeman50 says:

    Tony, I made a post yesterday about “A Problem For Engineers To Solve” that no longer seems to be there. Did I break a rule that got it dumped in the bit bucket?

    Thanks, and Happy New Year!

  51. Rosco says:

    Here is a story that has received very little media attention about a climate scientist being charged with fraud.

    He worked on the impact of climate change on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. While supplying information on how we are threatening the Reef he was surreptitiously stealing hundreds of thousands over years – the total exceeds half a million that they can prove !

    On 15 September 15, 2015 the Townsville Bulletin reported this :-

    http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/news/climate-scientist-accused-of-employer-rort/story-fnjfzs4b-1227532573922
    “As a scientist, Dr Alongi has been published in numerous journals, nationally and internationally.
    His key research focuses have been the Great Barrier Reef, coastal mangroves, coastal ecosystems and the impact of climate change.”

    Since being suspended on September 7 he has resigned on December 10.

    The updated story featured in The Courier Mail on Saturday 9 January 2016.

    Here is the link
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/crime-and-justice/queensland-climate-scientist-accused-of-falsely-claiming-expenses/news-story/94a67f8d863a6a94c2578e04402622ed

    The Courier Mail requires a subscription to access its stories

  52. stephen reiss says:

    60 Minutes will be doing a piece on rising sea level in Greenland due to climate change tomorrow Jan 31. We all will appreciate your take on this. Also, any updates on Greenland and arctic ice?

  53. tom0mason says:

    This site should be a useful resource as they fight the gate-keepers of academic publishing.
    http://sci-hub.io/

    A researcher in Russia has made more than 48 million journal articles – almost every single peer-reviewed paper every published – freely available online. And she’s now refusing to shut the site down, despite a court injunction and a lawsuit from Elsevier, one of the world’s biggest publishers.

    For those of you who aren’t already using it, the site in question is Sci-Hub, and it’s sort of like a Pirate Bay of the science world. It was established in 2011 by neuroscientist Alexandra Elbakyan, who was frustrated that she couldn’t afford to access the articles needed for her research, and it’s since gone viral, with hundreds of thousands of papers being downloaded daily. But at the end of last year, the site was ordered to be taken down by a New York district court – a ruling that Elbakyan has decided to fight, triggering a debate over who really owns science.

    Don’t get us wrong, journal publishers have also done a whole lot of good – they’ve encouraged better research thanks to peer review, and before the Internet, they were crucial to the dissemination of knowledge.

    But in recent years, more and more people are beginning to question whether they’re still helping the progress of science. In fact, in some cases, the ‘publish or perish’ mentality is creating more problems than solutions, with a growing number of predatory publishers now charging researchers to have their work published – often without any proper peer review process or even editing.

    She also explains that the academic publishing situation is different to the music or film industry, where pirating is ripping off creators. “All papers on their website are written by researchers, and researchers do not receive money from what Elsevier collects. That is very different from the music or movie industry, where creators receive money from each copy sold,” she said.

  54. James Taylor says:

    Man made climate change in one simple picutre

  55. Henry P says:

    I think you all figured out by now that politics and religion attracts a lot of reactions.
    Here is my contribution for Easter (if you want to publish it?)
    WHERE IS YOUR FAITH?
    If God exists, why cannot we see Him? This is a question that is often heard and I think it is as relevant today as it was at anytime in the past. Without running into clichés, nor making any quotations from the bible, I have been trying to formulate an answer to this particular trying question.
    First, we have to acknowledge that God is the Creator of all things. In a way, to compare, He is like the Artist, and we, and everything that lives, are the works of His hands. So the question posed is really very much similar as to asking an earthly artist, like, let us say, Picasso, why we cannot see him personally in his artwork. Indeed, we cannot actually see him in any of his works. However, we do “recognise” his paintings as (works of) “Picasso”. And so it is here. We are His work and we can see God in all that He made around us; e.g. for fish, God is like the sea and its contents, but the fish themselves are also made of water and the components from the sea. They are of God and in God. Likewise, we are from God and in God…
    Second, using the same analogy of a human artist, the best a painter-artist can do, to show him, would be to paint himself, and show to the world on canvas what he looks like. This is how we know today what Rembrandt looked like. Funny you should ask. This is exactly what God did. He did come to earth as one of us and lived a life showing us what our Creator is like. Indeed, His love for us can be compared with the love of an earthly parent for his child. Despite our mistakes, His love for us is unconditional. Unreasonably so, it seems. Should we have lived during His time here on earth, I am sure many of us would have been exactly like one of His disciples: e.g. not being prepared to do any of the dirty jobs (wash feet), dropping your friend when they were at their worst time in need on earth (Simon Peter & others), and not having any faith whatsoever when it really mattered (Thomas & others). In the end, He was condemned to die by crucifixion, suffering the worst kind of pain anyone of us could possibly endure….
    Lastly, incredibly so, it seems, seeing as that we are talking about “pictures” and “seeing God”, it appears He did decide to leave us with an actual image of Himself. Somehow, He reckoned that we needed to have this. Here you can examine Him. http://www.shroud.com/examine.htm
    The Shroud of Turin is a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man. Is it really the cloth that wrapped His crucified body, or is it simply a medieval forgery, a hoax perpetrated by some clever artist? Modern science has completed hundreds of thousands of hours of detailed study and intense research on the Shroud. It is, in fact, the single most studied artefact in human history, and we know more about it today than we ever have before. And yet, the controversy still rages on. People from all walks of life have devoted their time and efforts to researching, investigating, experimenting on – and writing about – the Shroud of Turin. http://www.shroud.com/reflections.htm To summarise, the cloth bears the photographic image as a NEGATIVE, in THREE dimensions, of a CRUCIFIED man, clearly, very much beaten on his back, with head wounds (remember the thorn crown?), and other wounds specific only to Roman crucifixion (remember the wound in His side?). Blood- and DNA analysis showed that this must have been from a REAL life person.
    As far as I can remember back to 1978, Dr. Max Frei, before his passing, recognised some pollen on the Shroud that are specific to plants that grow exclusively in Palestine e.g. see also here: http://www.shroud.com/danin2.htm
    Many forensic experts, who analysed the Shroud’s (positive) pictures (back and front), concluded that this must have been the person named as Jesus of Nazareth in the bible, after (all) the applications of the Roman punishments and crucifixion exactly as described concerning Him, including the very number of lashings on His back and the wound in His side. For example, (and this is just ONE example), there are no thumbs visible on the Shroud. The way Romans crucified criminals, was by hammering big nails through the wrists, near to the hands, onto the wooden cross. Consequently, because of this, the thumbs would fall numb, behind the other fingers. These types of forensic details have led most of the experts that looked at all the scientific evidence coming from the Shroud’s investigations of having subsequently to become believers.
    Yet, contrary to all expectations, carbon dating in 1988 by various laboratories showed the cloth is from the 13th or 14th century… exactly around the same time when it was displayed in Europe for the first time in history. Despite this, many researchers seem to disagree with the measurements, e.g. see here
    http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf
    To quote from the conclusion from the above (very lengthy!) report,
    “Linen-production technology indicates that the Shroud of Turin is probably older than indicated by the date obtained in 1988. There seems to be ample evidence that an anomalous area was sampled for the radiocarbon analysis; therefore, the reported age is almost certainly invalid for the date the cloth was produced. The image was definitely not painted. The observed characteristics of the image rule out any mechanism for colour formation that involves high temperatures or energetic, penetrating radiation…..” etc
    We know from the account in the Gospel of John that there is talk of some 75 or 100 pounds of spices being used, a mixture of myrrh and aloes, to embalm the corpse. That sounds like an extraordinary large amount. Together with the humidity in the tomb, to me, everything seemed set for some as yet unknown chemical or physical reaction. I wonder if anyone ever did some testing with those two chemicals.
    Personally, after evaluating a lot of the evidence, it is my honest opinion that the Shroud is genuine and that it does bear the image of Jesus Christ. I think it is impossible that the image could have been a painted forgery, much less a medieval one. If it really were a fake, it would have required a real crucifixion to have taken place, orchestrated in exactly the way as Jesus died, with all its particular sordid details, including, amongst other things, the use of Roman whips, a thorn crown, etc. All of this would then have to be recorded in some specifically ingenious way, just so as to get all the specific forensic details correct and to achieve a photographic negative image with the particular 3 dimensional properties exactly as depicted on the Shroud of Turin. This is just statistically impossible.

    Anyway, either way, in fact, we do know that a burial cloth from Jesus did exist in 0 AD. The Scriptures tell us the cloth was there, in the empty tomb, neatly folded up. I think there is a message in that too. But even if the Shroud of Turin were dated exactly back to 0 AD, where would that leave us?

    In fact, that places all of us at exactly the same point in history as where the disciples were when they arrived at the empty tomb. There was only one disciple who saw the empty tomb with the cloth neatly folded up, who immediately “believed”. He just knew. The rest of them remained sceptical, probably like you and me would have been, thinking that somebody must have stolen the body. Only when they had seen His appearance did their doubt fade … Doubt seems to be a good beginning….
    God’s love (energy) is so big you cannot get over it and you cannot get around of it. You have to come in at the Door. Jesus is the Door. He is standing with His arms open wide, there, just like a real Father, worried about where you were. Faith is the key that you need.

    Perhaps I have interested you to do some research so as to see what your heavenly Father (Jesus) is like.

  56. paul says:

    Steven, a friend of mine who is a climate alarmist is referring to this link that claims there was no warming hiatus after all. Do you have any insight on this? Or anyone else on here, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469.full

  57. gator69 says:

    Tony, you should save this quote, and link…

    Florence Fetterer, principal investigator at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, described the data reconstruction process in a guest post at Carbon Brief…

    …as Fetterer explains, gaps remained in their records, which have now been filled into the NSIDC dataset using a variety of sources:

    The sea ice edge positions in the North Atlantic, between 1850 and 1978, derived from various sources, including newspapers, ship observations, aircraft observations, diaries and more.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/aug/22/historical-documents-reveal-arctic-sea-ice-is-disappearing-at-record-speed

    So the next time one of our favorite trolls howls about your newspaper articles, explain that they are part of NSIDC’s scientific method of Arctic ice reconstructions.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s