‘Least extreme U.S. weather year ever?’ 2013 shatters the record for fewest U.S. tornadoes — 15% lower than previous record — 2013 also had the fewest U.S. forest fires since 1984


By: - Climate DepotDecember 27, 2013 9:39 AM with 467 comments

Much to the chagrin of man-made global warming activists who want to tie every weather event to so called ‘global weirding’, 2013 has turned out to be one of the “least extreme” weather years in U.S. history.  See: New Study: ’2013 ranks as one of the least extreme U.S. weather years ever’– Many bad weather events at ‘historically low levels’

‘Whether you’re talking about tornadoes, wildfires, extreme heat or hurricanes, the good news is that weather-related disasters in the US are all way down this year compared to recent years and, in some cases, down to historically low levels.’

Extreme Heat: The number of 100 degree days may ‘turn out to be the lowest in about 100 years of records’

Hurricanes: ‘We are currently in the longest period (8 years) since the Civil War Era without a major hurricane strike in the US (i.e., category 3, 4 or 5)’ ( last major hurricane to strike the US was Hurricane Wilma in 2005)

The latest data show both tornadoes and now wildfires in dramatic decline.

#

2013 had the fewest US forest fires since 1984 - Via Real Science

 

Related Links:

save image

Morano: ‘Global warming promoters have essentially said many bad things will happen due to global warming and guess what, bad things happen all the time so there is no end to their alleged ‘proof’ of global warming induced extreme weather. Any weather event anywhere on the globe. and say ‘well global warming made it worse’ - ‘We have Sen. Barbara Boxer, head of our Senate environmental committee, go down to the senate floor on the day we had an outbreak of tornadoes in Oklahoma and claim this is why she advocates a carbon tax. As though a carbon tax would have prevented these tornadoes! This is medieval witchcraft in modern times.’ - ‘You almost feel sorry for warmists,. but it is the holiday season, so let’s be charitable to them and say they are just flat out wrong.’

LA Times: ‘US wildfire burn acreage far below average’ – ‘Among the quietest of the past decade’ - ‘A wildfire season that began with dire warnings that dry conditions had set the stage for a year of flames across California and the West turned out to be among the quietest of the past decade. Although 2013 was marked by two high-profile blazes, one in California and the other in Arizona, nationally the total wildfire acreage, 4.15 million, is far below the 10-year average of 6.8 million acres.’

Watch Now: Climate Depot Debates Global Warming on UN TV At UN Summit! UN Host to Morano: ‘There is no need to shout’ — Morano: ‘The UN IPCC is first and foremost a political process, not scientific’

Watch Video Now: CNN Hosts Rare Live Contentious Global Warming Debate – Marc Morano vs. Sierra Club’s Michael Brune & Philippe Cousteau Jr. – Full Transcript – Morano: ‘So record cold is now evidence of man-made global warming?

Climate Depot’s Morano At UN Press Conference in Warsaw Denounces Exploitation of Typhoon to ‘an unappreciative audience’: Morano ‘compared the belief that policy can change the weather to ‘medieval witchcraft’

UN Climate Summit Rejects Its Own Science – Links Typhoon Haiyan to Global Warming – UN Summit Degenerates Into Unscientific Claims to Advance Political Agenda – Climate Depot Special Report

 


  • John Whalen

    But!!! But!!!! Global Warming, they said all hell was breaking loose.

    • libwithIQ

      Just wait. Won’t be long before the global warming loons will be on here claiming that fewer storms and more storms are proof of man made global warming. Just like warmer weather and cooler weather is proof of man made global warming.

      • montana83

        Just watched a History Channel production on “The Little Ice Age”. First hour and half was factual. They even talked about the Medieval Warm Period which Michael Mann hid in his “Hockey Stick” graph.

        Then in the last 1/2 hour or so they interviewed the “Climate experts” who said, “Yup, the little ice age ended because of the Industrial Revolution/coal burning etc. These experts then went on to say, wait for this, “that global cooling will cause by global warming”.

        Got that? So, if man causes global warming then he causes global warming. On the other hand if man causes global cooling then that will cause global warming.

        Here’s a handy little study guide so 5th grade students get the picture, guided by a moron government school “Teacher” who will “Guide” the students to the “correct” conclusion.

        http://www.history.com/images/media/pdf/ice_age_study_guide.pdf

        • Cunning Linguist

          How about this? Greenland is called Greenland because it was green when the Vikings settled there 1000 years ago.

          • KaptKan1 .

            And I, for one, wish that the earth WERE warming overall; it makes for a better environment for humans than an ice age. Greenland and SIberia and most of Canada and even the Antartic would become farm, forest and pasture land. I fail to see the downside.

          • RIMSPOKE

            THERE IS A BIG PROBLEM WITH FARMING AT THE SOUTH POLE .

            THE ICE OVER THAT CONTINENT IS 2 MILES THICK !
            IT IS SO HEAVY THAT IT HAS LITERALLY SMASHED THE LAND IN
            THE CENTER DOWN BELOW SEA LEVEL .

            IF IT WERE TO MELT , THAT VOLUME OF ICE WOULD RAISE
            THE SEA LEVEL WORLDWIDE & MOST OF THAT CONTINENT
            WOULD BE UNDERWATER .

          • Dick Lipski

            “Chill,” bro and turn off that caps lock.

          • Ringo Li

            Iceland is called Iceland because it was icy when Vikings settled there 1000 years ago. And now it is warm enough for people! Iceland is the opposite of Green land.

    • FLOYDINFLORIDA

      Well it is Financially and Politically?
      But cheer up at least you will have Obama Care after your $4000 deductible and you co pay!

    • Top Gun

      John Whalen is often mistaken for Andy Dick.

  • William Ripskull

    Fewer tornadoes… Climate Change. More tornadoes… Global Warming. If you don’t believe, you’re a heretic.

    • Chicago720

      correction… if you don’t believe it, you’re a flat-earther, a moron, a heretic, and probably a Jesus freak – just for good measure.

      • FusterCluck

        You forgot akin to being a “Birther”

    • KaptKan1 .

      It’s all called being a “denier” now. This implies that they have Truth and those who disagree are denying that Truth. And the irony is that they hate all (other) religions.

  • libwithIQ

    Damn that man made global warming for causing all the extreme weather conditions!!! Wait. Less tornadoes? Less hurricanes? Cooler weather? More arctic Ice? How can that be?

  • tham

    Paging Al Gore, paging Al Gore

    • Chriss Markey

      It is Global Warming …
      wait .. ummm … it’s
      Global Climate Change ….
      wait… ummm … it’s
      Extreme Weather ….
      wait … ummm … it’s
      ANY Weather … ya, that’s it !

      • RIMSPOKE

        THEY WON’T BE HAPPY UNTIL THERE IS NO WEATHER .

        THE WEATHER MUST BE STOPPED & THEY WILL USE
        YOUR TAX DOLLARS TO DO IT .

    • exbobbie

      No good calling for Al Gore, he’s sitting on the beach in front of his mansion in Kalifornia, waiting for the oceans to rise. Can you believe this moron, he tells everybody the ice caps will melt and cause the oceans to rise, then buys a beach front mansion, guess he doesn’t believe his own rhetoric any more, da mn hypocrite.

  • TeddyNovak
    • John (magnum)

      And the IGNORANT !!

      Dang, that’s the leftists !!

      • bonzono

        hmm

        so – if i have you understood correctly.
        left wing – which means a liberal, social viewpoint
        right wing – which means a conservative viewpoint..

        and somehow, you have managed to link a political stance with an ability to consult the science?

        More interestingly, and presuming you are a right-wing coward.. I mean, conservative. – demonstrably you do NOT read the science. I would have thought that a failure to educate yourself would be more strongly indicative of ignorance.

        so we have a right wing ignorant calling climate change scientists, when discussing their science, left wing ignorants?

        Ah, usa. I forgive you, you know not what you do. :D

        • John (magnum)

          left wing Obamabot dipchit loon alert !!!

          • bonzono

            OMG!, someone constructed a meaningful and useful rebuttal to your brainfart!, they must be evil!.

            make sure you pray for me – you also think a bronze age god is watching you right? reason and facts not important for you? great! go for it.

          • John (magnum)

            You are a brain fart, Idiot !

        • Reggie Romero

          Bonzono, left wing Loon. Critical thinking escapes you and you insist on proving your handicap by writing jibberish. What the hell are you talking about? Seriously, you are unable to think. You are only capable of regurgitating your gangster party’s propaganda. I know it is hopeless trying to explain things to you because you don’t have the ability to absorb it. It does please me, however, knowing you live in a dark, hopeless world ruled by political hacks to whom you have enslaved yourself. And for what? What the hell do you get out of justifying their rubbish? They laugh at you. They ridicule you in private. They KNOW you and your ilk are, actually, stupid.

          • bonzono

            interesting…
            so again. let me go back to the actual meanings of left and right wing….
            Of course, you know these are references to political slants – you do know that right? right?

            I’m confused you ask me what I was talking about – I really thought I used small words. let me be clear:

            left wing = political leaning
            right wing = political leaning.

            ability to read information, parse data and construct a logical, factually supported and substantiated argument (i.e. science), is not a political leaning.

            still with me? – okay, so I’m just wondering what science has to do with “left wing” or in fact, any political leaning.

            I know it’s pointless to ask, you’ve already shown you’re unable to answer – of course you couch that in evasion and slur, but that’s okay, we know you’ve got nothing else there.

            That’s all you have, isn’t it reggie? squirm squirm squirm – no problem, the facts and reason will nail your butt every time – and they are :D

    • Danny

      religion is inherently for the stupid

      • I blame bush for Obama

        So JFK was inherently stupid?

      • Bob A

        Global warming is not science. Its the religious dogma of energy terrorists.

        • Viola DaGamba

          Really? Then click on the fire data chart, and notice that the number of acres burned is above average 8 of 10 recent years. Simple math, not religion.

          • Bob A

            So what does that have to do with non-existent man made global warming? NOTHING! That is why you tacked to idiotic climate change. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A TIME WHEN THE CLIMATE HAS NOT CHANGED. Changing climate is evidence that climate change will always happen. It even happens when we have been cooling for the last 14 years. Absolute evidence that you are grasping at straws. Dogma not science.

          • bonzono

            You’re the kind of guy who stands in a burning house with a cigarette in your mouth..
            “so what?!” you say. “I’m used to having a bit of flame around me, I see no fire here anyhow”
            I think I would not run into that house to save you, I might even add gasoline,

          • Bob A

            There has always been climate change. To use it as proof of anything shows how desperate you are. 14 years of cooling with increased CO2 means CO2 is causing NOTHING. But you don’t want to be an apostate to your cult of global warming. Stop drinking the cool aide.

      • oldwhiteguy

        being stupid is inherently for the stupid.

    • obamamamma

      @ TeddyNovak: That bumper-sticker is HILARIOUS!!!

    • nvrtalk

      This is an ideal article for those who think the “USA” is the whole world. Canada’s tornado count went up from last year. Tornadoes are the result of differing air masses converging – the loss of conditions for tornadoes is a regional extreme weather shift.

      • JGault

        yet if the numbers were higher in the US and lower in the rest of north america you would be on your soapbox shout it has proof of global warming. You’re a tool.

        • nvrtalk

          “Global” is not disproved or proved by events logged in just the “USA”. This site is a poor source of accurate assessments.

          • oldwhiteguy

            may a very nice tornado visit you on it’s way to where ever it is going. call us when you reach your final destination. thank you for participating.

          • nvrtalk

            Why?

      • Bob A

        So global warming is good for us! LOL moron!

        • nvrtalk

          Dear LOL moron,

          A drought caused by lack of dry air is not tornadoes, flooding caused by excessive moist air is not tornadoes… So your narrow viewer of “harms” is as closed minded as looking only at the USA for a global phenomenon.

          • Bob A

            There are only two kinds of global warming believers. 1. Radical environmentalists that believe humans are an infestation on their god. Everything humans do is bad. Not science, theology. 2. Big government fascists. They don’t care if its just an unscientific scam. They want to use it to increase taxes and grow government power. The earth has been cooling for 14 straight years in spite of CO2 increases. Its sun spot activity that makes small changes in earth’s temps. Also CO2 is a trace gas. Less than 0.004% of the atmosphere. Trace gas can’t do anything. Science not theology you tool!

          • bonzono

            oh, and 3. those who actually bother to read the science.

            as for trace gases not doing anything firstly, the current concentration of CO2 is 392 ppm (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global_data)
            Up from about 280 ppm ~100 years ago.

            That’s 0.04% – you’re wrong by a factor of 10.

            I might also point out that, according to http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/7446095.HTML
            inhaling mustard gas for 24 hours, with a concentration of 0.0005% will kill you.

            So much for trace gases ‘not doing anything’ – what you’ve been stupid about is the extent to which SOME gases are better at doing things than others, even in small amounts. Venus will verify that CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas, your mental ineptitude does not.

            Homework – yours – do it.
            thanks.

          • Bob A

            Your correct about 0.04%. There is 200 times more water vapor in the atmosphere than C02. Water vapor is the warming elephant in the atmosphere. To increase a warming gas quantity by this trivial amount does nothing. Poison gas can kill a human in small quantity but it does not effect climate or earth warming. Also 70% of all CO2 is produced naturally. Man made CO2 is 30%. If we decreased CO2 by 10% it would mean a quantitative decrease of 3% of the already small 0.04%. A minuscule reduction. Yet CO2 has been increasing for 14 years yet the earth is cooling. A scientist would conclude CO2 increases have no effect on warming. Grapes were once grown in Greenland hundreds of years ago before CO2 increases. Warming is cyclical, nothing to do with CO2. Of course with people like you its theology not science.

        • oldwhiteguy

          way better than the ice and sleet and snow and minus 27 degree temps we have been experiencing. bob, there is no cure for what you have.

        • Getreal

          According the records from the Medieval Warming Period when it was 2-3 C warmer than at present it was better with longer growing seasons, more abundant crops, less famine, extended human longevity and less illness. The Vikings did their North Atlantic excursions when it was warmer and established settlements in Greenland that are now under ice. So there is every indication that a warmer climate is not necessarily harmful, but since when do lefties listen to history, let alone genuine science? BTW nice ad hominem argument–typical of those who have no substantive arguments of their own.

          • bonzono

            This constant reference to ‘lefties’ amuses me.

            Left wing is a political slant. It has nothing at all to do with an ability to read scientific literature.

            However, if you want to continue your … curious misuse of nomenclature, then obviously you assume ‘right wing’ to be more scientifically informed.

            Which would lead me to question one point you made ‘greenland which is now under ice’ – in the pre-industrial times, it usually was to a large event, covered in winter, but not in summer (for example: http://www.qunar.travel/greenland.html).

            As for ‘now it is covered in ice’.. well, your right-wing abilities for doing homework might have failed you on that one:
            http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html

            The homer ‘greenland’ – so the story goes, was given by Erik the Red, the viking exile, who returned to norway to garner appreciation for his exploratory endeavours, and wanted to advertise an new land he’d discovered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland). I can imagine that EtR was sailing in summer, of course, and was elated by the bit of green pasture he found.

            Facts really suck hey? but hey, don’t take facts from me, I’m a leftie :D

            Apparently that means my liberal and informed views mean I don’t do my homework, or something…

      • Scott Scarborough

        The US has about 50 times as many tornadoes as Canada. The US has more tornadoes than the rest of the world combined. Wrong climatic condition to be saying that the US is not the “whole world.” Because as far as tornadoes goes, the US IS most of the world!

        • nvrtalk

          Yes Scott the US has more tornadoes than Canada (for now) but the trend is a decrease in the USA and an Increase in Canada… soon Canada will have them all?

          Already having a conclusion then seeking even anecdotal correlations is defecating on the scientific method. Tornadoes in the USA is not the sole measure of the global climate change.

          • Getreal

            Where is your proof? Which studies are you citing? You make a statement but offer no empirical proof. Typical of an alarmist.

          • nvrtalk

            So the parrot can detect an alarmist – reflect on that and keep posting here.

  • oldspeak rules

    This is why they’re already changing their tune from “global warming” to plain old “climate change”. It allows for greater discrepancy when deciding just what that “change” is.

    • 1mikejanz1

      Not any more, they blew it when they started crying about global warming.
      They can call it what ever they want, but everybody already knows what they mean. The only ones who are stupid enough to believe they meant global climate change are these morons themselves!

    • NEOCONPUNK

      “Climate Change”, we used to call that “weather”.

      • FLOYDINFLORIDA

        I remember when they use to call those who reported the weather on TV the weather girl, now of course the are meteorologist? What’s this got to do with meteor’s?

    • FLOYDINFLORIDA

      Yep and that why they changed their names from Abortionist to Pro Choice as it all sound so warm and cuddly!

      • RIMSPOKE

        AND HOMOSEXUAL TO GAY .

    • nvrtalk

      Morano Worked In Communications For Climate Deniers Rush Limbaugh And Sen. James Inhofe.Marc Morano is not a scientist and has no scientific background. Prior to starting Climate Depot, he worked as a producer for Rush Limbaugh in the 1990s where he was known as Limbaugh’s “Man in Washington.” Limbaugh continues to use Morano’s material on his radio show to misinform his millions of listeners.

      • http://bellsouthpwp.net/h/t/htos1/blogs.htm 2jeffwilliams

        Dazzle us with “following the money” of your boy, obama.

      • Bill Powell

        Give us an example of a misstatement of fact used by Rush.

        • nvrtalk

          Google it yourself. There are dozens.

          • Bill Powell

            That’s what I thought. You don’t really have anything but innuendo, do you?

          • nvrtalk

            So finding the truth is too much work for you?
            http://rushtruth.net/

            1. “It has not been proven that nicotine is addictive, the same with cigarettes causing emphysema [and other diseases].” (Radio show, 4/29/94)

            2. LIMBAUGH: On the Republicans’ “Contract With America”: “The New York Times never ran anything on the contract ’til after the election. The rest of the news media hardly talked about it at all.” (TV, 4/6/95)

            REALITY: In the 42 days between the announcement of the “Contract with America” and the Nov. 8, 1994 election, the New York Times published 45 articles that mentioned the contract–more than one a day. The Nexis computer database reports that more than 1400 pieces mentioning the contract were published before the election.

            3. LIMBAUGH: “Banks take the risks in issuing student loans and they are entitled to the profits.” (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)

            REALITY: Banks take no risks in issuing student loans, which are federally insured.

            4. LIMBAUGH: Comparing the 1950s with the present: “And I might point out that poverty and economic disparities between the lower and upper classes were greater during the former period.” (Told You So, p. 84)

            REALITY: Income inequality, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, fell from the 1940s to the late 1960s, and then began rising. Inequality surpassed the 1950 level in 1982 and rose steadily to all-time highs in 1992. (Census Bureau’s “Money Income of Households, Families and Persons in the United States”)

            5. LIMBAUGH: “Oh, how they relished blaming Reagan administration policies, including the mythical reductions in HUD’s budget for public housing, for creating all of the homeless! Budget cuts? There were no budget cuts! The budget figures show that actual construction of public housing increased during the Reagan years.” (Ought to Be, p. 242-243)

            REALITY: In 1980, 20,900 low-income public housing units were under construction; in 1988, 9,700, a decline of 54 percent ;Statistical Abstracts of the U.S).In terms of 1993 dollars, the HUD budget for the construction of new public housing was slashed from $6.3 billion in 1980 to $683 million in 1988. “We’re getting out of the housing business. Period,” a Reagan HUD official declared in 1985.

            6. LIMBAUGH: “There’s no such thing as an implied contract.” (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93)

            REALITY: Every first-year law student knows there is.

            March 17, 2010 Pants on Fire! – An extreme false statement: Sort order: 6Rush Limbaugh: People “can’t go fishing anymore because of Obama.” — Pants on Fire!

            January 20, 2010 Pants on Fire! – An extreme false statement: Sort order: 6Rush Limbaugh: There are “high administrative costs” when you donate to Haiti relief through the White House Web site. — Pants on Fire!

            April 30, 2010 False – The claim is not accurate: Sort order: 5Rush Limbaugh: Alaska’s Prince William Sound “is pristine now.” — False

            December 10, 2009 False – The claim is not accurate: Sort order: 5Rush Limbaugh: A recent drop in the unemployment rate is questionable because it was calculated “over two days of the Thanksgiving week.” — False

            September 8, 2009 Mostly False – The claim contains some element of truth, but doesn’t tell the full story: Sort order: 4Rush Limbaugh: The government is “going to have the right to get into your bank account with the health care bill and make transfers without you knowing it.” — Mostly False

            September 8, 2009 Mostly False – The claim contains some element of truth, but doesn’t tell the full story: Rush Limbaugh: The government is “going to have the right to get into your bank account with the health care bill and make transfers without you knowing it.” — Mostly False

            August 27, 2009 Pants on Fire! – An extreme false statement: Rush Limbaugh: “President Obama . . . wants to mandate circumcision.” — Pants on Fire!

            July 14, 2009 False – The claim is not accurate: Sort order: 5 Presente.org: Rep. Adam Putnam was silent when Rush Limbaugh called Sonia Sotomayor a racist. — False

            July 9, 2009 Mostly False – The claim contains some element of truth, but doesn’t tell the full story: Sort order: 4Rush Limbaugh: On the day the House voted on the climate change bill, “there was not even a copy of the bill in the well of the House, which is standard. It wasn’t even written.” — Mostly False

            May 28, 2009 Mostly False – The claim contains some element of truth, but doesn’t tell the full story: Sort order: 4Rush Limbaugh: Sotomayor “ruled against the white firefighter — Ricci and other white firefighters — just on the basis that she thought women and minorities should be given a preference because of their skin color and because of the history of discrimination in the past. The law was totally disregarded.” — Mostly False

            April 10, 2009 False – The claim is not accurate: Sort order: 5Rush Limbaugh: “You can’t read a speech by George Washington . . . without hearing him reference God, the Almighty.” — False

          • del

            Notice how NOTHING here has ANYTHING to do with the data cited in the study. This is a case study in propagandism.

      • Scott Scarborough

        And he is the dumbest asshole the earth has ever seen. Now that that is out of the way, do you have any proof that the data cited is incorrect?

        • nvrtalk

          The data cited is not supportive of the conclusion.

          • del

            …which means, NO he doesn’t have any data. He has innuendo and wild claims.

  • SactoDan

    Algore’s jet.

    • Eugene Pariah

      Second only to both ends of Algore’s alimentary canal, I should think!

  • BlackJack Charles

    Everything Marc Morono knows about climate change would fit on the tip of his tiny dick.

    • J Nice

      How would you know? Have you seen it? And where is your proof? Is it because you don’t have any, or you have an even tinier one?

    • doug1961

      …and everything BlackJack Charles knows about Marc Morono’s tiny dick would fit in BJ’s mouth.
      Take your dogma elsewhere.

    • jtom

      And that type response is all you have when the argument’s been lost, and you’ve been proven an idiot.

      • BlackJack Charles

        Fucck off.

  • GizaDog

    Fewest forest fires? How about just bigger!!

    • libwithIQ

      Proof?

    • Jtom

      Less than half the number of acres burned this year as last. LOL. The more your try, the more ignorant you look!

      • GizaDog

        Haha dork. Go look in the mirror and then hit yourself.

        • libwithIQ

          Typical liberal response when they don’t have facts to back themselves up. Nice try little boy.

          • GizaDog

            Looks who is doing the labeling. Good job on voting yourself up!

          • libwithIQ

            And still waiting on proof of the moronic statement made by the chihuahua. Fewer acres are less. Did you not get past third grade math?

          • Eugene Pariah

            Ah yes! GizaDog digs up the wretched carcass of the ad hominem attack! Typical ploy of the Alarmists — and one which is often observed among Progressives and Statists as well.

  • LibsAreCommies

    It is time to execute the warmist liars.

    • Cunning Linguist

      Yeah, burn them all over with a magnifying glass!

  • Middletown

    Last year: The proof of global warming is in disasters such as hurricane katrina and tornados in Joplin.

    This year: The proof of global warming is in the lack of hurricane and tornado activity.

    • RIMSPOKE

      IN SHORT , THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOOD NEWS TO A CLIMATE ALARMIST .

    • nvrtalk

      Morano Is Paid Over $150,000 A Year By An Oil-Funded Organization. Climate Depot is sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a conservative policy and lobbying organization that has received funding from ExxonMobil and Chevron. CFACT also received over $300,000 in 2011 from Donors Trust, an anonymously funded group that PBS called the “number one supporter of the groups” that deny climate change. CFACT’s 2011 financial disclosure form lists Morano as its highest paid employee at over $150,000 a year. [Media Matters, 11/28/12]

      • robt

        And the global warming hysteria industry in Britain, Europe and North America is paid multi-billions in Taxpayer money.
        Taxpayers funded the New Ice Age hysteria movement 35 years ago, too, but not to the same degree.

        • nvrtalk

          Funds spent measuring temperature is not “climate change alarmism” the few dollars spent plotting the numbers is miniscule.

      • Bill Powell

        So does that mean that this story is wrong? Just because someone is paid to advocate for a certain position he believes in doesn’t mean he’s lying about the facts.
        Obama’s ‘press secretary’ is well paid for representing his boss to the media and public. Is everything he says a lie? Never mind – bad example.

        • nvrtalk

          It means this story has no legitimate scientific merit.

          • Bill Powell

            Lemme think here a minute… Okay, so certain oil companies see a movement they believe is hell-bent on destroying their business using studies and opinions they believe have no merit. They then start a mutually beneficial organization to fight that movement. Sound about right? On the other side of the issue, you have a group of researchers (some of whom have been found to have ‘fudged’ certain of their statistics), politicians and other assorted grifters with much to gain in power and money, who are not entirely certain of their research and who certainly cannot prove it. Research which has for about 20 years been used to make dire and, dare I say it, catastrophic prognostications which have never yet come true and they are more credible in your eyes? You may be one of the grifters yourself.

          • nvrtalk

            Your poor grasp of the scientific method ideally suits the needs of this website. Your perpetuating the harms is pushing catastrophe closer than it needs to be.

          • Bill Powell

            Catastrophe! What catastrophe? You fools will still be telling us the sky is falling years from now. Weren’t costal areas supposed to be inundated by the seas a decade ago? Weren’t we supposed to have ‘global warming refugees?’ I’m sorry, after 59 years on this planet, I’m sorta jaded to the ‘catastrophe’ meme. I’ve seen all the movies.

          • nvrtalk

            The US Corps of Engineers has been spending buckets of your tax dollars rebuilding and protecting coastlines. So the damage is in your empty wallet. $14.5 billion in the Gulf since Katrina – $19.5 Billion pledged by New York City alone. With the reduction if Federal flood insurance subsidies expect to see more inundated areas abandoned. To see the damage look at maps from your childhood, not new movies.

          • del

            The US spends $84B on highways in a year. What of it? Is it the harbinger of a global crises?

            Please CITE evidence linking Katrina to anything MAN MADE. Variation in climate conditions over time is called the WEATHER. The predictions by the alarmists over the last 10 years have not only been dismantled by data, but the hubristic thinking necessary to believe that ANY world government could regulate the weather is naive to the point of insanity.

            At most, your idiotic rantings and conspiracy theories will dupe enough cretins to pressure the self-serving villains in Washington to implement punitive regulations upon the vast majority of human society. If you weren’t tipping such dangerous windmills this lunacy wouldn’t be worth responding to.

          • nvrtalk

            You should follow threads. The old man asked why he had not seen the coastal flooding… I explained why. Your ‘bot needs tuning.

          • del

            You explained NOTHING. You pushed out some budget numbers in an attempt to make a correlation between human behavior and spending. If that is what you consider “explaining” your brain needs more tuning. Just more propagandist BS.

          • Bill Powell

            So… your thesis is that 100 years ago we didn’t have hurricanes? We have more people and more infra-structure every year, what do you think will happen when we’re hit by hurricanes, less expense? And by the way, if I had my say, we wouldn’t be spending all those tax dollars to repair private businesses and residences. That’s what insurance is for. Also, if people had to pay for storm damage, perhaps they’d move where there are fewer storms but, once again the government subsidizes hurtful behavior.

          • nvrtalk

            Follow the money. Increases in flood insurance rates is not the result of less flooding. It is the results of increased flooding.

      • samf1953

        So

  • Gardenstateed

    “If this is torture, chain me to the wall”. Maybe climate change is a good thing.

  • eyesjamesq

    Those Sharknados are really scary.

  • rainwash

    You cannot cure idiots of Global Warming Hysteria.

    We already tried to cure them of Stupidity and that failed.

  • elia

    Alert: Climate-Stay-The-Same to devastate the United States. UNIPCC urges immediate global wealth tax to insure continued excitement in weather forecasting…

    • KaptKan1 .

      CS (Climate Sameness) is going to destroy us all — unless the government taxes us more!

  • ApocalypseSoon

    no matter what, man is the cause of the world’s problems.

    THIS is all liberals believe, when it comes down to it. liberals HATE mankind.

    • 1mikejanz1

      You would think that if they hated mankind so much, they would start alleviating the problem by committing suicide!

      • Cunning Linguist

        One can only hope.

      • FusterCluck

        Fingers crossed…

      • John (magnum)

        The mass murders here lately in the theaters, malls, schools and Navy Yard have been card carrying liberal loon IDIOTS ! You can also count those millions that have been aborted !

        Does that count ?

        • FLOYDINFLORIDA

          Abortions on demand should be available and free for any and all Democrats!
          They want it, they demand it, so be it!
          Let them kill off their species, voters and non tax payers, once they are gone we will outlaw abortion again?

          • chris beyer

            Thats one good thing about gays…..they can’t multiply in numbers. After all, most of them are liberals.

          • RIMSPOKE

            BUT THEY DO REPRODUCE .
            NOT IN THE PROCREATIVE WAY , THEY RECRUIT INN THE WAY
            A VIRUS DOES .

            THEIR PATRON SAINT , HARVEY MILK WAS A GOOD EXAMPLE .

            REMEMBER “PROJECT 10 ” ? THEY NEVER COULD GET TO THE 10%
            OF YOUNG PEOPLE BUT THE FACT THAT THEY TRIED IS TELLING .

        • bonzno

          hehe, this is so funny..

          What does a political slant have to do with science?

          nothing at all – you either read the science, or you don’t. your political slant has nothing to do with it.

          what a funny bunch of paranoid ignorants you are – seriously, get off your butts, and read the science. you don’t have to be left wing to read the science, but you do have to NOT be an ass.

          • John (magnum)

            Left wing IDIOT alert !

      • 1peevedbob

        Dr. Jack is now at room temperature, and these people are to CHICKEN to do themselves in…

      • FLOYDINFLORIDA

        No they want all non liberals to commit suicide?

        • 1mikejanz1

          That ain’t gonna happen!

      • KaptKan1 .

        One could only hope… but they hate the REST of mankind and consider themselves some kind of superior “evolved persons”. They are all atheists and worship themselves and their loathsome kind and that is why they have made a cult out of their politically cracked agenda of socialism, global warmism, homosexuality, “humanitarian” warmongering, police statism, and welfare statism.

        • Richard Lindberg

          I’m atheist and I don’t believe in this B.S.. Remember, not all liberals are atheists. There are many so called Christians and Jews who believe this. You are showing your narrow mind that lumping everyone from a certain group together. It would be the same if I lumped all Christians with the westburough Baptist church. That’s the problem with conservatives: too narrow minded. And I’m conservative also.

          • KaptKan1 .

            I didn’t say that all atheists are global warmites, but that all global warmites are atheists. Try to understand that oh so subtle difference. I don’t consider the so-calleds to be believers in God; it’s antithetical to the whole politically cracked agenda and dogma. There will always be some minor exceptions, or course, but generally speaking my statement is factual and I stand by it.

          • bonzono

            “but that all global warmites are atheists”

            Actually you’re going to need a citation for that, but I have to admit, I’d understand the correlation.
            MANY (not all) atheists are simply atheist because there is no intelligent reason to assume a god actually exists (weak atheism) – the DEMAND you validate your claim.

            The same is true for global warming, and it HAS been validated. thus, the basic requirement of the weak-atheists’ claim is fulfilled, in the context of global warming.

            As for your god.. puh.. I can understand why you’re so vitriolic – you simply don’t bother to consult the information, the material. you simply don’t bother to extend your brain past what some bigoted jock on the radio told you once. you’re unable to ask questions, you’re unable to actually seek out the data and CRITICALLY THINK about it.
            Your theism, and your failure to bother to think about global warming go hand in claw.

          • KaptKan1 .

            Your pompous presumptiousness (I don’t own a radio and couldn’t tell you who the “talk jocks” are; I’m “unable to ask questions, etc.”) and your insistence that your blind dogmatic Global Warmism “HAS been validated” despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary, and your atheism go foot in mouth.

          • bonzono

            I’m an atheist, and I consider my intellectual evolution superior to that of theists. It’s called education and intellectual honesty.

            That’s not to say that ALL atheists are the same – atheism has nothing to do with education, but gallup polls do show a correlation between poor education and religiosity.

            Anyhow, what amuses me most on climate depot, is the unfailing accusation that climate scientists are ‘lefties’ – I’ve yet to have anyone explain to me how a political leaning has anything to do with science.

            Based on the calibre of posts here, I strongly doubt one will ever come.

      • oldwhiteguy

        I agree. in the past I have suggested that they eliminate their carbon foot print by tying a plastic bag snuggly over their head until they stop expelling C02.

        • 1mikejanz1

          Fantastic idea!

    • 1peevedbob

      I am presuming that they HATE themselves as much as they do mankind?

    • FLOYDINFLORIDA

      Point well take and it they had their way they would castrate all non liberal men?
      Me thinks the zero population growth of San Francisco is working out quite well!

    • Ernest Moosa

      Liberals do not hate mankind. What they are doing is elevating themselves to gods. As if their actions can alter the universe. And yet all evidence points to the fact that they really cannot alter a thing.

      Why do they elevate themselves to god-like status? Because they hate the concept of God. No one forces them to believe. But they want to force you to disbelieve.

    • RIMSPOKE

      THEN WHY DO THEY SEE THEMSELVES AS THE SAVIORS ?

      • Viola DaGamba

        Why are you shouting? Calm down.

        • RIMSPOKE

          I AM NOT SHOUTING .

          PERHAPS YOU HAVE A HEARING AID PROBLEM .

    • nvrtalk

      ClimateDepot.com is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues. Public tax filings for 2003-7 (the last five years for which documents are available) show that the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation and foundations associated with the billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime financier of conservative causes, including being the primary source of money used to fund attacks against Bill Clinton during theWhitewater and Monica Lewinsky eras of his presidency [1]. According to a report issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists, from 1998-2005, approximately 23% of the total ExxonMobil funding for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow was directed by ExxonMobil for climate change activities [p. 32].

      • del

        This UCS? http://www.activistcash.com/organizations/145-union-of-concerned-scientists/

        1) polling is the antithesis of science
        2) if you cannot refute this data with more data you are opining (see #1)

        Guilt by Association is a pathetic basis for argument in any situation, by decidedly more so when attempting to make a point in a scientific discussion.

        Please cite or troll elsewhere.

        • nvrtalk

          Don’t buy a link from Drudge…

  • doug1961

    Well…who’d of thunk it?
    Besides everyone who recognized the flaws in the “science” of climatology.

  • Snarkasterous1

    But….but….splutter, splutter…..”Climate Change!” “Global Warming!” Racism!

    Yeah, that’s it – RACISM! “The Man!” “I am the one I’ve been waiting for!”

    – Obozo Voter and Climate Alarmist

  • Cooperwa

    The good news…Man Bear Pig will hopefully go away.

  • Pizza the Hut

    Climate change

  • JBTascam

    Climate Change Good!

  • justfedup52

    If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie…It thus become virtually important for the State to use all of its power to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Nazi Propaganda Minister…
    So who is going to be the foolish one to believe in this global warming lies?

    • KaptKan1 .

      thuh gubbermint wudnt lie to us

  • ME

    Sadly many Americans are being fleeced into thinking this whole Global Warming is real!

    In the end, the fleecers get richer and the fleeced are poorer…

    • FLOYDINFLORIDA

      Ol Al Gore is getting richer and fatter off these fools!

    • nvrtalk

      These days Morano is paid by an industry-funded group to run the climate denial website ClimateDepot.com. At Climate Depot, Morano serves as the de facto research department for the right-wing media’s attacks on climate science, and mobilizes his readers to target individual scientists and reporters for telling the public about climate change threats. The site was instrumental in manufacturing the 2009 “Climategate” controversy, which Morano incorrectly claimed exposed “deliberate manipulation of facts and data” by climate scientists. Morano is a darling of the organization most committed to climate denial, the Heartland Institute. He regularly speaks at their conferences and defended their controversial billboard comparing those who accept climate science to “murderers, tyrants, and madmen” including the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.

      • deadeyedan

        What right wing? If there were such a thing we would be on the moon mining its resources for the (never-clouded-out) solar power stations there to beam the energy back here to eliminate all coal burning, gas burning and nuclear power plants thus drastically reducing those emissions that ALLEGEDLY force the climate. Such technology has been around for the last thirty-five years yet all we hear about are silly, no, scary – geoengineering schemes.

        AL GORE – where is he now that we need all his hot air?

        • nvrtalk

          Fuel burned is BTU’s released. Magnitude is simple math. Side effects is more complex science. This site contradicts basic and complex science without merit to close the minds of those willing to follow.

          • deadeyedan

            The adherents have NEVER figured out why, given that the sun was as active in the 20th Century as it was in the 11th Century, that we are not as warm as the Medieval Optimum, nor can their self-vaunted models go backward in time to “predict’ such changes as the Little Ice Age.

            HARUMPH!

            CLIMATEGATE (now I, II & III plus FAKEGATE) – the revelation that the pseudo-scientists at East Anglia University know just as much about the atmosphere as Harvard law professors know about the Constitution

          • del

            Again, no data, just slander.

            If it was “just simple math” current CO2 measurements would align with whatever nonsensical predications the ecolofascists predicted. Since every one of those theories has been proven wrong by data gathered in the last decade, you have just declared the authors all morons (or at least incapable of “simple math”). As a True Believer of this pap, you have in turn declared yourself a follower of morons. I will give you credit for getting that much right.

          • nvrtalk

            You are in a select group of ignorant people who do know already know their car gets hot after the engine in running or that items get hotter when burning.

  • Pat McBride

    Oh my, the “Horror”!
    Of course we had fewer extreme weather events during the Medieval warming period as well, but that does not mean we are warming as much as enjoying the results of past warming.
    (And the nut jobs would have to admit we had warming before the industrial revolution to bring it up.)

  • Itsy_bitsy

    Yes siree! It’s global warming, er make that climate change! Wait a minute, what’s the EPA calling it today?

    • Pat McBride

      They call it “Spot”.
      It is their latest pet.

  • The Masked Avatar

    My golf score is hideous. I blame global warming.

    • KaptKan1 .

      You should; GW affects the greens and it’s harder to see which way the break because of it. My putting game is way off since GW began.

  • David S

    In the 70′s the claim as that we were heading for another ice age. When the planet warmed half a degree instead the claim was changed to global warming. Now the predicted disasters of AGW have come up short and the planet has not warmed in the last 17 years. So what will be the next disaster? How about this? OMG! The planet’s climate is staying the same! Oh no were all gonna die from the unbearable crushing boredom of climate sameness! And its all man’s fault.

    • Cunning Linguist

      It will be whatever the politicians need to exert control.

    • KaptKan1 .

      LMAO! “Climate Sameness”! BEWARE THE DREADED “CS”!
      I’m going to start using that one, David! That was inspired, man!

  • Michael E. Newton

    Is this what they meant by global climate change? Change can be good.

  • Gerald Smith

    Actually it’s George Bush’s fault. He took the weather machine home that he used to keep in the White House basement.

  • Shawn

    I’m thinking HAARP, or whatever they call themselves now, experimented enough in 2011. My hometown of Joplin, MO suffered these experiments as did many other communities in ’11 & ’12. That can rationally explain the drop in tornadoes in 2013.

  • RockDad Rice

    Al Gore – Global Warming Whore

  • sanity_in_florida

    Facts will not impress Obama, Gore, Reid, Pelosi and the other idi#ts who want to use global warming junk science to raise taxes.

  • ron

    When big money for scientific research is at stake, as it so often is with federal government funding and when you add powerful constituencies, corruption is to be expected.

  • Catler

    Next, liberals will blame erectile dysfunction on “Global Climate Change” to try to raise your taxes. The liberal lies will never stop.

    • sailcat

      Not til we stop them, CAT.
      Nice pic, just saying…

  • Buddy Zuckerman

    What happened to that dang global warming, er climate change?

  • Buddy Zuckerman

    Meanwhile the EPA continues to ruin businesses and drive up the cost of living with unfettered regulation based on a false religion.

    • sailcat

      False data, false results.
      Redistribution and Fundamental Transformation will not stop til we stop the PROGressives.

    • Jeffrey Lamela

      Because it has nothing to do with the climate; it’s all about socialism in it’s various guises. If it were really about climate then you would think that the global warming crowd would be happy by the evidence that the earth is not warming but they are not – they need global warming to exist.

  • dan

    http://www.chick.com/reading/t… the last generation …

  • Robert Shore

    I am highly skeptical of the global warning hysteria. if for no other reason, the only solutions offered are ones that tax the society to death and line the pockets of the tax collectors (Government) and feed them with more money and power. Sounds like a snake oil salesman to me. Since when is the air I expel from my lungs (Carbon Dioxie) a Toxic pollutant? Isn’t that what plants breath in? If that is the case then every liberal blowhard should be taxed twice as much!

    • sailcat

      Snake oil is what PROGressive liberals always sell.

  • Dave Park

    I think the global warming lunatics are beyond the point of being able to rationalize ANYTHING. Every rain drop, snow flake or gust of wind over 20 mph is caused by global warming, case closed. Won’t be long before high tide is blamed on global warming, with high CEO salaries also linked to it also

    • tulsamikel

      I’m going to use the high tide comment….That is brilliant!

    • sailcat

      …climate crisis….

      • KaptKan1 .

        A guy posted above predicted that next would be CS: Climate Sameness, because of a lack of climate change!

  • 1mikejanz1

    Another slap in the face to global warming morons!

  • jimmyv65

    damn that global warming

  • Cunning Linguist

    Must be global warming. The US set the most records for cold weather this year. Must be global warming. Comet Ison was destroyed by the sun. Must be global warming. The sun came up in the east. Must be global warming. Justin Bieber is retiring. Must be global warming.

    • sailcat

      Kids, its “climate crisis” now!

    • KaptKan1 .

      Well, if it caused Justine Boober to retire, I’m all for it.

  • Jonus Grumby

    How can this be? Weren’t we told the climate was to be getting more extreme over time?

    • sailcat

      If you like your plan…
      Lyingasz PROGressives, lying all the time!!

    • KaptKan1 .

      Well, now it’s extremely moderate…

  • Jerry

    Global warming is good, less tornados and hurricanes plus fewer people freezing to death; why are libtards against it.

    • sailcat

      Should be good news to all the Darwinians, ya?????

  • bgolfguy

    One of the reasons why there has been fewer wildfires has nothing to do with the weather, it is because there is little left to burn. There were so many catastrophic wildfires because of the build up of fuels resulting from the lack of logging (because of Liberals) and also because of the amount of standing dead timber killed by the bark beatle which was able to flourish and decimate forests due to the stopping of spraying and use of DDT (because of Liberals) due to a completely bogus study and book “Silent Spring” (Liberal).

    To sum it all up, after 40+ years of failed forest practices and management by Liberals, our forests have been burned, decimated and destroyed along with the critters that call them home.

    • tulsamikel

      Progressives kill more people trying to save them because they think doing something is always better than not doing anything at all.

    • sailcat

      That is such a fat lie and you need to get out of that basement!!;

      • bgolfguy

        Thank you for that sailcat. Please explain to us what part of my comment was a lie. I must warn you though, an intelligent response on your part will require actual facts instead of simple emotions.

        • sailcat

          “Us”? Ok…
          Hon, its just silly to say fires are down in ’13 because there’s nothing left to burn.
          Get out more!!

          • bgolfguy

            Actually we do have a lot of forest left to burn especially up in the Pacific Northwest and most of it is dead or dying timber or areas that
            are severely overgrown because of the lack of intelligent logging. The healthiest forests in the PNW are the ones owned by private industry
            which are logged and replanted regularly. The area in which I live has been witness to 4 major wildfires in the past 10 or so years including,

            The Biscuit fire in 2002 that burned 499,570 acres
            The B&B Complex fire in 2003 that burned 90,769 acres
            The South End Complex fire in 2006 that burned117,553 acres, and
            The Pole Creek Fire in 2012 that burned 26,285 acres.

            From 1933 which was the year of the Tillamook fire which burned 311,000 acres and the Jackson fire in 2000 which burned 108,000 acres, there were no major forest fires at all in Oregon.

            So the simple question is this, “What changed just prior to 2000 that caused a significant upswing in wildfires”. Using Occam’s Razor which is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the
            hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected and that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for
            greater explanatory power.

            So, with all that in mind, and by using critical thinking skills, the one constant that has changed is the reduction/elimination of logging and pest/insect control.

          • sailcat

            So is this you refuting yourself when you said “there’s little left to burn”?
            Just wondering….

          • bgolfguy

            So, I am guessing that your posting is your way of providing facts and/or proof???

          • sailcat

            You made the assertion, did you not, that the lack of wildfires in 13 was due to the fact there is “little left to burn”?
            It seems to me that on you to offer some proof of that. Which you have not. You seem to be saying poor management led to more fires. Obviously.

          • bgolfguy

            Wow, are you a quick one. I am guessing that sarcasm is not your strong suit in regards to nothing left to burn.

            However, it is very realistic to say that it is directly because of poor management practices that has led to more fires in the past decade.

            Actually we do have a lot of forest left to burn especially up in the
            Pacific Northwest and most of it is dead or dying timber or areas that
            are severely overgrown because of the lack of intelligent logging. The
            healthiest forests in the PNW are the ones owned by private industry
            which are logged and replanted regularly. The area in which I live has
            been witness to 4 major wildfires in the past 10 or so years including,

            The Biscuit fire in 2002 that burned 499,570 acres
            The B&B Complex fire in 2003 that burned 90,769 acres
            The South End Complex fire in 2006 that burned117,553 acres, and
            The Pole Creek Fire in 2012 that burned 26,285 acres.

            From 1933 which was the year of the Tillamook fire which burned 311,000
            acres and the Jackson fire in 2000 which burned 108,000 acres, there
            were no major forest fires at all in Oregon.

            So the simple question is this, “What changed just prior to 2000 that caused a
            significant upswing in wildfires”. Using Occam’s Razor which is a
            principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and
            problem solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the
            hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected and that one
            should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for
            greater explanatory power.

            So, with all that in mind, and by
            using critical thinking skills, the one constant that has changed is the
            reduction/elimination of logging and pest/insect control.

      • bgolfguy

        Actually we do have a lot of forest left to burn especially up in the Pacific Northwest and most of it is dead or dying timber or areas that
        are severely overgrown because of the lack of intelligent logging. The healthiest forests in the PNW are the ones owned by private industry
        which are logged and replanted regularly. The area in which I live has been witness to 4 major wildfires in the past 10 or so years including,

        The Biscuit fire in 2002 that burned 499,570 acres
        The B&B Complex fire in 2003 that burned 90,769 acres
        The South End Complex fire in 2006 that burned117,553 acres, and
        The Pole Creek Fire in 2012 that burned 26,285 acres.

        From 1933 which was the year of the Tillamook fire which burned 311,000 acres and the Jackson fire in 2000 which burned 108,000 acres, there
        were no major forest fires at all in Oregon.

        So the simple question is this, “What changed just prior to 2000 that caused a significant upswing in wildfires”. Using Occam’s Razor which is a
        principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the
        hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected and that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for
        greater explanatory power.

        So, with all that in mind, and by using critical thinking skills, the one constant that has changed is the reduction/elimination of logging and pest/insect control.

        • sailcat

          Spare me the double post.

          • bgolfguy

            Don’t see it on my end, but thank you for your continued avoidance of the question.

          • sailcat

            Its not me who claimed the reason fires are down in 13 is because there’s nothing left to burn!
            That’s the lie Im calling you on and now you claim its sarcasm?

          • bgolfguy

            Wow, you are too funny. Yes, it is my claim that there are no forests left in the United States thereby making it physically impossible for any future forest fires to exist.

            You are truly stupid….Thank you for the laugh.

            By the way, you still have failed (as all Liberals do) to debate the facts and evidence I provided to support my position.

            What is your position again???

          • sailcat

            your position was there’s fewer fire because “there’s nothing left to burn”, that was your original post, yes? You certainly provided no evidence of that!!
            You’re nuts and a liar, and I’m no stinkin liberal! That’s always been my position, nutbar!!!

          • bgolfguy

            So tell me, how is it living a life controlled by emotions? And again, what is your position on the topic?

          • sailcat

            Nutjob. My position remains you’re a liar as you have repeatedly demonstrated. Now off you go! Pollute someone else’s inbox with your insanity!
            Kook.

          • bgolfguy

            LOL too funny.. Your position remains…..what a joke. Enjoy Junior College, and watch out for those emotions, because they are owning you.. Remember to work on your punctuation, spelling and grammar. Also, learn to speak without the use of fragmented sentences, excessive propositions and for goodness sake let go of the colloquialisms and regional jargon. One last thing that I know will challenge you. College requires you to actually provide facts and proof to back up your position, so you may want to work on that as well.

          • sailcat

            My position remains you’re a liar and a kook! Are you drunk?!

          • bgolfguy

            Sshhh, listen.. do you hear that? It is the sound of you losing at yet another in a long list of things in your life. On the bright side, as the pathetic Liberal that you are, you are probably pretty used to it by now.

            On a side note, I noticed that the vast majority of your postings are simple one-liners. I am guessing that is because it the maximum amount of thought you can conjure at any one time.

            Really though, please give post high school education a try.

          • sailcat

            There is something seriously wrong with you. I’m no liberal and you are a liar. Are you asserting you’ve reviewed “the vast majority of my postings”, because that would be another lie! One line is all I need to make my point when dealing with a nutjob like you! Its kooks like you who have NOTHING to say who spend all the pixels.
            You know nothing about me or my education, but continue to project, it says loads about YOU!

          • bgolfguy

            Wow, looks like we are going on another emotional roller coaster… Fasten your seat belts. Typing in all caps really helps prove your point…ha ha ha….You are too easy….

          • sailcat

            I did not type all in caps! What’s wrong with you? You just make chit up! That’s called lying and now we are back to my original “position”! You’re a liar and a nutjob to boot!
            See? No caps!
            Dolt.

          • bgolfguy

            So in just two postings above you are saying that you did not type the word “NOTHING” in all caps? Thank you for proving my point… koo koo..

          • sailcat

            One word is not “all in caps”!
            The point is you’re a liar and you are proving it.

          • bgolfguy

            Keep telling yourself that.. What ever helps you sleep at night. Funny thing though, most people actually require proof.

            And now I am done with you. Pathetic little Liberals like yourself are fun to mess with, but now I have grown bored with you as you have proven you are incapable of either original thought or the use of critical thinking skills.

          • sailcat

            I already told you I am not a liberal. More lies and kookery. Are you drunk or on meds that affect short term memory? There’s something wrong with you.

    • http://twistedmuser.com/ Twisted Muser

      Yep. We have no forests left to burn. (sarcasm intended)

      • Guest

        Is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used
        in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the
        hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected and that one should
        proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater
        explanatory power

        -http://wildfires.findthedata.org/d/d/Oregon-

    • jvnvch

      The planet is about 16% greener today than it was 30 years ago. The US is also greener. All of this has been scientifically documented, but little reported. There is an excellent video lecture on this greening by Professor Ranga B. Myneni that can be found on the internet. It’s an hour and nine minutes long, but well worth the time.

      • bgolfguy

        What is the definition of “Greener” that you speaking of? The term “Greener” can mean a number of different things. One of them could be that many areas that were previously considered “desert” could now be considered “greener” because of farming and irrigation.

        • jvnvch

          I suggest you watch Professor Myneni’s video lecture for the answer to your question. He explains everything very well, and in excellent detail. I expect some of the scientific facts he discusses will surprise you, even though they probably shouldn’t. Plants do love CO2, after all.

          Link:

          http://sites.bu.edu/cliveg/

        • KaptKan1 .

          The continental USA has become reforested to a surprising extent. The expansion of forests is caused by a number of factors including, but not limited to, the abandonment of the original farming regions of the 13 colonies, which have been long since “farmed out” and abandoned.

          • jvnvch

            Flying over New England you can see little more than forest in many areas.

  • 1peevedbob

    Where is ALGORE! Wasn’t he telling us that “climate Change” was going to cause these storms to increase? Didn’t he tell us that by 2014 that global warming would cause sea levels to rise because the polar ice caps would be melted? And right after he made the ‘ice comment’ didn’t he purchase a Malibu beach house?
    And the best question of all: HOW COME THEY CAN’T PROVE ALL OF THIS GLOBAL WARMING / CLIMATE CHANGE SHIITT???

    • RIMSPOKE

      TED TURNER SAID THAT COASTAL CITIES WOULD BE UNDERWATER AND
      THE REMAINING PEOPLE WOULD TURN TO CANNIBALISM TO SURVIVE .

      MAKES AL SOUND PRETTY SANE .

      • BunE22

        Ted thinks we need to cut global population by 95%. He thinks there should be a one child law like in China, even though he has 5 kids. He’s just another example of a Liberal nut. I wonder if they’re nuts first and then become a Liberal or vice versa.

  • Rob Hruska

    Now the left will begin to say that THIS is proof of global warming.

    • sailcat

      Rob, the new term is “Clinate Crisis”! Keep up!
      Or is it “climate weirding”? Hmmmm…

    • KaptKan1 .

      They already have.

  • tulsamikel

    And in the same period sun activity is way down. Reliving the Dark-ages as politics trumps science in the field of meteorology. Global Climate Change is the tool for which for all Global Governments can control business.

  • Jerry

    There was another article where they pointed out 2 out of three sensors used for Global Warming DATA collection, were placed near heat sources; placed on roofs, next to AC units both room and building units, also next to blacktop driveways and parking lots, chimneys, even over charcoal grills, with several hundred giving at least 5 temp. increase over norm. PS some of the pictures on the web are Epic.

  • http://twistedmuser.com/ Twisted Muser

    Dang climate change! Causing less tornadoes.

  • sailcat

    If all the predictions are false, if the data was faked, can we stop with the war on blessed fossil fuels, and stop the theft that is the solar/wind hoax!!
    Those mills are a blight in the landscape reminiscent of War of the Worlds! Hateful!!

  • Callawyn

    All that globull warming went and hid in the deep oceans. Oh, wait, that was conclusively disproved?

    It must all be hiding up Al Gore’s butt then.

    Maybe if he releases some of it we won’t see the precise opposite of all the warmists predictions happen, yet again, next year?

    • SJMWilco

      The irony here is that the deep ocean carbon sink has the ability to absorb about 10 times the amount of carbon produced by mankind each year, but the AGW proponents insist that it’s too deep to be of any effect, yet when the temps don’t warm up, it’s the deep ocean that’s absorbing the “excess” heat

  • MisterMan

    This must anger Al Gore

    • KaptKan1 .

      Well, it’s certainly an inconvenient truth…

  • NEOCONPUNK

    don’t you just hate it when “global warming” “science” ends up being neither.

  • PenelopeWillis

    Poor Global warmists. They just can’t catch a break. Nothing supports their fantasies so they stamp their feet like little children.

  • SJMWilco

    Yet they will insist on blaming the lack of extreme weather on “climate change”. US has the coldest year and earliest snow in history – “climate change”. hottest summers and lack of snow – “climate change”. Extreme hurricane season – “climate change”. No hurricanes – “climate change”

  • 2ndprotectsall

    That pesky global normal, again.

    • KaptKan1 .

      OMG! We’re all going to die from Climate Sameness! We need to be taxed heavily so that The Government can save us from CS!

  • noseitall

    .

    If every liberal gave up their life, it would greatly reduce carbon dioxide emissions and solve the “Global Warming” problem.

    They have the solution to the problem. Let’s see if they have the courage to do the right thing.

    .

  • thebigdog

    Libtards

  • jonno99 .

    See – AGW causes extreme weather patterns…

  • J H

    Gore’s going to take a hit in his pocketbook

    • FLOYDINFLORIDA

      Yea he is crying all the way to the Bank!

  • williampenn

    See? So, now, if we could just ban SUV’s and make everybody buy a windmill, volcanoes and earthquakes would stop. Asteroids, too!

    • libwithIQ

      And solar flares!

      • KaptKan1 .

        And arthritis, neuralgia, and hair loss.

  • Gabriel

    The world is cooling, it’s cyclic, duh? The number of forest fires was reduced by that. In the U.S. , the forest fire decrease was also fueled by the illegal closing of National Parks. Those parks are not ONLY yours DC. They belong to ALL of us.

    • bvikay

      But! The people’s republic of SF has banned wood burning in your fire place.

  • Mann Fairbanks

    Duh. More tornadoes = global warming. Less tornadoes = global warming. Same amount of tornadoes = global warming.

    • BenM

      More rain = global warming. Drought = global warming. More ice = global warming. Less ice = global warming.
      Climate change = global warming.

      • acceptreality

        a little less hysteria about GW will certainly reduce the hot gasses, save those from Algore’s posterior.

        • FLOYDINFLORIDA

          Poor ole Al Gore he is making $millions off of his Carbon Credit Scam!

    • FLOYDINFLORIDA

      And more taxes too that’ll fix the problem?

  • Bob Marshal

    “It is 70 degrees here in Pleasantville. This afternoon we are looking at a high of 75 and a low tonight of 68 degrees” Anything that varies from that must be climate change.

    • BenM

      This must be the work of the tea party and global warming.

      • FLOYDINFLORIDA

        and George W Bush too, you know he was in on it! lol

  • fred1724

    It must be because of global warming.

  • Richard Dunnagan

    Now we see why they were in such haste to pass carbon taxes NOW! They could see the crest of the cycle and knew their window was quickly passing.

  • John

    I call BS. If you do your homework, you’ll see that for the most part the above is correct, however GLOBAL warming doesn’t just affect the US. (Hence the name GLOBAL) In fact, all the above has been increasing world wide. Look it up & stop being fed crap & then regurgitating it as facts.

    Hurricane Ike 2008

    Ike was a long-lived and major Cape Verde hurricane that caused extensive damage and many deaths across portions of the Caribbean and along the coasts of Texas and Louisiana. It originated from a well-defined tropical wave that moved off the west coast of Africa on August 28 and then became a tropical depression on September 1 about 775 miles west of the Cape Verde Islands. The depression quickly strengthened to a tropical storm later that day. Ike became a hurricane on September 3, and Ike reached an estimated peak intensity of 145 mph (Category 4) on September 4 when it was located 550 miles northeast of the Leeward Islands. After weakening briefly, Ike regained Category 4 status just before moving across the Turks and Caicos Islands on September 7. Ike then passed over Great Inagua Island in the southeastern Bahamas at Category 3 strength.

    Ike turned westward and made landfall along the northeast coast of Cuba in the province of Holguin early on September 8 with maximum sustained winds estimated near 135 mph (Category 4). Ike made a second landfall in Cuba over the extreme southeastern part of the province of Pinar del Rio on September 9, with winds of 80 mph (Category 1). It moved into the southeastern Gulf of Mexico later that day.

    Ike developed a large wind field as it moved northwestward across the Gulf of Mexico over the next 3 days, with tropical-storm-force winds extending up to 275 miles from the center and hurricane-force winds extending up to 115 miles from the center. The hurricane gradually intensified as it moved across the Gulf toward the Texas coast. Ike made landfall over the north end of Galveston Island in the early morning hours of September 13 as a Category 2 hurricane with maximum sustained winds of 110 mph. The hurricane weakened as it moved inland across eastern Texas and Arkansas and became extratropical over the middle Mississippi Valley on September 14. It then moved rapidly through the Ohio valley and into Canada, producing wind gusts to hurricane force along the way.

    Grand Turk Island reported sustained winds of 116 mph as the center of Ike crossed the island. Storm surges of 15-20 feet above normal tide levels occurred along the Bolivar Peninsula of Texas and in much of the Galveston Bay area, with surges of up to 10 feet above normal occurring as far east as south central Louisiana. Storm total rainfalls from Ike were as much as 19 inches in southeastern Texas and 14 inches in Cuba.

    Ike left a long trail of death and destruction. It is estimated that flooding and mud slides killed 74 people in Haiti and 2 in the Dominican Republic, compounding the problems caused by Fay, Gustav, and Hanna. The Turks and Caicos Islands and the southeastern Bahamas sustained widespread damage to property. Seven deaths were reported in Cuba. Ike’s storm surge devastated the Bolivar Peninsula of Texas, and surge, winds, and flooding from heavy rains caused widespread damage in other portions of southeastern Texas, western Louisiana, and Arkansas. Twenty people were killed in these areas, with 34 others still missing. Property damage from Ike as a hurricane is estimated at $19.3 billion. Additionally, as an extratropical system over the Ohio valley, Ike was directly or indirectly responsible for 28 deaths and more than $1 billion in property damage.

    The National Hurricane Center also maintains the official Tropical Cyclone Report for Hurricane Ike in PDF and MS-Word.

    For an interactive map of Hurricane Ike visit the NOAA Coastal Services Center.

    • Will Malven

      You are correct, of course, and I also called his attention to Ike. Problem is, the rest of the world is experiencing the same lack of evidence of man-made global-warming/climate change.

      The Arctic ice cap is 60% larger than last year. Global temperatures have not risen in 17 years, and none of the predictions made by the bed-wetting lemmings who leaped onto the AGW/CC bandwagon have come true . . . none.

      You see, in the end, real science trumps pseudo-science driven by a political agenda, which is what the entire AGWCC folderol has been about. The sun and the variations of the Earth’s orbit and rotation, not “greenhouse gases,” not CO2 and methane gas releases, control the planet’s climate.

      AGW/CC has always been about expanding the power of governments further into the lives of citizens–nothing more.

    • FLOYDINFLORIDA

      That was 8 years ago and it was only a Category 2 hurricane, Big F deal!
      THE SKY IS NOT FALLING!
      And how to you propose to fix the problem? Throw more money at it or for everyone to
      ride bicycles to work?

    • bvikay

      Another flat earther. Ah well. Some of us do read and study history.

    • Tim

      Go away U.N. beggar.
      At least climate depot encourages debate as they are allowing us to voice
      our opinions and research to voice against global warming conspiracy
      theories. Good for you guys. The Nazi’s will not last long censoring the
      public and essentially biting the hand that feeds them. hmm hmm Reddit
      hmm hmm , Washington times.

  • Iben_Hadd

    Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama!!!!!
    He said he could
    He said he would
    Indeed He dood!
    Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama!!!!!

  • Dion

    It’s Bush’s fault!

  • ChicagoJohn

    “The extreme drop in extreme weather events is further proof that our earth is warming, and that man is the cause of it.”
    -What a global warming alarmist / IPCC will say

  • Will Malven

    Hey, Mark, Hurricane Ike hit Houston like a ton of bricks in September of 2008. It was a cat 4 hurricane.

    Look, I agree with your purpose here, but if you’re this shoddy about your facts, then you aren’t helping in the battle against the IPCC, you’re just helping them point at skeptics and ridicule them for their inaccuracy.

  • FLOYDINFLORIDA

    Global warming or Bush’s fault?

    • KaptKan1 .

      The global warfare is the major factor in that debt, Floyd, and will bankrupt the USA just as it did Rome. But we are to be distracted by the AGW scam so we won’t notice. All “magic” acts rely on misdirection of the rubes’ attention.

      • robertv

        So instead of a global war bankrupting us, it will be socialism?
        Both equal bankrupt.

        • KaptKan1 .

          A good point: oppose both — they’re interlinked anyway.

      • robertv

        The global war cost a trillion over 10 years, socialism is costing a trillion every year!

  • The Masked Avatar

    What about the sharknadoes? They seem to be getting worse.

  • acceptreality

    Alas, another indicator of climate change (nee Global Warming, nee Global Cooling ). Oh, the humanity!

  • KaptKan1 .

    That’s odd; this is the exact opposite of what the Global Warmite/Climate Change preachers predicted in 2012…

    • RIMSPOKE

      THERE’s ALWAYS NEXT YEAR , AND THE YEAR AFTER THAT .
      EVENTUALLY WE WILL HAVE A MUCH WORSE THAN AVERAGE YEAR .

      AND BAMMO ! SEE , I TOLD ‘YA SO .

      THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOOD NEWS TO THE CLIMATE EXTREMISTS
      NOR CAN THEY EVER ADMIT THAT THEY WERE WRONG .
      THE WEATHER MUST BE STOPPED BEFORE IT KILLS US ALL .

  • FLOYDINFLORIDA

    You can lie to some of the people some of the time and all the people some of the time but
    you can’t lie to all the people all the time! Q: Abraham Lincoln ( unless of course you are Obama)
    He has lied for so long and so often, no one, not the people, not the media and even Obama
    himself knows what the truth is anymore? His advisers said he did not lie about Obama Care as
    when he lied it was in fact the truth at the very moment he said it. It only became a lie after the fact? lol

    • robertv

      Dont forget he’s a lawyer. Remember, “it depends on what is, is”

  • RRdemocrat

    Australia acted wisely when they told the UN to pound sand on the global plan to deal with “climate change”.

    Their official rep stated that the UN plan was “socialism masquerading as environmentalism”. How astute.

  • bo1921

    I hope everyone at the weather channel is going to be alright. It might be a good idea to have grief counselors on hand in case anyone there needs to talk with somebody.

    • jtangren

      the girls will just get skimpier outfits, and the guys will have to buff up…

      • bo1921

        They do have some cute girls, I must say. I don’t pay much attention to the guys.

  • robertv

    Its global warming I tell ya.

  • jtangren

    El Nino has been very quiet lately. However, it will return next year; however, that will only continue the lack of hurricanes…in other words climatologists need to return to their labs, computers, field stations or whatever and do some serious thinking before they come out again…

  • Sam Hill

    That’s climate change!

  • robertv

    Hey did you hear that latest earth shaking discovery?? The climate changes.

    • RIMSPOKE

      YES , AND IT MUST BE STOPPED !

  • Fritz Pfister

    Who believes you to be more stupid? Obama or climate zealots? Or are they one in the same?

    • Top Gun

      I challenged you to debate me per this topic. Just you and me. What say you?
      No cutting and running little man.

  • 1twothree4

    Global cooling is a beyotch.

  • spawn44

    If Gore was a village witch doctor the villagers would be running after him with their spears about now.

  • spawn44

    But 97% of scientists say it’s scientifically a fact and there is no room for debate, said with a lisp.

  • pm38847

    With all this current evidence going against climate change, is there any wonder that those so called scientific web sites will not allow ANY written dissent on global warming on their sites.

  • Gabriel

    ….AND IF you like your climate, you can keep it. YOU embrace the SUCK, Lefty.

  • demise

    This is called climate change everybody. The climate is all screwed up and it will get stranger. Get politics out of your head. I know Obama screwed you up when he polarized the country, but it is obvious that the weather around the country is colder or hotter than normal. Around the globe it’s the same thing. The largest hurricane just hit the Philippines, UK is in a mini ice age, Australia is in a never ending drought, record cold in the central and eastern US and the worst flooding in central America and southern China/Vietnam ever. It will continue and get worse!

    • debthater

      You can’t possibly be serious. If you are, you have the perspective and intellect of a nine-year-old.

    • J_Biggs

      Please keep your religion in Al Gore’s closet.

    • valinva

      We have only been keeping records for less than 200 years and you are talking about the worst ever? Get some perspective please! Please think about the fossils of ferns and other tropical plants that have been found at the bottom of the arctic Ocean, the records of ice skating on the Thames in during the little ice age in the 1500s or the Vikings raising cattle and pigs in Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period. As for typhoons, from the Washington Post:

      While the Atlantic had a very quiet tropical season, the western
      Pacific has been on the active side. This year, 30 named storms have
      formed and 5 super typhoons, which is slightly above average, but
      nothing out of the ordinary. On average, the western Pacific gets 27
      named storms.

      The most active season in terms of number of named storms in the
      western Pacific was 1964 (39 storms), but the largest number of super
      typhoons was in 1965 (there were 11).

      Haiyan only makes the top 20 in recorded history. Again bear in mind that recorded history is only the last 200 years or so! Please use your brain and stop living in the hysterical world of the climate change manipulators and charlatans.

    • HobartStinson

      Ha, and taxing first-world countries to allow third-world leaders and shysters like Al Gore skim billions from us will make ANY difference at all????? Not. Grow up

    • FaqUrNwoBS

      since depopulation is the only logic solution in your screwed up mind, how about you take the lead and shoot yourself.
      otherwise, stfu with your climate change shiiite

  • Tim

    LOL The global warming crazy’s are still trying to cling to the dreaded carbon death scare tactics as the actual statistics laugh in their faces. lol
    FEED ME CARBON TAX!!!
    Every time drudge links to current weather patterns and trends, an uneducated hipster loses their wings.

  • Tim

    We have really not evolved very much since our beginnings.
    They used to think that they did not kill enough virgins that year if it did not rain enough and a drought caused the crops to die or produce small yields.
    Now, even when the crops are growing fine, the government tells us that we have angered the carbon Gods and that we must pay them homage by means of cash and cash only.
    I feel bad for people that are so easily brainwashed.

  • FaqUrNwoBS

    we need to worship Manbearpig so that he brings more tornados upon us so that we can then present our carbon taxes offerings to our lord and saviour Manbearpig!

  • debthater

    And yet you still see people posting absurd stuff like I saw posted the other day, “Wow, it was 20 degrees in NYC in early December and the temperature today hit 70 – that was a record for the date – that is very, very odd, something is definitely happening!” Well, peanut brain, let’s see, if we’ve been keeping records for 180 years (in most cities it’s much less) we should have two new warm daily records and two new cold records each year, not to mention a few ties, along with a couple precipitation records, a couple lowest highs, a couple highest lows, several days that are predicted to be new records but that don’t pan out, etc. I mean the lack of perspective with the respect to different-than-average weather events is frightening, in showing us the mindless stupidity of our fellow citizens.

    • George

      Duuuude, that’s waaay too much thinking for progs.

  • TheDirtmover

    And what have we heard year after year? ” It’s going to be the worst ( name your disaster season) in history”. That hasn’t been happening. But it makes great press to help write more EPA regulations.

  • BAMA BADGER

    Damn you global warming

  • Stupid

    What a bunch of retards

  • RichPorardo

    We need some kind of court that will “claw back” all of the money that Al gore and the “scientists” have made perpetrating this whole “Global warming” scheme. Wish this money could be “redistributed” to those of us who knew it was fraud from the beginning!

  • Dave

    It’s Bushes fault.. Obama just held a press conference and said he is going to focus like a laser beam on finding out where all the tornadoes are hiding as soon as he returns from his latest 17 day taxpayer funded vacation.

  • rick charles

    So does this mean Climate Change is working? Thanks Al.

  • gpack

    Fewest tornado’s due to all the hot air coming from Washington. Screwed up the whole weather cycle.

  • Purplesuiter

    This after 2012 also set a record for the FEWEST tornadoes in years.
    Global warming in REVERSE?

  • Privatejetsetter

    Fewest tornados on record and it’s drinking the Glo-warms crazy. Love to see nilists wrong all the time

  • mitchellvii

    Why is it the smart Leftists are always wrong and the dumb hick Conservatives are always right? Do I need to make a list?

  • mitchellvii

    Isn’t a fever often aaccompanied by the chills? See Al Gore was right!

  • David Weeks

    You will not hear much about this in the MSM. You will, however, get barraged 24-7, how the next major storm or a year with hot weather or unusual amount of hurricanes was caused by climate change. Then you will be told, once again, of the need for carbon taxes, closing coal pants and all that rot. As a result our country becomes weaker as our standard of living declines, all the while our position in the world shrinks.
    Once again, thanks liberals/democrats/environmentalists. And let’s give some deserved recognition to the idiot sheeple that vote all this worthless scum into office.

  • R. Johnson

    It take a real air head brainless person to believe in man made global warming– like liberals.

  • azgirl

    Has Al Gore set up a website yet where you can apply to have your carbon credit money refunded?

  • David

    Anything that stands out in weather patterns will be hailed as ‘proof’ of Climate Change, regardless of the cause. It’s just what they do.

  • chris beyer

    More tornados-less tornados, more snow-little snow, polar ice sheet growing-shrinking, temperatures hotter-cooler….all of these are sure signs of man made global warming. No matter what weather conditions occur the left will claim they are sure signs of man made climate change. How shallow and stupid. Its all about taxing energy for redistribution of wealth from America to thirld world countries…all orchestrated by the U. N. and the American Left.

  • Charlie hook

    Everyone knows it is because of the president.. WINK WINK

  • Frizz

    Poor Algorzera can’t get a break, or have the Volt’s and poison light bulbs actually changed the climate of the earth? These “climate is cyclical” deniers are losing their clout.

  • Jimmy Ray, Jr.

    B. Hussein Obama said he would cause the oceans’ levels to recede. He just forgot to mention his power to tame tornados and forest fires. B. Hussein Obama just does not understand completely his ability to make positive change. Certainly, when B. Hussein Obama gets back from Hawaii, he will hold a press conference to tell us about how his policies have transformed the winds and the fires.

  • disqus_6z6JUiFv94

    Less SUVs = less global warming!

    • hoistthatrag

      Less parasitic Democrat voters = less global warming.

    • Randy

      You mean “fewer.” right?

  • George

    The progs solution to everything: take YOUR hard earned money away and throw it at a “problem” they conjured up, while being sure to take a cut for themselves.

  • Mitch1056

    leftistard=global warming
    people with a brain= summer
    leftistard=climax change
    people with a brain=winter

    • RealityCheck

      “Climax change”? The libtards getting into the sex act too?

  • Trapper

    But how can this be? All the “smart” people–you know the ones in the Dem party, Hollywood, and the media–said that “global warming” would increase the number of tornadoes and forest fires. Something is amiss here!!

  • ronb28135

    So much for the climate warming Chicken Little” hysterics on the left. Global cooling is projected for another forty years according to the unbiased reports of real meteorologists with no political agenda, unlike the earlier lefty “scientists” who couldn’t keep their ideology out of their “science.

    Contrary to reports in 2007 that there would be no Arctic ice by 2013, The ice cap is larger by 29% or 553,000 square miles from last year’s low. Finally the liars have been exposed for what they are and were, political ideologues with an agenda unsupported by scientific facts.

    Where’s CNN and MSNBC news people on this?

  • MacDaddyWatch

    You would think that all the enviro-nuts would be standing-up, cheering, high-fiving, back-slapping, chest-bumping and taking credit for all this great climate news. Why aren’t these nimrod’s taking deep-bows?

    Or is is simply that this crowd of socialist, climate Nazis want to preserve the issue and not present a solution? Is all about control and absolutely nothing to do with climate or warming? Does it seem a lot like ObamaCare that is all about health insurance and nothing to do with access to better and cheaper healthcare?

    • RealityCheck

      Obozocare is NOT about “health insurance” – just like “global warming”, it’s all about control too – control of 1/6th of the US economy – and control over who in Amerika lives or dies. Don’t doubt that for a second.

  • ONTIME

    Personally I am glad that the fickled Ma Nature gave us a break……mankind seems to think they can pray their way out of trouble or allow some politician will swindle them into a new tax to beat out some oncoming catastrophes wrought by natural events on the surface of this planet…a foolish hope at most…we are survivors and a temporary species subject to whims of the planet…

    • Top Gun

      Pray tell….are we wrong to ban smoking in restaurants…campuses…etc. because we proved 2nd hand smoke to be harmful? Are we wrong to acknowledge the drastic rise in CO2 levels when we know that is detrimental to our planet?… Thinking this is some natural cycling phenomena that will moderate itself is absurd. Should you be wrong and we injure the atmosphere beyond repair, will you nutjobz all move to another planet and demand a re-do? Will ya?

  • Blahblahblah Noah

    I wonder if Al Gore has rubber pillow covers to catch those big crocodile tears?

  • Tony F

    Let’s just say that global warming is real (which it is not), who is to say that maybe the Earth has been too cool and is just righting itself?

    • Top Gun

      20,000,000 year old ice cores tells the story as the trapped gas bubbles prove the CO2 levels…duh

      Since you have functioned with an sub-par IQ all your life…when will it be “righting” itself?

      • Tony F

        Tried to take you seriously until you said “duh”. Are you a 13 year old girl from 1995? Guess global warming causes time travel as well.

        • Top Gun

          Refute my words with facts, data, science. Show me what you got…BOY!

          • Tony F

            You’ve offered no facts. Just another stupid liberal that believes anything she hears.

          • Top Gun

            aww…Here….google the Journal of Science article 2009 by UCLA…get back to me…mkay

          • Tony F

            UCLA? Yes. I believe everything from California. I don’t argue with 13 year old girls. I’m watching football. Get back to your cross-stitching.

          • Top Gun

            Tony F is often mistaken for Andy Dick cuz of the way he walks..and does that limp wrist thing..

            (bada bing)

          • Tony F

            Really? That’s all you’ve got? I thought you libs were tolerant of others.

          • Top Gun

            post up your picks for the late games and we will see who wins…

          • Tony F

            I’m only concerned about the Panthers winning and the Saints losing.

          • Top Gun

            roger that….your world is extremely limited

          • Tony F

            No you aren’t. This is dumb. We’ve taken up way too much time with this petty BS.

          • Top Gun

            muahahahahahahaa….did I press on hims too hard…you pu$$y

          • Tony F

            Whatever you want to think.

          • Top Gun

            you are too slow and stupid to post with me…

            Mr Whatever kicked your A$$

          • Top Gun

            Tony F still sh*ts his pants & wears a helmet

            (bada bang)

          • Tony F

            Wow. Hate autistic kids to.

          • Top Gun

            not a comeback Tony…I am killing you

            do us all a favor and stick your helmet head in a running woodchipper

            (bada boom)

          • Tony F

            And if you watch News Radio, Andy Dick is pretty funny.

          • JohnFLob

            Just how well do you know Andy Dick? Does he share your basement with you? OH!, and you play drums too! My what a talent.

          • Top Gun

            You are on ignore

          • JohnFLob

            Go hide then. You can spew hate and vile degradation but insist you live on a one way street. We now know where the little chicken’s falling sky comes from.

          • JohnFLob

            Is a google of the Journal of Science article 2009 by UCLA all you have?

          • Top Gun

            chew on this Tony boy>> ( yes I posted it before but you are too lazy and stupid to digest it’s material)

            http://phys.org/news174234562.html

            soon we will see you begging for my mercy and I will just press harder

          • JohnFLob

            I’ll bet Tony is trembling in abject fear.

      • JohnFLob

        You have only three point that you repeat ad nauseum:
        (1) Journal of Science article 2009 UCLA
        (2) 20,000,000 (sometimes 15,000,000) years ago there were higher CO2 levels

        (3) a response that is insulting

        Coping and pasting the same comments 1,000′s of times does not enhance their validity.

        Did you receive your training at the Baghdad Bob School of Public Speaking?

        Is that an exploding head and irrationally inspired frenzied keyboard pounding I hear?

        • Top Gun

          refute with facts/data or stfu…is that clear?

          • JohnFLob

            Prove your wild outrageous claims with real facts and data beyond 20,000,000 or 15,000,000 ice core, Googling the Science Journal 2009 UCLA study. and Mr. Hensen’s puppets at NASA and NOAA.

      • TheChuckr

        Why don’t you explain the fact that when CO2 levels were as high or higher than today’s in the past, the Earth did not become inhabitable due to the higher temperatures that should have resulted. While you are at it, perhaps you can explain how ice ages have started with CO2 levels as high or higher than today’s according to ice cores and geological records.

        • Top Gun

          We know from ice cores that CO2 levels we above the 400 ppm dating back 15 million and 20 million years ago…but we don’t know why. It’s speculated that massive volcanic activity or a giant meteor showers causing fires were probably the culprit. So then the levels settled for 15,000,000 years the earth’s atmosphere ranged from 180-300 CO2 ppm. Now we are back at 390-420 pmm and CO2 causes the greenhouse effect to kick it. Here is my question to all you pro-hoaxers…. What is the cause of our current spike in CO2 levels? Have we had massive volcanic activity in the last 100 years? Nope. Has earth been hit by giant meteor showers resulting in huge burn offs? Nope. What could possibly be the cause? Ever heard of the Industrial Revolution? Case closed.

          • TheChuckr

            You didn’t answer my question; CO2 levels in the past have been nearly 20 times higher than today’s. Why didn’t the Earth “burn-up” from a runaway greenhouse effect back then? Please give a scientific explanation rather than quoting repetitive and irrelevant “talking points.”

          • Top Gun

            source your ” CO2 levels in the past have been nearly 20 times higher than todays’” please.

          • TheChuckr

            Still no answer to my question: Why no runaway global warming even though CO2 levels were higher than today? Here is one of many peer-reviewed papers showing higher CO2 levels in the past.

            http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20130096.full.pdf+html

            And this one:
            http://s155.n46.n171.n68.static.myhostcenter.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf

            You can now crawl back into your hole, assume fetal position, and worry about CO2 or whatever else you want to worry about. I suggest ocean acidification, you mindless drone.

          • Top Gun

            Results show a similar overall pattern to those for GEOCARB II: very high CO
            2
            values during the early Paleozoic, a large drop during the Devonian and Carbonifer-
            ous, high values during the early Mesozoic, and a gradual decrease from about 170 Ma
            to low values during the Cenozoic. However, the new results exhibit considerably
            higher CO
            2
            values during the Mesozoic, and their downward trend with time agrees
            with the independent estimates of Ekart and others (1999). Sensitivity analysis shows
            that results for paleo-CO
            2
            are especially sensitive to: the effects of CO
            2
            fertilization
            and temperature on the acceleration of plant-mediated chemical weathering; the
            quantitative effects of plants on mineral dissolution rate for constant temperature and
            CO
            2
            ; the relative roles of angiosperms and gymnosperms in accelerating rock weather-
            ing; and the response of paleo-temperature to the global climate model used. This
            emphasizes the need for further study of the role of plants in chemical weathering and
            the application of GCMs to study of paleo-CO
            2and the long term carbon cycle

          • TheChuckr

            Still can’t answer the question. Studies have shown that plants thrive at 10,000 PPM http://www.co2science.org/articles/V2/N15/B3.php and http://www.co2science.org/articles/V2/N18/B3.php The second paper above does show CO2 approximately 20 times higher than today as does this link http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/CO2History.html even after taking into account bio-geologic and geophysical phenomena.

            You are wrong on all counts and by the way, don’t tell me what my thinking is. Like all of your fellow global warming acolytes, you resort to name-calling when you lose an argument. Your arrogance is only exceeded by your stunning degree of ignorance. Smacking me around, not even in your dreams

          • Top Gun

            mkay….let’s put you in a bubble of CO2 at 10,000 ppm and see how long your lame A$$ lasts.

            It has been determined experimentally that the density of carbon dioxide
            needed for the optimal development of all kinds of plants is 895 mg per
            cubic meter of air (about 500 ppm).

            Certain plants grow much better in atmospheres with very high densities of
            carbon dioxide; for example, the pteridophyte and certain species of
            conifers develop more successfully in humid atmospheres with 5000 ppmv
            of carbon dioxide.

            You don’t know what you are talking about. You have been put down and shut down….unless you are a Douglas fir.

          • TheChuckr

            You constantly contradict your own assertions and still have not answered my question, why no runaway global warming when past CO2 levels were higher than today’s. Your constant red herrings and straw men only serve to embarrass yourself further and highlight your ignorance and inability to read and engage in critical thinking. I have wasted enough time on you.

          • Top Gun

            Show me 1 incident where I have contradicted myself. Tell the class when you are ready to step into a bubble of CO2 at 10,000 ppm. You are so stupid that you don’t realize your extreme examples strengthen my position all the more.

          • Top Gun

            I’ll give you a break on the CO2 experiment, we can start at 500 ppm of CO2 then each hour increase the level by 500 ppm. I’m saying you die of asphyxiation at the 3000 ppm level. You game?

          • Top Gun

            and DumbA$$ don’t use paid for data controlled by the Koch brothers as real research…They are Quacks just like you. Look at the funding of your “studies”..all BS. Let’s all laugh at the right wing nutjob for trying to scam us>>Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change…is bought and paid for by Fox news.

          • Top Gun

            Let me dumb this down for you..if you wanted your house to be at 72 degrees and the house temperature was 50. How long would take it your furnace to achieved the desired temperature? Would it happen instantly or would it take some time? Have you ever heard of the cumulative effect per CO2 building up? How long does it take to warm/cool our atmosphere?

          • Top Gun

            cat got your tongue?

  • hoistthatrag

    So, if global warming were real….would having less tornadoes and forest fires be considered a bad thing by the lunatic Left?

  • takspyr

    Clearly, AGW has become a new religion. A faith in things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen.

    • Top Gun

      when a person starts a post with ….Clearly…Obviously…or Indeed….97% of the time its total BS.

  • Chas S. Clifton

    If you follow the forest fire numbers back to their source, you will see that while the *number* of fires is lower, the *total acreage* is much much higher. The total for 1984 was 1 million-plus acres, while the total for 2013 was more than 9 million acres.

    • Bdad

      If acreage is higher it’s because the fed’s won’t allow timer harvesting which leads to more fire potential and fewer jobs.

      • Purplesuiter

        The Germans proved beyond a shadow of doubt that healthy forests have fewer fires than unhealthy ones. When was the last time a forest fire in Germany was reported?

        Germany puts folks to work throughout the summer clearing deadfall trees and unhealthy ground growth which is the real fuel for fires. The U.S. should do the same thing, but you will never kick the youth out of their mama’s basement to spend 10 hours per day doing manual labor.

    • bluesky

      Must be proof of global warming.

    • Malcom Tent

      CC, Could this be due to the ban on controlled burns and clearing out dead vegetation (even though insects might live there?) I honestly don’t know the answer so the question isn’t rhetorical. But I used to live out West for a while and I know ecological “advocates” were pretty adamant about how evil controlled burns and clearing out dead vegetation were.

    • Purplesuiter

      How about how conservation efforts by logging companies. They plant SIX trees for everyone they cut down. Some areas of this nation have more acres of trees today than they had 100 years ago.

    • Top Gun

      Can you refute the validity of the greenhouse effect?

  • Bdad

    Let’s see how the pro change people can spin this:
    > too much heat is bad
    > too much cold is bad
    > more rain is a result of change
    > too little rain is a result of change
    > loss of ice is a sign of change
    > growth in ice is a sign of change
    > population drop in (fill in the animal name) is a sign of change
    > fewer tornado’s and hurricane’s is a sign of change
    > more tornado’s and hurricane’s is a sign of change

    17 years of virtually no temp change is an anomaly

    Entering a mini-ice age is a sign of change and we need to burn more carbon fuels to stave it off

    • Top Gun

      Bdad= too little brain power

  • Christopher Calder

    Google *Moderating Climate Change Hysteria*

    and *The Renewable Energy Disaster*

    We need to be calm and think things through before we construct more policies that collapse our economy and kill millions of innocent people for no good reason. The renewable energy-global warming faddists have killed far more people worldwide than all wars and acts of terrorism combined during the 1993 to 2013 time frame.

    We need a new president and a new Congress.

    • Top Gun

      source your BS per ” The renewable energy-global warming faddists have killed far more
      people worldwide than all wars and acts of terrorism combined during the
      1993 to 2013 time frame.”

      lets see those fake numbers you boast.

  • GiantM

    The calm before utter devistation to a country who aborts babies, allows gay marriage and leaves Israel out to dry.

  • Huskerbob

    It’s George Bush’s fault!

  • Allan Holley

    Al Gore will release another book telling everyone how he has saved the Earth. He will say he was responsible, by forcing everyone to reduce the Carbon in the Atmosphere..

  • exbobbie

    Well it’s nice to know that the year 2013 was good for something, pretty much everything else went down the crapper.

  • Yaspar

    See, buying that Prius really worked!

  • TruthInSpending

    The poor global warming/climate change sycophants. One can only imagine the panic among them when the glaciers that covered a good portion of what would become the United States began their long, inexorable march back to the arctic circle.

    They would have cast themselves into the sea like a stampede of lemmings. Now when the ice cap diminishes by a few percent they see disaster looming on the horizon, and proclaim we must do something to prevent the utter destruction of the earth.

    Poor miserable souls. Some highly educated but totally lacking in common sense.

    • Purplesuiter

      They actually believe that because the north pole, the south pole, and mountains have been ice covered throughout their entire lives they will remain ice covered.

      They refuse to look further back and realize that at one time long ago the north pole was just like the Florida Everglades, that the south pole was a barren continent. The polar ice caps and glaciers are the LAST EVIDENCE of the last ice age, an ice age which reached all the way south to north Texas, that the location which is currently New York City was once buried under over 5000 feet of ice.

      • Top Gun

        I issued you a challenge and all I see is you avoiding the question. Let’s see
        what you got.

    • Top Gun

      There was a time the arctic poles were lush in green vegetation. There was also an ice age that brought glaciers to the Midwest of the US. These periods are documented per ice cores. There were causes for each phenomena. We do know that high levels in CO2 cause the planet to warm via the greenhouse effect. We don’t know what caused these spikes in CO2 in the past…but it happened. We have not experienced such high levels of CO2 in 15,000,000 years. The spike in CO2 probably came from the burning of green vegetation or volcanic activity to the extreme. Put your thinking cap on and Tell the class of any event you can think of that could create massive amounts of CO2 levels. Did it come from the over heating of alien anal probes or did it come from the fossil fuels burned/burning called the Industrial Revolution. Pick one you poor miserable soul.

  • Top Gun

    One year does not make for this claim. One must look at climate patterns over a larger span of time.
    NASA, NOAA and many studies( Jr. of Science UCLA, 2009 for one) show we are at CO2 levels not seen in 15,000,000 years. Something must have happened 15 million years ago to spike the CO2 levels…possibly extreme volcanic activity or a meteor shower causing plant life to burn.
    But, we haven’t seen any huge volcanic activity or giant meteor burning fires in the last 100 years. What
    could cause this current spike in CO2? Could it be all the fossil fuels we are burning called the Industrial Revolution? ( cough, hack,cough)…duh

    • Purplesuiter

      2012 had a record low number of tornadoes as well.

      • Top Gun

        Refute my words per the highest levels of CO2. Use science,data, physics,chemistry and logic.

        • JohnFLob

          Copy and paste techniques are thought and time savers aren’t they?

      • Top Gun

        I doubt you know the difference between carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.

        • JohnFLob

          one. di = 2. mono=1.

          • Top Gun

            John Lobenstein works at Ram Rod’s ( gay bar) as the mop boy.

          • JohnFLob

            I thought you were going to ignore me.
            Why do you know so much about gay bars?
            Is that where you practice teabagging?
            Until now I gave you the benefit of doubt, thinking you lived in a dark basement. Now I, and the rest of the people here, know you are just a maladjusted and hateful troll that got rejected by all the rivers and bridges.

  • Top Gun

    Tell the class…. why are the CO2 levels at record highs going back 15,000,000 years and what possibly could have caused this elevation?

    http://phys.org/news174234562.html

    also NASA and NOAA report the same findings

    • http://www.cfact.org/ CFACT Ed

      Tell the class why the climate models call for warming which has not occurred since the nineties.

      • Top Gun

        The atmosphere is adjusting to the influx of CO2. These climate changes take time and I have stated…I look at 100 year increments.

        Now my forecast for tonight is….dark.

        Take the Panthers, Steelers, Bengals, Colts, Dolphins and the Lions in the short term.

        • http://www.cfact.org/ CFACT Ed

          Yeah, that’s the ticket, go with that. If climate science were settled its models would reflect reality and it would do its quarterbacking before the end of the game.

          • Top Gun

            well….I look at it this way…since scientists are split about 70-30….I go with the 70% that support global warming. Cuz if we follow you idiots and you end up being wrong…we all be toast .

            answer this….when you are proven wrong and earth is no longer fit for human habitation….will you guys ask us to transport you to another planet and demand a re-do there? Think about it dip stick.

            What are your picks for the late games?…show some brass for once.

          • T S

            Here is the thing: If the climate is changing due to human CO2 emissions, we’re still far, far better off dealing with the consequences of those changes than we are in trying to prevent it — Particulary since there is little we can do to stop massive increases in CO2 emissions from China.

            There is far too much groupthink evident in the articles I read and far too many scientists appear to be operating with the premise that “CO2 emissions are the primary driver of climate change” and then trying to figure out how to explain the increasing preponderance of evidence that runs counter that hypothesis rather than rejecting the hypothesis and coming up with a new one.

          • Top Gun

            after further review…the ruling on the field is confirmed…. Top Gun is correct

          • T S

            Oh really?
            US CO2 emissions are actually down over the past decade, yet global CO2 emissions continue to rise. Given that the US controls an increasingly small portion of the emissions how do we expect to control the whole?

            On the other hand, the temperatures remain low enough still that they’re well below the range of variation for every model that was in place a decade ago. If the supposed margin for error isn’t wide enough to account for random variations, the model is seriously flawed and the hypothesis needs to be re-examined.

          • Top Gun

            Carbon credits is a way to control CO2 levels or we could just nuke em. Ever ask yourself why the US is in charge of policing the world? As if we don’t pay for that privilege by staffing and maintaining some 900 military bases outside our continental borders. On a side issue….We the people pick up the military tab, why not tax other nations ( really big corp) for our services? Point: we have the greatest military..why not use leverage to control other nations per CO2 as in political capital?
            You are wrong about the correlation of CO2 to climate change. Smart people err on the side of caution and should we go your way…What do you do when it’s too late to fix? Ask for a re-do?

          • T S

            Carbon credits costs a lot of money and we can’t force China to follow them. I’m pretty sure you’re not serious about nuking them.
            The US is to some degree in charge of policing the world, because we wouldn’t like the job anyone else would do of it. Even most non-Americans would like the job that China or Russia or noone would do worse than what the US does. We do need to seriously cut back on all our expenditures including military and I find it silly that anyone would suggest we should or even could go to war with China over their CO2 emissions considering how expensive and unpopular Iraq was.
            Regardless of what the correlation of CO2 to temperature is, and all the evidence suggests its much lower than the IPCC models, its far more difficult and expensive for us to try to control it than to adapt to any changes that result. It also seems probable that the net effect on both the US and globaly will be positive rather than negative.
            In my above post, “random variables” referred to the hypothesis that CO2 is driving the temperature, that temperatures are now below the error range for every model built on that hypothesis, and thus the “random variables” are stronger than the supposedly driving CO2 concentration. You can’t say CO2 is proven to be anything when the models built on it continue to fail. Granted, in controlled experiments CO2 has been proven to increase temperatures and I’ll accept it is a factor, but our planet is much more complex than a box and so far models build around it as a key factor have failed beyond their margins for error and must be revised.

          • Top Gun

            In controlled studies CO2 has a direct correlation to temperature. Lab results are often difficult to replicate in the real would per gases. But knowing what we know it would be prudent to use extra caution in treating mother earth….cuz we only have 1(one).
            Of course I was kidding about nuking countries to get what we want. I was mocking the conservative mindset as most of the time they shoot first and ask questions later. Similar to your hard headed position on this global issue. Your ideology is fringe and your numbers are stagnant while the numbers of those that oppose your philosophy grow daily. You can call me liberal or progressive( I am independent) but I can tell you right wing conservatives are going the way of the the dinosaurs. Your group has no credibility due to self-inflicted behavior.

          • T S

            I’m not sure what you expect to gain by merely repeating what I already said and ad hominem attacks without basis won’t get you anywhere ether.
            The reality is, the science is far from settled and as time moves on and we get additional evidence it just continues to pile up on the side of the argument that says the scare is dramatically overblown. The side that is “shooting first and asking questions later” here is the AGW alarmists.

          • Top Gun

            who shot first and went into Iraq looking for non-existent WMD’s…you idiots.

            so….what makes you think you have any credibility here?

            Point: 1) We are spending your tax dollars toward the decrease in CO2
            2) stop be a whining loser.
            3) stfu
            4) buahahahahahaaa

          • T S

            Have I said anything about Iraq? You don’t even know what my position is on that and in any case, it’s irrelevant here.
            Yet another off-topic response, please try again.

          • Top Gun

            but most pro-hoaxers are right wingers who chanted ” stay the course” over the period of the Iraq invasion….I tag you are one of those idiots…Are you saying you are not?

            I have defeated you per climate change now I go for your soft under belly…How am I doin? Keep “noting” while I surgically carve you up.

          • T S

            I’m sorry you’re so deluded. I’ve destroyed your arguments on AGW over and over so you feel you need to throw us off the topic.
            In the long run, “The truth will out” and it will be very obvious who is right on this topic.

          • Top Gun

            last year’s budget showed $$6 billion spent on climate control….did that miss your “eagle” eye?

            just roll down your right wing rabbit hole and die

          • T S

            $6B is a pittance in terms of the overall budget, but still a lot of money. However, the true cost is in the damage it does to our economy. What is the cost to the economy of increased energy costs due to no new coal fired plants and current ones being shut down? What is the cost of increased oil prices due to lack of permits to drill on federal lands? What is the cost of lost opportunity in letting other countries collect the oil in the gulf that we could have collected instead?

          • Top Gun

            Tell the class….was 6 Billion spent on climate control issues or not? duh

            BUSTED again!

            dance for me!

            When I say jump….you jump! Now kick higher you toad.

          • T S

            LOL…Now I’ve got you double posting. I guess I’m done troll-baiting for this thread.

          • Top Gun

            I love spending your tax dollars! Chew on that sucka!

          • Skyhawk

            You have so beaten and bloodied Top Guns positions that it is laughable to see him try to gloat. He literally does not see that he is the fool, the jester dancing for the court.

          • T S

            I just wanted to share the latest on this. Apparently Mann can’t back up his claims and is now being counter-sued: http://www.principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse.html

          • Top Gun

            you are now allowed to return to the kiddie pool where you belong

    • davet

      this is non-reliable government paid for research. it is totally unreliable.

      • Top Gun

        produce your research that refutes it or stfu..is that clear?

  • Top Gun

    This thread is filled with pro-hoax commenters with room temperature IQ’s.( aka teabaggers)

  • RobCoSystems

    Katrina was a CAT 3 hurricane when it made landfall at Louisianna.

  • Top Gun

    thinking out loud>

    We know from ice cores that CO2
    levels were above the 400 ppm dating back 15 million and 20 million
    years ago…but we don’t know why. It’s speculated that massive volcanic
    activity or a giant meteor showers causing fires were probably the
    culprit. So then the levels settled for 15,000,000 years and earth’s
    atmosphere ranged from 180-300 CO2 ppm. Now we are back at 390-420 pmm
    and CO2 causes the greenhouse effect to kick it. Here is my question to
    all you pro-hoaxers…. What is the cause of our current spike in CO2
    levels? Have we had massive volcanic activity in the last 100 years?
    Nope. Has earth been hit by giant meteor showers resulting in huge burn
    offs in the last 100 years? Nope. What could possibly be the cause? Ever
    heard of the Industrial Revolution? Case closed.

    google that study from UCLA (2009) Jr of Science..there are many others
    that concur per this spike in CO2.

  • Top Gun

    please refute>> There was a time the arctic poles were lush in green vegetation. There
    was also an ice age that brought glaciers to the Midwest of the US.
    These periods are documented per ice cores/rock samples/petrified fossils. There were causes for each
    phenomena. We do know that high levels in CO2 cause the planet to warm
    via the greenhouse effect. We don’t know what caused these spikes in CO2
    in the past…but it happened. We have not experienced such high levels
    of CO2 in 15,000,000 years. The spike in CO2 probably came from the
    burning of green vegetation or volcanic activity to the extreme. Put
    your thinking cap on and Tell the class of any event you can think of
    that could create massive amounts of CO2 levels in the past 100 years.
    Did it come from the over heating of alien anal probes or did it come
    from the fossil fuels burned/burning called the Industrial Revolution.
    Pick one you poor miserable soul.

  • Top Gun

    Look at your liar>

    TheChuckr

    source your ” CO2 levels in the past have been nearly 20 times higher than todays’” please.

    When you contradict yourself>> your words>>”Why don’t you
    explain the fact that when CO2 levels were as high or higher than
    today’s in the past,”….so in hours your brain went from ” high or
    higher than today’s” to “20 times higher than todays”??

    CAN YOU COUNT?

    My article already states that…it’s sourced to the Journal of
    Science. Where’s yours? Anything above 400 ppm is bad for our
    atmosphere.

    ( busted)

    >

    • T S

      I don’t have the full context of the quotes you mention, but it really depends on the time scale. ~440 million years ago, we had an ice age with atmospheric CO2 around 4500 ppm.

      Atmopheric CO2 lower than 400 ppm is actually quite rare in the history of the planet.

      http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2010/03/atmospheri-co2-levels-over-geologic-time/

      Plants would be much happier with higher levels of CO2 and humans are fine until around 5000 ppm.

      • Top Gun

        wrong…humans die at 3000 ppm…do some research…or when it gets that high tell us all you were sorry for being a jerk and ask for a re-do.

        and yes 400 ppm is rare….you must go back 15,000,000 years ago to find that level
        or be living today to see the same levels…but lets all listen you brainless idiots until
        we are all dead..eh

        • T S

          Hahah! Actually, I have done my homework on that: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/indoorair/co2/
          Maybe you meant 30,000 ppm?

          “Carbon dioxide is not generally found at hazardous levels in indoor environments. The MNDOLI has set workplace safety standards of 10,000 ppm for an 8-hour period and 30,000 ppm for a 15 minute period. This means the average concentration over an 8-hour period should not exceed 10,000 ppm and the average concentration over a 15 minute period should not exceed 30,000 ppm”

          “Occupants may experience health effects in buildings where CO2 is elevated, but the symptoms are usually due to the other contaminants in the air that also build up as a result of insufficient ventilation. At high levels, the carbon dioxide itself can cause headache, dizziness, nausea and other symptoms. This could occur when exposed to levels above 5,000 ppm for many hours. At even higher levels of CO2 can cause asphyxiation as it replaces oxygen in the blood-exposure to concentrations around 40,000 ppm is immediately dangerous to life and health. CO2 poisoning, however, is very rare.”

          • Top Gun

            No I meant 3000 ppm but that study was in a closed-in space. I have never read such high levels are tolerable. You have my apology. I will be contacting Minnesota.gov to request their source and study. Everything I have read states asphyxiation sets in at the 3000 ppm…..do you want to try it? But what concerns me is the cumulative effect your source mentions at levels above 5000 ppm. which causes headaches, dizziness, nausea…etc. Don’t you think if your environment makes you puke that your body is telling you something? Maybe the dizziness causes a person to fall in a car crusher? How would that feel? If you find the more of “X” is bad as it increases in volumes, I would think a smart person would stay away from beginning levels at first warning…but then again you are a know-it-all right winger. Would you volunteer to be locked in a chamber for just 8 hours with but a 2500 ppm of CO2? what say you? Can’t hurt ya…right???

          • T S

            I would be perfectly willing to test out 2500 ppm if it could be arranged without getting too much in the way of my other activities or costing me a lot of money. Considering the MN work safety standards are <10,000 ppm for an 8-hour day, 2500 ppm is pretty low. Note though that in a sealed chamber the CO2 levels would rise significantly over the course of a day due to the CO2 a person exhaled. It would need to be properly ventilated with controlled levels for an accurate test.

            I suggested 5000 ppm as a safe limit since the possible effects listed past there do sound concerning. It appears this is also the recommended max long-term exposure by authorities in the UK and OSHA.

            Engineering Toolbox is looking at comfort levels and effects and has lower levels, but still suggests that at 2500 ppm a bit of drowsiness would be about the only problem. I suspect (without any real evidence though) that someone living at that level would also adapt to it over time, as do people living at high altitudes.

            http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-comfort-level-d_1024.html

            If I was going to bet on the 2016 election, I'd probably bet for the Dem that I don't want. That way either way I'd come out ahead. In any case, what I think will happen is completely irrelevant to what would be best for our country.

  • Viola DaGamba

    You guys aren’t as smart as you pretend. You are ignoring your own data. If you click on the “US Forest Fire Count” chart, it takes you straight to the actual data. (Conveniently, no 2013 is listed. Hmmm.) But the funny thing is, it clearly shows the number of acres burned is *above* average for 8 of the past 10 years. So then it doesn’t really matter how many fires there were in any one particular year, does it?

    This is confirmation bias, gentlemen. You trumpet the data that agrees with you, and ignore everything else. I guess there is a reason that the vast majority of actual scientists see global warming as fact. They aren’t looking at one particular kind of data for one particular year.

    • Bob Mex

      EXACTLY. WELL SAID.
      CLIMATE DEPOT, YOUR IGNORANCE IS EXPOSED.

      • Jammy Dodger

        Good point Viola. If two forest fires join up that is only one fire however many acres are burnt. Ultimately there will only be one fire burning the whole of the USA. But that will be alright because it beats all previous records for lowest number of fires. :)

        Phew – the climate deniers were correct and there is nothing to be concerned about.

  • Samuel

    Weather is a hoax, forget about global warming, I stay all year in my home and temperate is always constant at 68 no rain no shine no chill no cold no snow.

  • bonzono

    help me out here, muppets.

    This article on climate depot presents information about decreasing intensity of storms in usa.

    yes okay as predicted 4 years ago, http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/weaker-summers-1026.html

    Here in australia, we had some of the worse fires in decades. possibly even in recorded history – I’m too lazy to look it up, but I’m really not sure why climate depot is touting the successes of climate change scientists’ predictions.

    notably of course, the links… um .. inelegantly splattered all over this page do not include actual science articles.. no no, that would be handing them selves their but.t.

    • Bob Mex

      That’s why this whole SITE and its PREMISE are BOGUS. The bloviators on this site are not even OPEN to DEBATE with actual computer-model, real-data-based studies, thousands and THOUSANDS of them…that have PROVEN AGW.
      EG They love to cite how the ice content of the ANTARCTIC is well-maintained…of COURSE it is! Do they know WHY? Or do they CARE? There are REASONS why the ice of the Antarctic is maintained while the ice of Arctic is eroding. The two landmasses are in TOTALLY DIFFERENT oceanic circulatory environments.
      I don’t even bother wasting my time showing the owners of the site why all their arguments are complete sophistry and tomfoolery.

      • Libtard Smasher

        If computer models were accurate we wouldn’t need weathermen. We would predict weather 100% accurate out to a few months.

        • Bob Mex

          You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The accurate forecast is a combination of computer model output plus the experienced meteorologists’ interpretation of those models (note the plural, modelS) and their biases. Models are not the definitive forecast; they are GUIDANCE. Plus: you are conflating WEATHER models with CLIMATE models, two very different suites of output with very different data sets for input.

          Please know what you are talking about before you post. Your name suggests you are purely political with zero regard for science, which is OUTSIDE of politics.

          • Libtard Smasher

            It’s a shame that you think you can know what I know.
            Computer models are VERY inaccurate for long term predictions no matter WHAT you’re trying to predict. Fact is fact my little friend.

            You’re trial at making yourself out to be educated on the subject has failed..

          • Bob Mex

            Well, your need to refer to me as “little friend” says it all. It’s the last resort of the defenseless. You have no idea as to the state of the models, their parameterization, their source, their code, their math, etc.
            I simply disagree with you. As does the overwhelming majority of climate/atmospheric/space scientists worldwide.
            I’m done. Say what you wish.

          • Libtard Smasher

            There are over 1000 peer reviewed papers on why global warming isn’t happening. Are they worthless in your “unbiased” opinion? Probably right? You’ve made up your mind already.

      • Skyhawk

        The earth has cooled .02c over the past decade. That is not sophistry or tomfoolery.