NOAA: 2185 cold records broken or tied in past week – 1913 Low Min Records Broken & 272 tied in 7 days


By: - Climate DepotFebruary 28, 2015 12:17 PM with 1732 comments

1913 Low Min Records Broken in Last 7 Days (272 tied)  according to the NOAA. (From 2015-02-19 to 2015-02-25)

Below is a screenshot showing location and the biggest difference between old record and new record.

The list is just the ones I could capture in a screenshot. Wow. Many records broken by over 30F.

Imagine … the old record was 15F and it is now -23F. A 38F difference.

Capture

 


  • TroyGale

    I’m betting that John L Casey is spot on in his predictions and his theory.
    Too bad the Science is settled now isn’t it?

    • Phil Bickel

      When did any science become settled? At some point a select group of scientist claim to have the “final solution?”

      Oh wait that was already done in 1938.

      • TroyGale

        That was sarcasm if you didn’t detect it.
        Casey is the AGW fanatics nightmare.

        • CB

          “Casey is the AGW fanatics nightmare”

          Lol! Why would you think anthropogenic global warming needed “fans”?

          Did you think the molecules of CO₂ will only warm the planet if we cheer them on?

          Is that how you think physics works?

          • TroyGale

            Are you such an ass all the time? Go play with yourself, it is likely the smartest action you are capable of.

          • CB

            “Are you such an ass all the time?”

            When people say something as mind-numbingly ridiculous as what you just said, yes of course!

            I see no other possible option but to laugh at you.

            …now why did you say it?

            It has been known for over 100 years that CO₂ warms planets:

            “In January 1859, Tyndall began studying the radiative properties of various gases… Tyndall’s experiments… showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation”

            earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall

            Is it likely that this “John Casey” person has overthrown over a century of science and is about to receive a Nobel prize?

            …or that he is one of many propagandists, including the people at Climate Depot, who are paid to lie about climate science?

  • truthteller13

    Boy we could sure use some of that so called “global warming.”

  • buyitcheap

    Don’t worry, once the “adjustments” are made to the data, the warming trend will become obvious to all… it’s funny how many people get upset at phtoshopped pictures of women, but have no problem with similarly photoshopped temperature data.

    • Phil Bickel

      Phil Jones and Mike Mann refer to them as climate tricks! Funny how those pesky E Mails just don’t go away.

      • Leftwithrightbrain

        Here’s a challenge cupcake: can you find anything nefarious in the emails … there would be a great reward for you if you can as no one else in your denier tribe has, despite much searching. Until then, what you sprout is hearsay otherwise known as b@llshit.

        • YuriTahrded

          Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline,Hide the decline. ad infinitum…….

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            So you thought that was nefarious? Thanks for sharing that you’re neither a scientist nor scientifically literate. This claim is patently false and shows gross ignorance of the science discussed. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960. Unless you think tree rings are more accurate than thermometers then there is no conspiracy.

          • YuriTahrded

            I’m a self taught scientist. Much like Ben Franklin. Unless you have a thermometor placed in every square foot the entire earth over than you are not getting an accurate reading of “Global Temperatures”

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            The difference between you and Ben Franklin is that you’re complete opposites; he was smart and progressive. Anyway, thanks for clarifying why your remarks are facile and vacuous even though that was totally unnecessary as your ignorance is/was self-evident in your current and past comments.

          • YuriTahrded

            Actually, Ben Franklin was only considered that in retrospect. How can you even pretend to know me and who I am you condescending pseudo intellectual. What have you accomplished in your life other than trolling sites that debunk global warming and spewing alarmist talking points with no scientific input to offer to the discourse.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Your written words allow me to assess your capabilities. As to scientific input … scan the comments … you have provided zero science … on the other hand I have provided several citations to published science. Come back when you can do the same instead of parroting and regurgitating what you read in the denier echo chamber. As to being trolls, we are even … the difference is I’m scientifically literate and you’re totally ignorant probably because one of my many achievements in life was to have a BS at an age when you were probably still in HS.

          • YuriTahrded

            Hurling perjoratives does not make one scientifically literate. It make one a troll.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Those were terms of endearment for you dear fellow troll. Still doesn’t make you anything but ignorant when it comes to climate science.

          • YuriTahrded

            What makes you a genius is your ability to use that keyboard while in a straight jacket. It is nice that they give you so much time there in the computer lab at the state hospital, With your fellow scientists’ I’m sure.

          • sirgareth

            Ben Franklin was “smart and ‘progressive’?”

            Real History (not “progressive”)

            “Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy.” Franklin replied, “A republic . . . if you can keep it.”

            Now the jury is in, we could not keep it – we went “progressive” (trust the “leaders”) instead.

        • YuriTahrded

          This is for you dingleberry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            As a denier I’m not surprised you don’t know how to find science sources but prefer to be suckered by vacuity due to your gross ignorance and resultant gullibility.

          • sirgareth

            “Finding” people who agree with your prejudice and your agenda is not science but indoctrination. Real science is proven, not “found”

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Repetitively stating vacuity about science being provable will not make it so. In essence you’re afraid that reality will bring change whether you deny it or not. So denialism is where you seek refuge, as is common, for the ignorant and/or uneducated according to psychiatrists and psychologists. You assuage your fears by grasping at straws of junk science readily offered to the ignorant, uneducated and gullible from the denier echo chamber.

          • sirgareth

            This was the premier science of the most educated people in the USA one century ago

            This is a science not of proof but of belief;

            Are you saying the 1960’s radicals who have taken over the US college campuses are more “enlightened” how did this happen? I know they smoked more dope?

            “Proponents of eugenics included Yale president James R. Angell, celebrated football coach Walter Camp ’80, primatologist Robert Yerkes, and Yale medical school dean Milton Winternitz. Stewart Paton, who pioneered mental health services for college students during a two-year stint at Yale in the 1920s, was a eugenicist. So was Rabbi Louis L. Mann, a lecturer at Yale, who told an audience at a 1923 birth control conference that, even in ancient times, the wise men of Israel had realized the necessity of checking the multiplication of the unfit.”

            The seminal work of the American eugenics movements was a 1916 book by Yale graduate Madison Grant – The Passing of a Great Race – which extolled the superiority of Nordic stock and warned against its “corruption” by Jews, Blacks, Slav and any other race that lacked blond hair and blue eyes. In 1930 Madison Grant received a letter of thanks and appreciation from a rising political star in Germany – recently released from prison – Adolf Hitler. His book Mein Kampfdisplays an intimate knowledge of Grant’s theories, as well as anti-immigrant and racial legislation in the United States, which Hitler believed Germany should adopt immediately.

            And, once in power, Hitler implemented eugenic principles in ways the American proponents could only dream of. While sterilizations were common in the US, the Americans watched in wonder and admiration as the Nazis introduced systematic euthanasia – and then extermination on a mass scale.

            As a Harvard PhD, I wish I could take some pleasure on this terrible blemish on the history of Yale University – a dreaded rival. But Harvard was also a hotbed of eugenics – indeed it was the center of eugenics research. Charles Davenport, a Harvard-trained biologist, was the leading figure in the American eugenics movement, and a key advisor to the American Eugenics Society.

            Another, unrelated, Harvard connection was Ernst “Putzi” Hanfstaengl, Hitler’s early advisor and a Harvard man through and through (see Hanfstaengl’s biography: Hitler’s Piano Player).

            And Harvard’s contribution to pseudo-science in Germany continues today. A profound influence on the best-selling German eugenicist Thilo Sarrazin is Harvard graduate Charles Murray, a co-author of the Bell Curve.

            Why is this “belief: now untrue and your AGW BS true?

        • SinisterBrain

          ROFL – I love those people who complain about those email. Their IGNORANCE is quite amusing. Having earned a degree in mathematics I KNOW phrases like “used a trick” or “manipulated the data” are quite common and don’t mean what the non-professionals THINK they mean.

          BTW Phil and buyit -> you DO know that whoever put that chart together MANIPULATED THE DATA – don’t you?

          • sirgareth

            OK explain this email and the “travesty” it represents

            “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

            Travesty definition:a false, absurd, or distorted representation of something.

            What they are calling a “travesty” it their own data that conflicts with their agenda.

          • Story

            And that’s about the time they decided they needed to “message” the data.

          • SinisterBrain

            Damn – I’m getting sick of trying to explain what they meant by saying “manipulated the data”; especially to someone who doesn’t know the difference between “massage” and “message”.

            BLUNTLY – you don’t know what the HELL you’re talking about.

          • Story

            I didn’t use the word “manipulated” you asshat…. I said “massaged” as in changed the raw data to produce desired results.

            read it and weep:

            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

          • Story
          • Story

            I saw an article a while back by a programmer who reverse engineered the results and found the exact algorithm they were applying to all data to achieve the exact results. I’ll look into it….

        • TroyGale

          Doesn’t need to nefarious, it just needs to be echo speak or group ignorance. The same ignorance which has caused billions of wasted dollars changing a coal plant over to natural gas for instance. Cost hundreds of miners their jobs. People are hurt by this stupidity, while the Al Gores of the world are raking in millions in speaking fees and fear mongering. This wouldn’t be possible without the complicit support of government and the ignorant disciples who believe this AGW stupidity. Most glaciers are growing, but you don’t hear about that, Arctic Ice and Antarctic Ice are at record levels. Oceanic temps have been stable for years.
          Before you continue down this road of ruin, you might want to do some independent research. Begin with John L. Casey’s “Dark Winter”, then keeping an open mind, look at the other supporting data which those who scream warming, warming, warming, don’t want you to see. THERE IS NO MEASURABLE MAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING!
          As P.T. Barnum said, there is a sucker born every minute!

          • PalmBeachVoter

            Polar bear populations are up 5 fold since the 1960s.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Mostly true, but only because indiscriminate hunting – virtually all polar bear hunting – has been banned since the 1960’s.

          • Antiobamunist

            That’s interesting. Al Goron has been saying Polar Bears are becoming extinct due to Globull Warming.
            Now it looks like their populations are increasing, which makes Manmade Globull Warming zealots LIARS once more.
            BTW – Polar Bears who threaten human settlements are shot.
            They will tear you to pieces if given the chance, just like Grizzly Bears in Alaska.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Polar bears were going extinct due to hunting.

            You don’t appear to be very smart Antiobaumist.

            But then no antiobaumist ever is.

          • Tariq_Toulhead_Al_Tabilcloth

            “due to hunting”. But that’s not what you leftists told us.

            EPIC FAIL.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            You were told, but prefer to live in a permanent state of self imposed ignorance.

            Why do you blame leftists for your own personal failings?

          • TSZodiac

            Gee – maybe its because Leftists have held control of each House of Congress for 62 of the last 82 years – and the White House for 46 of those years – including the last 6 !) Leftists are destroying America – and you want to help….

          • TSZodiac

            Don’t concern yourself with VD – he’s actually a Canadian Janitor, just google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” and you’ll see what I mean….he’s a useless waste of O2

          • sirgareth

            Complete nonsense.

            There were no limits on polar bears in the USA until it became and embarrassing counter point to the leftist narrative. There is still no limit on US Polar Bears if you are an Inuit. Until very recently when the false polar bear narrative was foisted on ignorant people by the NY Times anyone could buy a polar bear hunting permit from the Inuits in Alaska. Want to kill ten Bears – buy ten permits. Now the Inuits can no longer sell these permits so they get more welfare instead

            As for Canada

            http://www.polarbearhunting.net/

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Liar.. Liar… Pants on fire….

            Unregulated hunting of polar bears—except by native peoples—ended in 1973 with an international agreement among the polar bear nations of Canada, the U.S., Russia, Norway, and Greenland. Polar bears had been severely depleted by overhunting.

            Today, legal hunting continues on a limited, regulated basis for native peoples.

            Norway is the only polar bear nation that protects polar bears from all forms of hunting. Three of the other four nations permit native hunts—a traditionally important cultural activity and source of income. Canada is the only nation that allows sport or trophy hunting by non-natives and non-citizens.

            Natives hunters are subject to a quota system that divides permits among native communities. In Canada, these hunters often sell their permits to sport hunters for large sums, creating a windfall for communities that have no other source of income. Interestingly, this often results in fewer bears being killed, as sport hunters are not as skilled as native hunters.

            U.S. hunters are no longer permitted to take their trophies out of Canada now that the polar bear is listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. However, other nations allow importation of trophies from Canadian hunts.

          • sirgareth

            One of these mutually contradictory statements is an idiot by your own measure.

            a) “virtually all polar bear hunting – has been banned since the 1960’s.”

            b) “Today, legal hunting continues on a limited, regulated basis for native peoples.”

            Can you identify which one of the authors of theses statements is clueless? Is it the Hyde or the Jeykll author?

            Don’t believe your lying eyes now:

            http://www.polarbearhunting.net/

            Want to go on a polar bear hunt Jeykll, Read this because this is what your guide Hyde will either insist or recommend that you bring to the hunt:

            The following list is recommended and mandatory:

            Down parka with fur trimmed hood and down wind pants

            Warm mittens, large enough for inner gloves, heavy woolen shooting gloves

            Face mask and tinted snowmobile goggles (to avoid frostbite and snow blindness)

            Fur hat with flaps that tie down around ears and back of neck. I use mine for sleeping also

            The warmest boots made by Cabellas, Timberline or Northern Outfitters. Boots designed for extreme cold with insulated liners. EXTRA LINERS!

            Heavy sweater or ski-jacket for around camp

            Camp boots, easy to put on and pull off, for around camp

            Pure wool or wool/polypropylene long-handle underwear

            4 or 5 pairs heavy wool socks, 4-5 pairs thinner wool socks

            Pair heavy wool pants and 2 heavy wool shirts

            A down-filled sleeping bag rated for –40F and set of wool, long underwear for sleeping

            Sharp knife and sharpening steel

            High-quality binoculars

            Soft-padded gun case for the sled

            High-powered rifle with 30-40 rounds. (300 magnum with 220 grain bullets recommended)

            OK champ, your off to get your first polar bear.

            Next are polar bears a separate species from other bears?

            Are Inuits a separate species from other humans?

            Finally you are off message: I thought it was supposed to be “glowball warming” that has been exterminating all those cuddly white bears, instead of mean white hunters, have you abandoned the movement?

          • Jon Fye

            I could use a new polar bear skin rug. This old one is getting worn out. When does hunting season start? I wonder if Polar Bear tastes like Grizzly Bear?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Don’t pull our legs. We all know you don’t have any use for anything more than a bottle of ripple, some chewen tabakie and your own daughters behind.

          • TSZodiac

            Google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL”

          • sirgareth

            Have you polled the Democrat Polar Bears. It’s carnage out there. They’ll tell you their cubs are all dying off from the climate but the real reason is planned polar-bear-moms set up shop in Churchill.

          • SinisterBrain

            TroyGale -> come back with scientific evidence that backs up YOUR claim.

            Newsflash – personal attacks against Al Gore is NOT proof. Just CLAIMING you’re right isn’t proof. Making FALSE claims about glaciers and what scientists are report or not reporting are not proof.

            Where is all this “supporting data”? BTW – I don’t mean denier’s web sites or some book someone wrote TO MAKE MONEY. I’m talking peer-reviewed scientific papers.

            Do you have any? No? Then troll away…

          • StargazerInSavannah

            Idiot, there is no evidence of any global warming, only data manipulation.
            Those who insist on evidence are of course racist.

          • SinisterBrain

            Anyone who doesn’t understand what scientists mean when they say the manipulated the data should keep their UNTRAINED mouths shut.

            BTW – as I noted before – whoever put that chart together manipulated the data. And that’s a fact!

          • Dave M.

            Actually, I think Stargazer meant to say changed the data. Here is a link of some to that change:

            https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/all-of-paraguays-temperature-record-has-been-tampered-with/

          • SinisterBrain

            Your link has NOTHING to do with the climate-gate email scandal. And the phrased used at the time is – manipulated the data. And my claim of “that’s a common phrase in science” and doesn’t mean “they falsified the data” still goes.

            I also claimed the maker of the chart manipulated the data but nobody has asked what I meant. Easy, look at the difference column. They manipulated the data, in this cause they sorted it from lowest to highest.

            In college I took a course on mathematical modeling. We were given raw data about the population of large cities and the average time it took people to walk 100 yards. Now since it was over 20 years ago I don’t remember to exact solution BUT I do know I had to “manipulate the data” twice in order to see a pattern emerge. I had to change the units from number of seconds into some other unit like feet/minute. I also had to change the population using (I think) natural logarithms and after I did that, I could easily see a pattern. That’s why scientist “manipulate the data”.

            Next was that the scientists said that they used a trick. Again to the non-scientists that meant they were trying to TRICK everyone. But it is a VERY common phrase used in mathematics. Here is a simple example. Solve ax^2 +bc + c = 0. In this form we can’t, but what can we do. First, let’s divide by a giving us x^2 +(b/a)x + c/a = 0 . In math you can add a zero to one side without affecting anything. So now we have ax^2 +bx + 0 + c = 0. Nice but that doesn’t do much. But we can USE A TRICK. Any number subtracted from itself = 0. So using this TRICK we can now write x^2 + (b/a)x + (b/2a)^2 – (b/2a)^2 + c = 0. Now we have a perfect square and can go on to solve the quadratic equation.

            The point is that “using a trick” and “manipulating the data” are NOT some sort of sinister plot to fool people. They are everyday figure of speeches used by scientists.

          • Phil Bickel

            The urban heat island effect is enormous on these groud based systems, and this is where the manipulation happens. The adjustments are tweeked according to the desired outcome. That is what the East Anglia E Mails referred to, when discussing the “tricks.” At CMH it is as much as 15 degrees warmer than stations outside the outerbelt. I can prove that, and the adjustments from 1969 are only a few degrees.

            Satelite recordings are the only reliable records, so why is NOA using ground based readings, with adjustments, unless they are after a desired outcome?

          • Story
          • sirgareth

            Are you holding forth that there exist a class of government paid bureaucrats who call themselves scientists but who oddly have never discovered anything at all are superior beings who don’t lie cheat and steal ?

          • lottasplainin

            Not “bureaucrats” — “proctocrats” is the correct term.

          • Story

            So when all the “peer reviewed” scientists are fed the same “massaged” data instead of the ACTUAL RAW DATA, wouldn’t you think they would all show a similar trend in the outputs?

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

          • sirgareth

            The IPCC reported that

            “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).”

            Is this science or Bullshit?

          • oldoldtimer

            Its BS. The earth is not warming unless they manipulate the data.

          • SinisterBrain

            another ignorant without a college education in science. Why don’t you leave the science to people who actually studied science in college?

          • Tom Eberlin

            like Al Gore’s degree in science?

          • SinisterBrain

            Al Gore used the information supplied by the climatologists. He didn’t pull them out of his behind like the non-scientist do.

            You know, like trying to disprove climate change by attacking Al Gore.

          • sirgareth

            How do you know climatology is actually science? Is phrenology and eugenics science?

            How do we tell all the fake evil science from the real stuff. We have to do this don’t we?

          • sirgareth

            Do you have a college education in “science?”

            Odd they never offered “science” to me. I had to be content with physics, chemistry, calculus, differential equations, and the like.

          • Story

            That’s two of us, sigareth.

          • http://www.facebook.com/jon.sweeney.108 Jon Sweeney

            Fu….. moron –

            Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice …

            http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17207-al-gore...

            … that human emissions of carbon dioxide were to blame for rising temperatures. Those claims, now widely laughed at around the world, … Photo of Al Gore: …

          • SinisterBrain

            For the THIRD time – when a scientists says he manipulated the data he doesn’t mean he’s falsifying the information.

            They mean they did something mathematical in order to see patterns that might be hidden otherwise.

            As I stated earlier – the above chart had the data manipulated. They sorted in on the last column from lowest to highest.

            Would you criticize a scientist for using a microscope? After all, a microscope “manipulates the data”, it bends the light in order to magnify an object making it easier to see.

            I’ll try with another TRUE example. My son and I were watching a program about a mass extinction. The scientist being interviewed was standing near a rocky base of a cliff and was explaining that there was something that occurred every 20 or so years and that evidence of this cycle could be seen in the rock cliff behind him. The camera showed the rock cliff but one couldn’t see the 20 year old bands in the rock cliff the guy was talking about. Then the scientist explained that while it’s hard to see just with the naked eye the pattern could be seen by taking a digital photo of the rock face and then by MANIPULATING THE DATA in the photo using a computer program, the bans would become visible. Sure enough, after the program had MANIPULATED THE DATA, probably by coloring the backing using the various subtle changes in the luminance, the bands were quite visible.

            If you can’t understand this simple phrase then maybe you should just keep quiet.

          • sirgareth

            So was the Himalayan Glacier “data” tricked out or simply agenda driven Bullshit?

          • Story

            “They mean they did something mathematical in order to see patterns that might be hidden otherwise.” YEAH! Exactly! Like using the raw data (actual measurements) would show no warming or even cooling, so they applied their “massaging” technique to get the pattern they wanted revealed.

            Why don’t you check out some actual climate science?

            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/

          • Oregonian1

            When a “scientist” says he manipulated the data he can also mean he falsified the information. And your anecdotal example doesn’t prove anything about anthropogenic global warming data manipulation – the scientist didn’t “add some pixels” to the data; he disclosed something that was already there in the data.

            See Story below!

          • sirgareth

            When a soothsayer tells you he sees thing in the chicken guts that you cant, he really isn’t falsifying the data, he just uses tricks to help him see things you can’t

          • CJHames

            Pure BS. Thanks for asking.

          • Simon Franke

            http://www.petitionproject.org/

            31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
            including 9,029 with PhDs

          • buyitcheap

            yes, and in many varied areas of study… false premise..

          • SinisterBrain

            Sorry but the OPINIONS of people NOT in the field are just that – opinions.

            Stick to real PEER REVIEWED scientific writings NOT the opinions of others NOT in the field.

            HI – I’m JOHNNY. I have a PhD in English Literature. I think climate change is a HOAX because I heard Rush Limbaugh say so………….

            ROFL@the_non_scientists_idea_of_proof.

          • sirgareth

            So “opinions” in the field are always superior to “opinions” not in the field? Is that it?

            How about the opinions of those who were scientific experts in the fields of eugenics and phrenology? Should they have been believed because they were the “experts?”

          • Phil Bickel

            Cold Spring Harbor? All you AGW fanatics, look that one up! Modern Progressivism began over a 100 years ago when the geniouses of that era concluded that the population had reached unsustainable levels and mass starvation would bring civilization to its knees. Then something called Nitrogen based fertilizer happened, and food production increased five fold. Hitler and Stalin based a lot of their ideas on 1900’s American progressivism, and we know what happened there.

          • sirgareth

            Hitler was a remarkable socialist progressive; read his NSDAP (NAZI) party platform if you doubt it.

            Hope and Change baby.

            Gas chambers – where he was “progressing” them.

          • CJHames

            Give it up. The world is on to your scam. We’re not buying it any more. Find another cause to wrap yourself up in. Curing a form of cancer, perhaps. Make yourself useful.

          • sirgareth

            Were Eugenics and Phrenology “peer reviewed”?

            How come its laughed at now if it passed “peer review” Shouldn’t it be scientific “gospel?”

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Virtually none of the people who signed the petition are scientists.

            The Spice girls signed. So did Batman. Batman is a scientist, isn’t he?

            And then there are the dead people who have signed, and the people who signed
            without even signing.

            So the question is, why would you dishonestly claim that 31,487 “scientists” signed the petition?

            Is it your purpose to promulgate a lie?

          • left wing

            lies are all the your blind dogma contains, zealot. science is not allowed in your CULT, only BLIND DOGMA and politics

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Not even a coherent thought let alone a valid English sentence.

            How mighty Republican of you.

          • Oregonian1

            Have you ever looked at the CVs of members of the Union of Concerned Scientists? I didn’t think so – how very Progressive of you!

          • VendicarDecarian0

            I was unaware that batman and the spice girls were members of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

            Can you provide any evidence to support your assertion that they are?

          • TSZodiac

            Google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” – he’s actually a Canadian Janitor, don’t waste your time.

          • Oregonian1

            Thanks, TSZ: feed a cold; starve a troll – got it!!

          • http://www.facebook.com/jon.sweeney.108 Jon Sweeney

            Fu….. moron

            Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice …

            http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17207-al-gore...

            … that human emissions of carbon dioxide were to blame for rising temperatures. Those claims, now widely laughed at around the world, … Photo of Al Gore: …

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Liar.. Liar… Pants on Fire..

            Gore made no such statement. And even your own link shows that.

            Why do you post a link that contradicts your own claims that you make against Gore?

            Are you mentally ill?

            You see, once you actually click on the link inside your dishonest reference – the one that makes the accusation against Gore it states the following….

            “Former US Vice President Al Gore cited Professor Maslowski’s analysis on Monday in his acceptance speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo.”

            It is only though dishonesty on your part that you would claim that citing the research of another person is equivalent to making a forecast.

            I have never encountered a Republican who wasn’t a congenital and perpetual lair.

            Both you and the author of the reference you cite (Alex Newman), are liars.

          • koolaid

            Actual pronouncements by climate “scientists”:

            1970- We’ll be in an ice age by 2000.

            1976- Global cooling will cause war by 2000.

            1989- Global warming will wipe entire nations off the map by 2000.

            1990- We have 5 years to save the rainforests.

            1999- The Himalayan glaciers will be gone in 10 years.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Lie,

            Lie.

            Lie.

            Lie.

            Lie.

            You Republicans certainly love to tell lies.

            Clearly you are mentally ill and socially maladjusted.

          • left wing

            lies are all the insane member of the democratic party of hate, lies, graft, corruption and millionaires has to post

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Isn’t exposing your non stop stream of lies, enough?

          • Story

            How about “Snowfalls are now a thing of the past”? Note the date:

            http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

          • VendicarDecarian0

            How about you find a scientist rather than a right wing tabloid rag when you make such claims.

            Honesty doesn’t appear to be one of your qualities.

          • left wing

            LIES are all you post zealot

          • VendicarDecarian0

            How about you find a scientist rather than a right wing tabloid rag when you make such claims.

            Honesty doesn’t appear to be one of your qualities.

          • TSZodiac

            Don’t waste your time Wing – Vendicar (aka Scotty Douglas the Canadian Janitor) isn’t worth the time. Google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” and you’ll see what I mean. Ignore him

          • Story

            Didn’t even read the article did you, asshat? It’s from March of 2000 and this nugget is from one of the leading climate “scientists” at that time. So how about you find any AGW speculation which has proven to be true? ANY!

            “However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

            “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.”

          • VendicarDecarian0

            I did read the article, and it clearly shows that you were lying when you asserted that Gore said that “snowfalls are now a thing of the past.”

            How about you find a scientist rather than a right wing tabloid rag when you make such claims.

            Honesty doesn’t appear to be one of your qualities.

          • Story

            You need to re-read EVERY reply I’ve made on this thread. Not once have I mentioned your high priest….. only false claims made by your actual “scientists”. And for the record, I still haven’t called out the washed up VP by name.

            David Viner

            Exceptionally Experienced International Climate Change Expert: Science, Impacts, Resilience, Adaptation and Mitigation

            Over 23 years experience working globally in all aspects of climate change.

            Aim: Working internationally across the public and private sector to develop and deliver strategies aligned to organisational objectives that will deliver high impacting business, environmental and social benefits.

            Principal Adviser working for an global company. Responsible for Strategic Business Development, Project Director, Stakeholder Management and Strategy Development.

            My Climate Change Programme at the British Council was described by the Foreign Office as a “National Asset”. Throughout my career I have developed and delivered ground breaking strategies, these have built and strengthened organisational capacity. I have built and developed high performing teams in the academic, governmental and commercial sectors.

            Specialties: All aspects of the Climate Change and Development, working at the highest international level in global roles since 1991.

            Global Director – Climate Change, Environment and Sustainability

            British Council

            2008 – June 2011 (3 years)

            Reporting to Executive Board, created a strategy and subsequent programme that met global corporate objectives (engagement of 85m people in 2010), delivered by colleagues based in 109 countries and 250+ offices. The Programme has been described by the UK’s Special Envoy on Climate Change as a “National Asset”.

            The programme was responsive to local needs, politics, and partnerships and flexible in order for colleagues to tailor activity to local operating models and utilise the innovation and imagination of internal and external stakeholders. The Climate Programme was multifaceted and developed in a manner that required different levels of priorities to meet local conditions, funding streams and partner aspirations.

            Additional achievements and responsibilities:
            • Senior Advisor for the Environment and Sustainability Policy.
            • Lead on the development and delivery of our internal Sustainability Strategy
            • Thought Leader on Climate and Sustainability.
            • Developed a unique evidenced-based strategy to delivering a ‘cultural relations’ approach.
            • Developed an integrated portfolio of activity with a joint annual budget of £105million.
            • Lead a global matrix team, managing complex matrix based budgets to deliver on a range of strategic delivery targets
            • Constructed the internal business systems and the key metrics and KPI’s used for monitoring and evaluation.
            • Lead substantial cost reduction programmes through increased efficiencies, savings and innovative ways of working.

            Principal Specialist – Climate Change

            Natural EnglandFebruary 2007 – February 2008 (1 year 1 month)

            Developing an evidenced based programme of research to deliver integrated landscape scale adaptation for the Natural Environment. Providing support for policy development and management of stakeholders.

            Senior Research Scientist and Climate Change MSc Director

            Climatic Research Unit, University of East AngliaSeptember 1991 – February 2007 (15 years 6 months)

            Developing a Cultural Relations approach to address climate change, Climate change science, developing integrated approaches to multifunctional landscape scale adaptation, policy development for conservation and climate change, climate change and the rural economy, biodiversity and climate change, the interactions between climate change, tourism and sustainability, scenario construction, impacts assessments, knowledge transfer and science communications, the construction and provision of climate data sets for the international climate change research community, insurance and integrated assessments.

            Undertaken numerous TV, Radio and media interviews, Guest presenter on BBC’s Inside Out.

            Legend :-) (See? He’s a legend in his own mind!!!!)

            University of Salford1988 – 1991 (3 years)

            How about you find any AGW “scientist” whose predictions have proven to be true. ANY!

            Honesty doesn’t appear to be one of your qualities.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Are you attempting to make a point, or are you just jabbering incoherently?

          • Story

            So you agree you’re simply wrong, making false claims and instead of agreeing David Viner is a leading “scientist” in the AGW movement, you attempt to smear the source of his insane comment…. so I posted his bio and this is the best reply you can come up with????

            Anything on the “AGW prediction that has borne fruit” front?

            Honesty doesn’t appear to be one of your qualities.

          • left wing

            yes, your pants are on fire

          • TroyGale

            Dark Winter John L Casey. Peer reviewed, and available online or at your local barnes and noble. Look around you if you live in the mid-west or New England. Some folks are just easily fooled…you are one of them.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Thank you for sharing that you’re neither a scientist nor scientifically literate but rather obnoxiously ignorant by choice apparently when it comes to climate science. Totally beyond me why anyone would be so proud of being completely scientifically illiterate. Most people would be embarrassed but not you deniers, you put it right out there for all to see. As to know measurable global warming there is a plethora of published science research and you may be a tad better informed doing some reading on the topic. A good start would be doi:10.1038/nature14240.

            AGW stupidity

            AGW theory is accepted by every current climate scientist worldwide who is researching and publishing on climate science. They’re all wrong and you the denier is correct? The greenhouse effect was discovered in 1824, nearly two centuries ago. Do a little research sometime. It’s all a long con started by Fourier, picked up by Tyndall, then Arrhenius, now carried into modern day by all the PhD’s who work in the field according to your simple denier intellect.

          • Cahal the Mad™

            “AGW theory is accepted by every current climate scientist worldwide who is researching and publishing on climate science.”
            Your moronic fairy tales and pathetic brainwashing, are tiresome. Yeah, just keep lying, denying all scientific fact, and realtiy itslef, so your communist masters can enslave you and the rest of the world. FOaD, loser.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Your puerile vacuity removes any credibility you deemed your words had. So cupcake here’s a challenge: right now there’s simply no alternative model to the greenhouse effect, there’s no alternative hypothesis, that explains the temperature on this planet … why don’t you forgo the comforts of your quilting circle and publish your research and conclusions in science publications where it will get the treatment and contempt it rightly deserves.

          • sirgareth

            Define scientist.

            I hold that climatology is not science at all but rather a political ploy to deprive (stupid) people of their liberty. Therefore, ANY climate “scientist” whether they support my position is probably a fraud.

            Real science is self affirming, i.e. we don’t need to “believe” in Maxwell’s Equations or Newton’s laws of motion or universal gravitation do we, but why is thsi ?

            Because they ALWAYS work for the purposes intended, no exceptions.

            Now we come to “faith based” science in which we must swear “belief” or be punished for denying.

            Here we have a plethora of examples: How about the Ivy League (Harvard, Princeton, Yale) developed science of eugenics with its sub-field of phrenology. Are you aware that Hitler advanced his genocide based entirely on our own U.S. Ivy league developed faith based sciences in racial inferiority.

            Besides being dead wrong what makes your faith based climate science more “believable” than the Ivy League race sciences Hitler “believed?”

          • Story
          • oldoldtimer

            They either accept and adhere or they are forced out.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Care to substantiate your evidence-free post or are you just parrotting and regurgitating what your glean from the hearsay in the denier echo chamber that is designed to sucker the gullible and/or ignorant?

          • TroyGale

            No, quite frankly it isn’t by all climate scientists. That statement alone disqualifies any further response.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Here’s a challenge cupcake: provide the name of one and their peer-reviewed publication that supports your vacuity.

          • TroyGale

            As I indicated earlier, you disqualified yourself from further discussion.
            Read Dark Winter by John L Casey, then perhaps you might be someone less arrogant and worth a conversation.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            So in essence you cannot support your vacuity and cling to a basically fictional account of the future which has been thoroughly debunked by climate science and reality as your go to source for science. That’s gross ignorance on the topic.

          • TroyGale

            Uh…look around you. Cold and Ice building in Arctic, Antarctic, the Great Lakes, Siberia, Glaciers are gaining mass. Nothing Casey has said was debunked. His projections are happening today, all around the world, and if you don’t believe that, just wait a decade. The IPCC has been wrong time and again, yet lemmings like you defend the political babble generated by those whose paymasters benefit by your ignorance and fear.
            His theory is peer reviewed, and sonny boy, if you think 2 degrees of warming is bad, just wait till you see 2 degrees of cooling to the average temps looks like. Think crop failures in the grain belts of the world. Now, you go worship at Al Gore’s feet, because you are too block headed to consider 2 sides of the debate. Oh, and one other thing to consider is that Science is wrong more times than it is right.
            Think about that.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Cold and Ice building in Arctic, Antarctic, the Great Lakes, Siberia, Glaciers are gaining mass

            the historical record and CryoSat-2 evidence shows your sentence is vacuity on steroids as is the rest pf puerile screed.

          • TroyGale

            Keep on drinking the Kool-Aid…

          • oldoldtimer

            There is no proof of any kind that proves man made global warming or climate change. ABSOLUTELY NONE.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            There is no proof that you are a a real person and not a butterfly dreaming to be one.

            Please offer proof if you have any.

          • douginjax

            Failed analogy. Warming only exists in “smoothed” data. It’s a failed hoax, and everyone that has advanced it should be flogged in the public square.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Similarly weight only exists in smoothed data.

            Do you intend to remain a moron for the rest of your life?

            If so, please make that life short, There are some smart people who want to get in.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Similarly weight only exists in smoothed data. … If so, please make that life short, There…

            So the question is, after whining like a little bitch about everyone else’s capitalization and punctuation, do you intend to remain a moron the rest of yours?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Similarly weight only exists in smoothed data.

            Do you intend to remain a moron for the rest of your life?

            If so, please make that life short, There are some smart people who want to get in.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Yes, please do repost the same mistakes you made while telling others they’re idiots for their bad punctuation and capitalization.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Similarly weight only exists in smoothed data.

            Do you intend to remain a moron for the rest of your life?

            If so, please make that life short. There are some smart people who want to get in.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Hmmm, I guess you think you’re getting less idiotic the more you post that….
            If recollection serves, you did the same thing last time we had a conversation and you were unable to rationally make an argument. Meh, I’d expect nothing less.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Similarly weight only exists in smoothed data.

            Do you intend to remain a moron for the rest of your life?

            If so, please make that life short. There are some smart people who want to get in.

          • douginjax

            Typical Marxist. I have zero doubt you would have me killed to silence me if you could. Seriously doubt you have the stones to attempt it in person though.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Kill you? No. You should scream in agony.

          • douginjax

            Yep, Warmists are about control not science. Marxism failed, so you wrapped your disgusting evil in environmentalism.
            AGW apologists use the exact same logic, and level of proof, as communist economists did. You’re a fraud, you know you’re a fraud, and yes, you will kill people to get your way.
            But as I said,I seriously doubt you have the stones to attempt it yourself. You’ll have agents of the state do it for you. Because for all of your smugness, you are a coward.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            I see, so in your view Marxism failed and therefore the worlds thermometers are wrong, and there is a global conspiracy to keep you stupid.

            If you weren’t such a mindless kook, you would realize that you are a mindless kook.

            My 7 year old niece thinks you are a kook, and she is sitting here beside me, laughing at you.

          • douginjax

            In my view you are a sadistic statist ass, that will lie, falsify, and intimidate in order to Lord over others. On a personal level I’d say you and I both know who and what you are.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Don’t worry, you won’t hold those views for very long once you are hanging by a noose from a tree branch.

            Your crime. Treason against man, nature, and country.

          • douginjax

            I’d absolutely love for you to give that a shot in person, but we both know how that would end for you. We also know that little girls are about the limit of your courage.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            You will be cowering in the corner, just as you are now.

          • douginjax

            Bring it. You know what you are.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            To your kind, I will be the bringer of Justice.

          • douginjax

            There is nothing in the world that you fear more than true justice. You resent people who are better than you , more successful, happier. You are consumed with dragging them down to you pathetic state.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            You don’t like broccoli and your feat smell like cabbages.

          • TSZodiac

            Don’t concern yourself with Vendicar (aka Scotty Douglas the Candaian Janitor) – just google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” and you’ll get the picture. Ignore him

          • douginjax

            TSZodiac, that’s funny. I had him pegged. As a janitor, he’s just as qualified to be a Leftist “thought leader” as Obama and Castro. He probably rang up $100k in student loans before finding out he was unemployable. Thus his festering hatred of success.

          • TSZodiac

            I don’t think he went that far – he’s one of those graduates of Google U…and there’s no chance of having an actual conversation with him. All he does is puke out the Lib Party Line talking points and then insults you to try and put you on the defensive. Just ignore him…have a great rest of the week!

          • douginjax

            That’s you in drag right?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Nope

          • douginjax

            I don’t think you even believe this AGW horse crap. It’s just a convenient vehicle for your statist control fantasies.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Unlike you, I don’t think that the Warming Globe is really a global conspiracy between the alien Egg Men and the world’s Thermometer makers.

            But hay, in America you have the right to be as stupid as you want to be.

            The question is why you want to remain stupid?

            Are you too stupid to know any better?

          • TroyGale

            I agree, so does John L. Casey, and many other scientists who don’t have paychecks attached to scaring people.

          • SkyHunter
          • VendicarDecarian0

            I can think of no jobs better lost than coal mine jobs.

            “THERE IS NO MEASURABLE MAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING!” -TroyFail

            Actually it has been measured and comes in at 0.8’C, or 1.4’F for the uneducated.

          • TroyGale

            Or not statistically relevant you idiot!

          • VendicarDecarian0

            It is sad that Republicans such as yourself consider Mining jobs to not be statistically relevant.

            But then Republicans are the enemy of the middle class.

          • left wing

            sad that the insane member of member of the democratic party of hate, lies, graft, corruption and millionaires has nothing but ignorance, hate, lies and blind dogma to post

          • VendicarDecarian0

            92 percent of all Scientists are Liberals

            Reality has a dramatically Liberal bias.

          • TroyGale

            Re-read the thread my friend. I was calling out the other guy for his support of AGW, I respect the miners, and have felt my whole life that they are the only people who ought to have a Union.
            And, as an aside, the Republicans are not the enemy of the middle class. Congress is, your State Legislature is, your local township is, the EPA is, OSHA is, and every other damn agency you can name with the everyday American now joining the attack on business.
            It wasn’t the American wage that destroyed the world’s greatest economy, it was people electing politicians who enabled the government to rape business. Well, with the added burden of Obamacare, we are seeing even more businesses going under or moving overseas. I say good for them, perhaps the American People will stop the stupidity of attacking business, calling the owners rich, and greedy. When no one has a job but the IRS, what do you think will happen?

          • Clete Torres

            Medieval Warm Period was far, far warmer. Must have been all those medieval SUVs and flatulent bovine.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Current temperatures are now warmer than at any time in the last 80.000 years.

          • left wing

            noticed the lack of those large sheets of ice covering North America did you?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Within 1 or 2 decades it will be warmer than it has been in several hundred thousand years.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Of course, that’s the same thing ManBearPig said 1 or 2 decades ago.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Liar, Liar.. Pants on fire.

            Gore said nothing of the kind.

            I have never encountered a Republican who wasn’t a congenital and perpetual liar.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Liar, Liar.. Pants on fire. Gore said nothing of the kind.
            Except of course, when he said there’d be no artic ice by 2013-2014.
            Nice try tho, but evidence seems to indicate, you’re the liar.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Liar, Liar.. Pants on fire…

            Gore never said that.

            You tried earlier to make that claim and even provided a link to support your accusation.

            Much to your public humiliation, the link showed the exact opposite.

            Awwww. You Poor Little Liar.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            You apparently don’t know there are actual REAL videos of it. Lmao! Imbecile.

            http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17207-al-gore-forecasted-ice-free-arctic-by-2013-ice-cover-expands-50

            https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/09/01/good-news-for-polar-bears-bad-news-for-al-gore-warming/
            “Gore had warned in 2007 while accepting the Nobel Peace Prize that within seven years the ice cap would vanish in summer”
            Care to deny that ManBearPig also claimed the earth is millions of degrees under the crust? I can post a video of that too, imbecile.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Sorry, none of your links show that Gore said what you claim he said.

            In fact everything Gore says in those links is exactly correct.

            Are you mentally ill?

            How can you be so stupid to make claims that even your own references refute?

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Oh, so you can’t read or hear? Sorry poopy pants, it’s not my mental illness, it’s yours. I hear that crazy people like you don’t know when they’re crazy. Is that true?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            It must be, you don’t realize it.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Nope. You’re running around telling everyone else their nuts while lying, and feigning the inability to even read or watch a video.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

            https://www.google.com/#q=Vendicar+Decarian+TROLL
            “Wow…. we have a guy using the name Scott Nudds (Scott Douglas)
            (Vendicar Decarian etc. etc. )
            The American that ran away to Canada, working as a janitor at a school in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

            Apparently he got arrested once or twice for threats to one of the
            Bush presidents of the U.S. and the Canadian R.C.M.P. police picked
            him up for their friends in U.S. security.”

          • Iamnumber6

            Considering that in the past “several hundred thousand years” there have been three ice ages, I would hope it is warmer now. Considering that the ice ages are cyclical and we are in the latter part of an interglacial, I would hope it stays warmer than it has been in several hundred thousand years.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            And earth will be warmer than it was during those glacial periods but also warmer than during any interglacial in the period stated.

            Without a reduction in the rate of emission of CO2, the Earth will end up looking like Venus.

            That won’t happen of course because man will die out long before he can increase the CO2 to that level.

            But Republicans will try. They are content to destroy humanity.

          • Iamnumber6

            LMAO. Like Venus? Seriously? CO2 is not even 1% of the atmosphere. It is a trace gas and 95% of all greenhouse gas is water vapor. That is so ridiculous I don’t know if I should worry about your sanity or pity you. Perhaps both.

            And as for the incorrect claim that the current interglacial is warmer than any interglacial during the period stated you might want to take a look at the trend line for the last 3 million years. Those interglacial periods used to get a lot warmer than now.

            If CO2 was such a great driver of climate, explain why during the during the medieval climate optimum that temperatures rose with no change in CO2 levels as nd then fell during the little ice age – again with no change in CO2 and with CO2 levels 35% below current levels.

            Anyway, if man has found out a way to stave off the next period of glaciation, you should be proud. Think of all the lives that will be saved; that won’t feeeze and die.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Without a reduction in the rate of emission of CO2, the Earth will end up looking like Venus.

            That won’t happen of course because man will die out long before he can increase the CO2 to that level.

            But Republicans will try. They are content to destroy humanity.

          • Iamnumber6

            No. It won’t. The earth is not Venus and it is a pathetic analogy. The atmosphere on Earth, presence of water vapor and distance from the sun all factor in. Never happen. Not with what man is doing. It is always interesting to note actual paleoclimate information such as CO2 levels have been substantially higher at times in the past without runaway globaloney warming. It is funny because for someone as smart and arrogant as you present, you don’t seem to remember 3rd grade science where plants actually use CO2, and they grow better and with less water when CO2 levels are higher.

            And I would argue that it is the Warmistas who are destroying humanity. The warmistas have real deaths on their hands by forcing the use of fuels that are made from food. But for Warmistas, the consequences of action are less important than their intent that they “care” and want to save the planet.

            I suppose what is most fascinating in this little exchange is that you cleverly just repeated your inane “republicans want to destroy humanity” and “we will be like Venus” lies rather than respond to the problem with your theory that cannot account for actual changes in the climate, both warm and cold, that were irrelevant of CO2 levels. That is why climate change/globaloney warming are not even theories. They cannot even account for known data.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Without a reduction in the rate of emission of CO2, the Earth will end up looking like Venus.

            In fact, without a reduction the universe would be filled completely with CO2.

            There exists 4E8 gigatonnes of Coal currently in the ground.

            Man is emitting about 7 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere per year which raises atmospheric CO2 levels by about 3 ppmv per year

            Sufficient carbon therefore exists to increase atmospheric CO2 levels to 170 E6 ppmv, which is enough carbon to replace the atmosphere 170 times.

            Of course Oxygen will run out long before then.

          • Iamnumber6

            Yeah. That’s bloody brilliant. Not.
            Current CO2 levels are about 402 ppm. That is what, less than half of 1%? It is theorized that plants evolved in an atmosphere of 1000 to 1300 ppm. Greenhouses try to keep the CO2 levels at about 800 to 900 ppm because it increases water efficiency and substantially increases growth yields by about 33%.

            Using your number of humans adding 3 ppm per year of CO2, that would mean that it would take 167 years of adding 3ppm per year just to reach 900 ppm, the level that growers prefer in greenhouses to minimize water usage and increase plant yields. And I am supposed to worry about that?

            We are no where near the CO2 levels of when plants evolved. We are no where near the optimum levels of CO2 that growers use on their plants in greenhouses. The relationship between CO2 and climate does not even account for know climate variations in the absence of CO2 level changes and you want us to worry about a non-existent problem. Sigh. Maybe try another hobby to find meaning in your life, this is definitely not it.

          • TSZodiac

            Don’t waste your time, 6 – Vendicar (aka Scotty Douglas the Canadian Janitor) will only spew the same tired old Party Line talking points and then make up stats – just google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” and you’ll get the picture !

          • Iamnumber6

            Thanks for the heads up!

          • TSZodiac

            My pleasure – be well ! I hope Al Gore is someplace warm today, don’t you?

          • TSZodiac

            Vendicar (aka Scotty the Janitor) is unaware of the third grade concept of The “Goldilocks” zone around a star – and the irony of the Venus analogy while he simultaneously argues that the Sun’s activity is an insignificant factor vis a vis changes in the climate on Earth is lost on poor ol’ Scotty V, I’m afraid.

          • sirgareth

            Right now or yesterday?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Global Average 2014.

            Equilibrium temperatures will peak roughly 1.4’F higher than current 2014 temperatures, even if CO2 emissions were immediately brought to zero.

            A rise of 8’C is a human extinction level event.

          • sirgareth

            Yes did you know a lot of people are saying that wearing a copper bracelet can cure cancer; it just isn’t so but its fun to believe in nonsense things. Nonsense like the earth’s temperature is 1.4 degrees F (0.778 degrees C) warmer than it was last year; if you want to believe this its up to you, I don’t even care if you believe in the tooth fairy.

            Most people are concerned about their own extinction event and socialism (government in control) is one of the stronger influences on human extinction (50 million dead from European experiments with socialism).

          • VendicarDecarian0

            “wearing a copper bracelet can cure cancer” – Sigareth

            Isn’t that part of the Libertarian health care plan?

            “Nonsense like the earth’s temperature is 1.4 degrees F (0.778 degrees C) warmer than it was last year” – Sirgareth

            You seem to have the time scale wrong by 2 powers of 10.

            Kooooooooooooook

            Can’t you even get that straight?

            How much medication are you on?

          • sirgareth

            I think the libertarian health care “plan” works much the same as its food plan, its housing plan, its work plan, its energy plan and it entertainment plan. I think the libertarians don’t value government planners all that much although the followers of Hitler and Stalin are bound to disagree.

            Time scale? Now thermometers used to measure the passage of time ; I think you are confused aren’t you?

            I realize this math stuff is difficult but by my lights 1.8 F = 1.0 C are you with me so far?

            Now comes the profound part that unless you have a PhD you wont be able to follow:

            1.4F x (1 C/ 1,8F) = 0.7777777……C (I rounded before, sorry)

          • VendicarDecarian0

            “I think the libertarian health care “plan” works much the same as its food plan, its housing plan, its work plan, its energy plan and it entertainment plan.” – Sirgareth

            And their border immigration plan…

            IMMIGRATION – Libertarian Party Platform

            We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.

            We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.

            Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference.

            We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.

          • sirgareth

            Who told you I was a libertarian, if we need more ignorant peasants on welfare, all we need to do is too keep funding more government education.

          • TSZodiac

            Just ignore him SirG, Vendicar (aka Scotty Douglas the Canadian Janitor) isn’t worth the time – just google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” and you’ll see what I mean

          • sirgareth

            Thanks, I have suspected he was unstable.

          • TSZodiac

            Indeed…. escapee from the Island of Misfit Toys – all he does is puke out the same tired old talking points and then insults you. Good Luck !

          • VendicarDecarian0

            “1.4F x (1 C/ 1,8F) = 0.7777777……C (I rounded before, sorry)” – Sirgareth

            Since there is only 1 decimal place of accuracy in the values on the left hand side of the equation, the same should be true of the computed value on the right hand side.

            So you round up from 0.777777’C to 0.8’C

            Other than that failure, you used your calculator correctly.

            I didn’t think you had the capacity. Good boy.

          • Clete Torres

            Medieval Warm Period was far, far warmer. Must have been all those medieval SUVs and flatulent bovine.

          • Story

            Over what period of time? Is this completely unprecedented in the history of the planet? If so, how did you accurately measure tenths of a degree from the historical record? How much is “natural” and how much is supposedly “man made” and what is the PROVABLE basis for this supposition? What is the correct temperature for the planet and are we above it or below it and how did you reach the conclusion of what you believe to be the correct temperature?
            I’ve seen many comments on this thread telling the skeptics to prove the negative…. that AGW isn’t happening when we all know it is impossible to prove a negative. Those who claim a postulate is true ALWAYS have the onus of proof. At this the true believers are failing miserably.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            If you really wanted answers to those questions you would have asked them 30 years ago and gotten them.

            You have had that long to learn the responses. You haven’t done so because you are willfully ignorant.

            Perhaps you should start educating yourself.

            Start here.

            http://www.realclimate.org/

          • left wing

            ignorance, lies, hate and BLIND DOGMA are all the zealot in the CULT has to offer

          • VendicarDecarian0
          • Malcolm Reynolds
          • VendicarDecarian0

            Ya, the author of the piece you link to, also believes that asbestos inhalation or smoking doesn’t cause cancer.

            Booker is mentally ill.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm
            argumentum ad hominen…. so of course, no matter what he’s wrong. Imbecile.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Wasn’t andrew breitbart – the origin of your faux news piece murdered by Obama 2 years ago?

            As to your second KookFart link..

            “NOAA quietly revises website after getting caught in global warming lie, admitting 1936 was hotter than 2012”

            Liar.. Liar.. Pants on fire…

            2014 0.65°C
            —————-

            1930 -0.28°C
            1931 0.00°C
            1932 0.20°C
            1933 -0.26°C
            1934 -0.25°C
            1935 -0.21°C
            1936 -0.19°C <—
            1937 -0.11°C
            1938 0.07°C
            1939 -0.03°C

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Mmm, nope. Basically, you’re unshakably going keep on believing because it’s your religion.
            NOAA’s been caught fudging data, NASA’s been caught fudging data, Eeast Anglia’s been caught fudging data and your supposed 97% consensus is even a dman lie. The bottom line is, you’re an imbecile….

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Actually, I’m an atheist.

            Having seen the spectra of CO2 and having an education in physics, I know that adding CO2 to the atmosphere must necessarily warm the earth’s surface.

            The fact that you can’t bring yourself to accept science and direct observation is your personal failure.

            You are one of what we call Koooooooooooks.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Actually, no you’re not.

            I know that adding CO2 to the atmosphere must necessarily warm the earth’s surface.

            You appear to be a low-info physicist because even climate warmist data shows CO2 rising usually follows atmospheric warming.

            The fact that you’re lying (you’re not a physicist) and can’t bring yourself to accept this as a scam if your personal failure.

            Do you even know how many of you kooks claim to be physicists online!? Remember, ‘kook’ is not a proper noun and you don’t capitalize it.

          • koolaid

            NOT just warming but proof that the warming if any was caused by man.

            Anecdotal evidence is garbage

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Can you prove that you are a man, my little dreaming butterfly?

          • left wing

            insane zealot in the CULT attacking the heretics that do not BELIEVE IT”S BLIND DOGMA

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Where Science = Blind dogma, in your view.

          • left wing

            the insane zealot in the CULT of global warming posting it’s BLIND DOGMA. science not allowed in the cult, only blind dogma and politics

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Now it posts complete incoherence along with it’s lack of capitalization and periods.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            You should probably STFU about that because yours ain’t all that and a bag of chips.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Poor Malcolm. His reading comprehension skills are very poor.

            Republicans are typically like that. I blame inadequate training as a youngster for his mental condition.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            His reading comprehension skills are very poor.
            Mmmm nope, but your punctuation and capitalization sure do suck. Remember, I posted examples correcting you, dolt.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Poor Malcolm. His reading comprehension skills are very poor.

            Republicans are typically like that. I blame inadequate training as a youngster for his mental condition.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            LOL! So far you’ve posted globull warmist fake data and called everyone else stupid for p&c mistakes while making MANY of them himself.
            You sure showed me!

          • VendicarDecarian0

            If you can prove fakery, then write a paper, get it published, and win yourself a Nobel Prize for overturning all of the science developed over the last 150 years.

            What is keeping you?

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Remember, I’ve posted several links. Your mental illness didn’t allow you to even read them.

            What is keeping you?

            Oh, nothing. Not a thing. I can go on with you for quite awhile. As a matter of fact, I think I may follow you so that I can harass you for the utterly idiotic things you say….

          • VendicarDecarian0

            And all of your links contradict the very statements you claim they support.

            You are quite nuts.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Nope.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            How would you know since they manipulate the data?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Poor Malcolm. He just can’t bring himself to understand that all science is data manipulation.

            He is a fool.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Ummm, no. All of science is not manipulating your data readings. You’re an idiot.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            At a minimum all experimental data is manipulated through calibration, and then via quality control.

            Not doing so is a violation of the fundamental rules of data collection and processing.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Of course you know that no one is talking about calibration and experimentation. Imbecile.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            It is all data manipulation.

            Awww.. You poor child.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Awww.. You poor child.
            Lmao, there you go again…. I think you were trying really hard for the sentence below, but you crapped your pants instead.
            Awww[, y]ou poor child.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Poor Malcolm, He hasn’t processed experimental data since he measured the width of his desk way back when he was in grade 5.

            That was a whole 6 months ago.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            HAHAHAHAHAHAH!
            https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/Hd3OBDmT82A

            Wow…. we have a guy using the name Scott Nudds (Scott Douglas)
            (Vendicar Decarian etc. etc. )
            The American that ran away to Canada, working as a janitor at a school in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

            Apparently he got arrested once or twice for threats to one of the
            Bush presidents of the U.S. and the Canadian R.C.M.P. police picked
            him up for their friends in U.S. security.

        • deniertribemember

          Still waiting for the ocean to flood us all and I’m sure when my kids are old and I’m dead people will still be waiting.

          • YuriTahrded

            And remember all those global warming chicken littles saying that our children would not know what snow looks like. Tell that to the people of Boston.

        • OTObamaTruther

          There is nothing more vile than “Cupcakes” from some “Denier Tribe”. Especially when they are, as you say, Heretical.

          How dare they dis your faith.

        • RIMSPOKE

          THERE ARE NO “DENIERS” BUT THERE ARE CUPCAKES ,
          JUST NOT IN TRIBES .

          EVERYONE KNOWS THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING .
          IT HAS ALWAYS CHANGED & ALWAYS WILL .

          THEY TRULY CRAZY PEOPLE ARE THE ONES
          WHO THINK THEY CAN STOP IT !

          WRITE BACK WHEN YOU CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT NORMAL CLIMATE ACTUALLY IS . THEN AT LEAST WE WILL HAVE A GOAL .

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            It is truly amazing when a simpleton suddenly thinks that all those smart educated scientists didn’t have a clue about the Earth’s dynamic climate systems and were totally oblivious to all the known physical phenomena that impact it and ignored them to determine what they currently glean from the evidence. Caps makes your puerility and vacuity worse. What does it feel like to be dumber than other people? And, on top of that, ignorant too?

          • sirgareth

            Science is driven by proof, not belief.

            I don’t listen to arguments that begin with” I’m smarter than you so trust me on this.”

            This is not part of real science but is the sum and substance of cultism.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Science is driven by proof, not belief

            those words are from a person who is clearly neither a scientist nor scientifically literate and purposely by choice rather ignorant about science. Proof is used for math, alcohol and courts of law but not science. Science explains all physical phenomena by theory which is the best knowledge humanity possesses. Theories can last for centuries before evidence and explanations confirm them (or alter or negate them) e.g. Bohrs atomic structure theory or Galileo’s heavier than air theory of flight for humans. AGW theory is nearly 200 years old and is confirmed by observations and evidence. There are no scientific arguments that counter or provide alternates. You reinforce your dumbness and stupidity referring to climate science as a cult.

          • sirgareth

            I am a retired electrical engineer. Engineering is science. By your reasoning I am more qualified than you to render judgement on true of false science.

            You are wrong about proof.

            scientific method: a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

            “Empirically” means based on experience (not theory) and “tested” means to verify or disprove.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Sorry cupcake but engineering is an art based on science. Here’s a challenge: use your search tool provided with your web browser software and substantiate your vacuity. Repetitively stating vacuity will not turn it into reality. Feel free to visit the many websites around the world where science is taught at tertiary level … you will not find what you write. Even your own poor definition of the scientific method disagrees with what you state.

          • sirgareth

            Got it,

            designing a the moon the rocket was just engineering, Newton did the physics, Maxwell did the electronics, and Lavoisier et al did the chemistry.

            But that was all in the 1700’s and 1800’s wasn’t it?

            But going out in the backyard and counting four leaf clovers every year is “real science” as long as you make a record of it. You can do a of of global warming theories based on four leaf clover populations cant you?

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            You love Newton so much but yet fail at honesty. Einstein’s relativity theory modified Newton’s gravitational theory and Einstein’s has subsequently been modified by modern physicists. Science is dynamic it doesn’t stand still but the advances don’t detract from what Newton the alchemist did nor what Einstein contributed. So which gravitational theory do you subscribe to? There are currently two competing theories that are about equally followed by scientists, so there is not a consensus in the fraternity. In fact, we know more about AGW theory than we do about gravitational and the consensus among all climate scientists is 100% as evidenced by there being no opposing nor competing theory.

          • sirgareth

            You have no idea of how real science works. I said Newton’s laws work for their intended purposes and do so every time. So do Einstein’s Special and General Theories of Relativity. Neither would hold that they had it all correct. Science does not offer truth. It offers utility. The truth may be sought but it is unobtainable because universal truth is beyond human intellect, coincidentally it is beyond even that of an orangutan.

            This means that gravitation, mass, quantum theory etc etc are pretty much bullshit; they are simply useful for the intended purposes

            Beyond enslavement, I have yet to detect a useful purpose for AGW theory.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            You have no idea of how real science works

            not even a retired electrical engineer would make the elementary mistake of referring to real science if somehow there was an unreal science. In essence you’re afraid that reality will bring change whether you deny it or not. So denialism is where you seek refuge, as is common, for the ignorant and/or uneducated according to psychiatrists and psychologists. You assuage your fears by grasping at straws of junk science readily offered to the ignorant, uneducated and gullible from the denier echo chamber. As a scientist and an engineer with advanced degrees in both it saddens me if you were indeed a college educated electrical engineer, I have my doubts.

          • sirgareth

            So is the science of phrenology

            a) Real

            b) Not real

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Pseudoscience like your climate science knowledge.

          • sirgareth

            Very well you now say phrenology was psuedo-science. I agree. But it wasnt’ always so was it?

            Do you have any idea of the process that transformed phrenology from peer-reviewed “settled science” into pseudo-science?

            Is wasn’t dis-proven in a “peer reviewed true-phrenology magazine”, it wasn’t dis-proven by “data adjustments” either.

            It was actually “dis-proven” by the Nuremberg War Crimes commission.

            ….And at Harvard, Yale and Princeton all the “scientific phrenology journals” were burned; only a few survived. This is how settled science becomes pseudo-science.

          • sirgareth

            Got it,

            designing a the moon the rocket was just engineering, Newton did the physics, Maxwell did the electronics, and Lavoisier et al did the chemistry.

            But that was all in the 1700’s and 1800’s wasn’t it?

            But going out in the backyard and counting four leaf clovers every year is “real science” as long as you make a record of it. You can do a of of global warming theories based on four leaf clover populations cant you?

          • deniertribemember

            Those same intellectually gifted climate scientists you speak of did an exceptional job with there climate models with near total failures of accuracy at all levels with predictions and what has verified to date. Even seasonal and monthly model output from the climate prediction center is grossly inaccurate at times and reverts to using probabilities which can never be truly measured for accuracy. Example of which was a blow torch warm November predicted for much of the US by NOAA and a very cold November is what verified.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            As usual your vacuity arises from confusion. Weather forecasting is done off meteorological models that provide great forecasting ask any person whose livelihood depends on them, like commercial airline pilots. Fifty years ago forecasting was nowhere near as precise as current so your words are hollow and show your disdain for science. Climate models are different and make no forecasting but simulate possible outcomes by projection. Want to know how accurate climate modelling has been even in its infancy when it was far less rigorous and even excluded some parameters … read doi:10.1038/nclimate1763?

          • deniertribemember

            OMG, you have no clue predicting the weather is much more than model warship and models are only a tool which is utilized in the overall forecast. Climate models are no different this shows your true ignorance, as all models are a simulation of a presumed outcomes. This really shows you are simply a blowhard with no facts to back up your gibberish. So projections of possible outcomes is not a forecast? If that is the case then the climate scientists need to use there vast knowledge to create climate models that can make correct simulations of possible outcomes by projection which so far have failed miserably.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            There are about 150 climate models around the world. All have unique identifiers and most are available to the public. Pick one and walk us through from inputs to outputs what you don’t agree with in that particular simulation. I’m guessing you wouldn’t know where to begin. Maybe you should have read up on the science citation I gave you. Climate models don’t predict weather.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            If you’re going to upset the applecart of climate science, you’re going to have to really really do your homework, because you’re up against some of the brightest people on the planet in this field of expertise. They know their shit, and demonstrate it regularly. If you suspect that they don’t know the physical phenomena that change the Earth’s dynamic climate then you’re dumber and more ignorant than most on here when it comes to climate science. To be near the bottom of the 30 percentile in our society who are pervasively ignorant about science is no mean feat and not something one wears as a badge of honor.

          • RIMSPOKE

            IF THEY ARE SO BRIGHT , WHY DO THRIR PREDICTIONS KEEP FAILING ?

            I GUESS YOU CAN BE BRIGHT & WRONG AT THE SAME TIME
            BUT YOU ARE STILL WRONG . CAN’T ARGUE WITH THE LACK OF RESULTS .

            I WILL SAY THAT BASING CLIMATE CHANGE ON ONE PPM INCREASE OF CO2 OVER A CENTURY AND 1/2 DOES NOT MAKE THEM LOOK ALL THAT BRIGHT EITHER SO I CAN’T PUT MUCH STOCK IN IT .

            WHEN THEY CAN’T ACCURATELY PREDICT THE WEATHER A WEEK FROM NOW , WHY DO YOU THINK THEY CAN OVER 20 , 50 AND A 100 YEARS ?

            THEIR FOLLOWERS , LIKE YOU , APPARENTLY ARE QUITE GULLIBLE .

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Please provide some science with citations otherwise you modern day flat Earthers are just that and here’s some science from the plethora of published articles that challenges your vacuity about CO₂: doi:10.1038/nature14240.

          • RIMSPOKE

            IT IS ACCEPTED THAT CO2 LEVELS HAVE RISEN FROM ABOUT 0.03% OF THE ATMOSPHERE TO 0.04% IN 150 YEARS .

            THE WAY THAT YOUR GUYS CALL THAT A 30% INCREASE WITHOUT FRAMING THE CONTENT SHOULD BE YOUR FIRST RED FLAG .
            WHEN THEY MEASURE OUTPUT OF CO2 IN TONS SHOULD BE YOUR SECOND .

            THESE ARE JUST SCARE TACTICS FOR WEAK MINDED PEOPLE WHO
            ARE WILLING TO LET OTHERS DO THEIR THINKING FOR THEM .
            THAT MAKES YOU THE SIMPLETON .

            TO SAY THAT THERE IS A 97% SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS AND THAT THE
            SCIENCE IS SETTLED ARE BOTH CONTRARY TO SCIENTIFIC METHOD .
            SCIENCE IS NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST AND IS NOT CLOSED MINDED .
            THAT MAKES YOU THE FLAT EARTHER .

            GO GATHER YOUR THOUGHTS , NOT SOMEONE ELSE’s

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            I gave you the means where to find what you’re looking for. As you’re neither a scientist nor scientifically literate and display virtually no grasp of the topic I gave you an excellent current science citation where you can find what effect CO₂ is having on warming the planet. What impediment to you now have that prevents you from finding the answers? Research will do you the world of good and hopefully lift you out of gross ignorance.

        • sirgareth

          If you come up with a cockeyed theory that the politicians will pay you to “prove” it will be proven provided you control the data, how it is collected, how it is manipulated, and how it is presented.

          These are the same clowns that said snowflakes “might” become a thing of the past. Theories that couch their predictions with modifiers like “could,” “maybe,” or “might” are utter nonsense to one disciplined in real science. However, Its good enough for the communists as long as it suite their agenda.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            So what exactly are you trying to say about the supposedly nefarious emails or are you being puerile for the sake of desperation? In essence you’re afraid that reality will bring change whether you deny it or not. So denialism is where you seek refuge, as is common, for the ignorant and/or uneducated according to psychiatrists and psychologists. You assuage your fears by grasping at straws of junk science readily offered to the ignorant, uneducated and gullible from the denier echo chamber.

          • sirgareth

            No desperation here. Belief and faith have no place in real science. Now tell me how your “belief in anything” or anyone else belief in anything qualifies as science.

            Why do you call me ignorant for challenging you? You have no idea of who I am so stick to the issues unless you cannot.

            You command me to believe; I choose not to? This is your “climate science?”

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Cupcake you have presented no challenge as that would require you to provide some science and all your posts are puerile, emotive and vacuous opinion. To paraphrase Mark Twain, “Never argue with a fool; readers may be not able to tell the difference.” So I’ll leave this dialogue since you simply don’t want to get informed as evidenced by you writing such a puerile and ignorant screed devoid of science and reality.

          • sirgareth

            Where is science worshiped?

            Ill take in a sermon or two and report back.

        • Fuldermox

          What about the polar bears? What ABOUT the polar bears!?

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Here’s one of the most current research with conclusions from published science about polar bears: doi.org/10.1890/14-1129.1. Read it, not only will it be interesting but will make you a tad better informed.

        • frank pikul

          here’s a challenge for you…why couldn’t they provide context for those emails and why is it that media had to take it upon themselves to speak for them? – they said everyone was taking them out of context yet couldn’t clear the air themselves. Even better, why did they need to be granted blanket immunity from any prosecution by the U.N. around Rio summit?

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Frank cupcake you may want to read up on a topic before you display your ignorance. Exactly which emails were not clear to you? Scientists didn’t have a problem with them. Several commissions and inquiries didn’t. So why are you purposely ignorant about them? Rio Summit if you checked history before babbling on was many years before the CRU email hack.

          • frank pikul

            no shit the summit predates the email leaks – i was making the point that it goes to show their character and what they had to resort to. The action speaks louder than words.
            And these “scientists” and “commissions” – do you want me to point out who they were, who they were alligned with, and who they get money from, cupcake? But I’m guessing you’ll prefer to stay blind to the bias and conflict of interest becasue the marketing and medai campaign are brighter and shinier than the sad facts

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Cupcake be my guest and explicate to your heart’s content … it will not change reality nor the evidence. Now let’s make this short by you providing verifiable substantiation in your follow up.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Cupcake be my guest and explicate to your heart’s content … it will not change reality nor the evidence. Now let’s make this short by you providing verifiable substantiation in your follow up.

          • Story
          • sirgareth

            They investigated themselves and said there was really nothing to it.

        • buyitcheap

          Guy, I hear you. But if there were to be an actual trial to establish that definitively, there was man made global warming occurring, it would at best be a hung jury. Why? because as long as you can demonstrate that the primary data sources are corrupted, invalid or otherwise tampered with, it negates every conclusion that follows. Now, if we want to switch topics and talk about stopping pollution and nasty stuff, I’m all for it, I love hyper efficient cars, solar homes, recycling, etc. but when you’re talking purely warming data, at best, the jury is out…

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            primary data sources are corrupted, invalid or otherwise tampered with

            repeating hearsay at best or vacuity at worst does not make what you state reality. Why don’t you substantiate your evidence-free statements? You have none, period. Data are always fiddled/manipulated with as it’s an essential part of the measurement process; what do you think calibration means in science? That’s science 101!

          • buyitcheap

            :-) Interesting that you would pick that and not whether it’s caused by man, but in the spirit of presenting you with an example:

            see the following charts:
            RAW data: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=431042500000&dt=1&ds=1

            compare with

            “adjusted” http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=431042500000&dt=1&ds=12

            Have a nice day

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Neither link has a date not annotation which is raw, etc. .. you’d have to provide more information. FYI: even raw data is already adjusted for instrument and other calibrations.

          • buyitcheap

            so now you’re saying we adjust the data rather than the instrument after taking measurements? Or calibrate it before? seriously? An you still haven’t said whether it was AGW. I really think at the end of the day, we bottomed out in a cold spell and we’re cyclically recovering somewhat… the primary difference is we were all here to notice…

            I would point you to exhibit 2 of the attached. Note the changes in slopes of the lines throughout almost every chart. The problem with this giant Jenga block argument that has been built up around AGW, once a few of the right blocks get pulled, it all falls…

            https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/temperature-adjustments-transform-arctic-climate-history/

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Full marks for ingenuity in your (unsuccessful) attempt to avoid the point I made in the post. Why can’t you explicate what your links were meant to illustrate? Is that the message you want to get across? Thank you for sharing that you glean your junk science from debunked denier sites.

          • buyitcheap

            YOu have literally offered nothing but your opinion. Not a single thing. Your data is disprovable, but because you have a pre-existing bias, you insult, denigrate and are generally obnoxious. And that is why you continue to fail to make the AGW argument. You’re like the religious that say “well it’s in the Bible…” not a single counter point offered. Sad.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Your data is (sic) disprovable

            I’d agree too as I didn’t present any. The original thread started with

            Phil Jones and Mike Mann refer to them as climate tricks

            neither you nor your fellow deniers have provided any evidence yet beyond hearsay which is b$llshit!

          • buyitcheap

            bottomline as long as the data is questionable, the whole theory is questionable, and certainly, the likelihood of it being man made becomes even harder to prove…and that my friend is also science 101.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            bottomline as long as the data is (sis) questionable, the whole theory is questionable

            you can state the data are questionable repeatedly but without evidence it is hearsay and bullsh!t! AGW theory is supported by multiple lines of evidence and here is a recent publication of the increase in back irradiation as a consequence of increasing CO₂ between 200o and 2010 from a plethora of peer-reviewed publications on the topic: DOI:10.1038/nature1424

          • buyitcheap

            So, we’ve gone from problems in the original data for which I’ve provided evidence, to correcting the data after the equipmet doesn’t “measure it right” to insults and BS So far, all the “methane” has been coming from you. I am happy to look at it.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            You’re extremely deluded if you believe that you presented a case for problems in the original data. I, on the other hand, have supported AGW theory with a current scientific publication that shows observed and measured empirical data supporting it. I don’t think you will find an insult in my post … why embellish?

        • CJHames

          You have to hand it to trolls like this clown. Despite proof that “Climate Change” has been a lie for years now, they keep on trying. Sadly, we all know there’s only one way to kill a vampire, and this appears to be the only way we will rid ourselves of them.
          Let the purge begin, I say .

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Oh cupcake it is evident who the clown is by your evidence free vacuity.

          • CJHames

            Google the evidence yourself, Liberace. Your “scientists” have been caught in a fraud over and over again. At every turn. And it’s not so bad that you’re dumb enough to believe them, it’s the fact that you’re obviously being paid to sit in your mama’s basement and troll around making false claims that makes you both a coward and a traitor. But sooner or later you WILL be dealt with. Trust me.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            So dumbo if it’s on teh internets it must be true in your ignorant world? Keep up sprouting stupidity from the denier echo chamber so everyone can see what vacuity looks like from denialism.

          • CJHames

            Who else wants to bet this mental midget immediately told another poster (in defense of his Climate Change insanity) to look up HIS facts on Google.

            Enough of the madness.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            There was no need to reinforce that you are undereducated and easily duped. That’s not something to be proud of yet you deniers revel in ignorance.

          • CJHames

            The Earth has been cooling for 18 consecutive years, and many scientists now say that we are in the midst of a nice little min ice age. Down here in TX we have appreciated the cooler summers the last few years.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Bull$hit. Why are you so easily duped?

        • Malcolm Reynolds
          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Deniers like to avoid science and always link to tabloids or other denier echo chamber junk information. I’m so very pleased that you know how to conform and display your obnoxious ignorance to the public.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            In other words, you’re an imbecile and nothing will convert you from your religion. LMAO, yea, it really helps when you automatically dismiss everything that indicates you’ve been duped.

            Warmists like to avoid science and always link to scaremonger echo chamber junk information (you know, it’s all been fabricated).

            The question is, since globull warming is obviously a religion, will you nutbags insist on completely separating it from the govt. Naahhh, of course not, then it’d dry up and die on the vine.

      • DP

        WHAT KIND OF CARS DO THEY DRIVE, HOUSES THEY LIVE IN,BOATS PLANE NO TRAINS..ONLY FOR U…MIDDLE CLASS SCHMUCKS……

        • VendicarDecarian0

          Poor DP. He couldn’t write an correct English sentence if he tried.

          How Republican of him.

          • Clete Torres

            Actually, he posts like a liberal.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Caps lock and incoherence? Naaaa…That has Republican all over it.

          • left wing

            your posts have insane dnc troll all over them

          • VendicarDecarian0

            No capitalization, and no period. That has Republican all over it.

          • malcom

            you’re as retarded as the rest of the traitorous left wing loons. go drink some acid and abort yourself.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            And still there is no capitalization, and no period.

            The stupidity has Republican written all over it.

          • Tariq_Toulhead_Al_Tabilcloth

            Your posts have Kool-Aid all over them.

            Insipient, lugubrious, bellicose Troll.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            You present yourself as an ignorant, Republican kook.

            I suspect that it is because you are an ignorant Republican kook.

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            I’ve lost track now. Have you made ANY substantive comment on here, or has it ALL been snarky, vituperative insults?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Your memory seems to be very short.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            So does your p3nis.

          • TSZodiac

            Ignore him Fan, he’s a Canadian Janitor – just google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” and you’ll get the gist….ignore him

          • TSZodiac

            Lacking any semblance of a coherent argument, Vendicar Decarian (aka Scotty Douglas the Canadian Janitor) YET AGAIN resorts to Ad Hominem attacks…..Google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” for info….

          • malcom

            Nice try scum bucket. Traitorous gay liberal democrat written all over you. Now please abort yourself!!!!

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            You don’t even realize how much of a Kook you are.

            Naaaa…That has Republican all over it.

            And yet, you capitalized ‘kook’ and ‘that’ while correcting someone else. That has Democrat imbecile written all over it.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Ya. I did… Kooooooook.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Ok, I’m a ‘Kook’ (There’s that bad capitalization you’re so fond of), but you’re a Republican. BUSH LOVER!!!

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Kooooooooook. was a sentence. Note the period after the word “did”.

            And the only good Bush is a shaved bush.

          • Iamnumber6

            Vendicar you are still around agitating? I guess as a democrat party paid troll at $ 0.05 per post it adds up.

          • Clete Torres

            Actually, he posts like a liberal.

          • left wing

            the insane member of the democratic party of hate, lies, graft, corruption and millionaires with it’s usual bigotry, “tolerance” and total lack of thought

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Oh look. Another whining Republican who can’t figure out that sentences start with Capitals, and end with periods.

            Morons.

          • D. Self

            You are a DNC POS. And your degree is in what? Research CNN exit polls and look at Education level. Majority of high school drop outs vote progressive and majority of college grads vote Conservative, you steaming POS!

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Children aren’t stupid, so when they see some low IQ illiterate like george Bush elected to the presidency they realize that education and intelligence isn’t required to be a great success.

            All you need to do is learn ho to lie like Congenital Liar – George Bush.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Oh look. Another whining Republican who can’t figure out that sentences start with Capitals, and end with periods.

            Oh look, another Democrat imbecile writing incomplete sentences with bad capitalization, whining about others.

            Guess what schmuck, your sh!t stinks too.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            it is a common thing among uneducated Republicans to fail to capitalize their sentences, or end them with periods.

            I’ve seen the fools post run on sentences that are several hundred words long and without any punctuation at all.

            Republicans are such scumbags and fools.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Apparently you’re a republican.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Please don’t insult me.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Apparently you’re a republican and voted for GW Bush 5 or 6 times.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            You mean “you are” a Republican.

            Your use of the contraction is wrong and you forgot to capitalize the word “Republican”.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Shhhh “you’re” is the English contraction of “you are” and, sorry poopy pants, I used it correctly.

            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/you're

            Good grief cretin, you sure are going out of your way to be stupid, aren’t you?

            Remember, we’re (<— Ohhhhh ohhhhh) talking about how much smarter you are than everyone else. You don't seem to be living up to your hype. You must be a Republican.

          • Eclectic Art

            An correct English sentence?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            What the hell are you talking about?

          • Eclectic Art

            “He couldn’t write an correct English sentence if he tried.” Your words, dummy.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            They aren’t my words, KookFart.

          • Eclectic Art

            Cut and pasted from your post – “Poor DP. He couldn’t write an correct English sentence if he tried.
            How Republican of him.”

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Cut and pasted from your fantasy home planet no doubt.

          • Eclectic Art

            Why are the stupidest people the first one’s to correct the mistakes of others? You are an idiot.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            You don’t even realize how much of a Kook you are.

            Pathetic.

          • Eclectic Art

            Don’t you feel like a total schmuck? You should.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Please don’t hate me because I am vastly smarter than you are.

          • Eclectic Art

            Believe me, it’s enough for me that (even after you edited your ignorance like a sniveling coward) I know you are a moron and a fraud, that YOU know that you are a moron and a fraud, and that YOU know that I know that you are a moron and a fraud. And nothing you can say will ever alter that. You are officially a literal loser.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            You have publicly humiliated yourself.

            That is why you are angry and pathetic.

          • Sven

            Spoken like a good democrat, never let those pesky facts get in your way.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            What facts are you frothing about, Kook?

          • Sven

            “I never said that” ….two lines up…. you can read exactly what was written.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Poor DP. He couldn’t write a correct English sentence if he tried.

            How Republican of him.

          • Sven

            Typical of democrats…lie lie lie, conceal the truth, then lie some more. As other have mention, you had to change your mistake. Cover it up, then lie some more about it. Face it you are a liar and a cheat, a typical democrat.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Poor DP. He couldn’t write a correct English sentence if he tried. How Republican of him.

            Do you really want to continue going there? I think you meant this:

            Poor DP[, h]e couldn’t…

            You’re probably George W Bush himself, you make so many damned mistakes while correcting everyone else and telling them they’re stupid.

          • TSZodiac

            Google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” – you’ll see who you’re dealing with…..

          • Tariq_Toulhead_Al_Tabilcloth

            And he had to go fix it. too bad he didn’t catch “cleaver” earlier…. hahahahahaha

          • Eclectic Art

            lol

          • VendicarDecarian0

            You seem quite confused.

          • Joseph

            And democrats are so smart they can control the weather. Next time a Katrina shows up we will send all the democrats in DC down there and make it go away.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Joseph is so stupid that even after 130 years has passed since science first calculated the effects of CO2 on climate, he still can’t figure how how man can influence the weather.

            Joseph suffers from a mental illness called willful ignorance.

          • TSZodiac

            Lacking a coherent position, Vendicar (aka Scotty Douglas the Canadian Janitor) resorts YET AGAIN to ad hominem attacks…..google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL”

          • TSZodiac

            Google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” – he’s not the worth the time

          • WonderBoy2

            Vendicar – Kinda like that DemonRat thing you like to do.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Are you capable of writing a coherent English sentence?

            Most Republicans aren’t, and you haven’t done so.

            Please try again.

          • WonderBoy2

            I been listening to the DemonRats and I come up with the same point of view, they are not capable of anything just like you. When DemonRats run out of viewpoints, they turn to degrading to get their point across but they and you already lost the discussion. BTW, like with DemonRats you are also a P O S .

          • VendicarDecarian0

            “I been listening to the DemonRats and I come up with the same point of view, they are not capable of anything just like you.” – VunderBoy2

            Is that supposed to mean something?

          • WonderBoy2

            Ditto again Gruber.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            “When DemonRats run out of viewpoints, they turn to degrading” – VunderBoy2

            Is that supposed to mean something?

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            You’re going to want to go view your list of off topic screeds criticizing people for their punctuation and spelling (while making more of them yourself) to figure out what that means….

          • WonderBoy2

            Means your a dumb ***.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            “BTW, like with DemonRats you are also a P O S .” – VunderBoy2

            So you have produced a content free post containing one insult coming from your feelings of inferiority.

            Pathetic.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            So you have produced a content free post containing one insult coming from your feelings of inferiority. Pathetic.
            Coincidentally, that matches your list of postings to a Tee.

          • WonderBoy2

            So why are you replying to it? back-off DemonRat and Gruber.

          • WonderBoy2

            Ditto to you also POS.

          • DP

            must be excitin in yo mama’s basement…found yo many uncles husslers…

          • DP

            do they call u nipple boy or my little lesbo…pj boy

      • buyitcheap

        Ah, friend, “tricks” would imply an attempt at wrongdoing… In our warmingspeak world, a trick is actually an adjustment to “get the trend right.”

        • sirgareth

          Its very hard work making data conform to theory, it can consume a lifetime in “science.”

          • Oregonian1

            And a lot of government grant money!

          • Down Lowbama

            It’s a reward, not a right. Better make sure your science is, um, “correct”.

          • bobdog19006

            And if it ain’t “correct”, adjust it to fit.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Sounds like Republican borrow and spend Economics.

          • ProjectThor

            If it looks like a troll…smells like a troll…and talks like a troll…it just might be a government employee…

          • VendicarDecarian0

            if it smells like a troll then it is most definitely an uneducated faux news watcher.

            You may now go back to your scheduled dinosaur denialsm.

          • Schrodinger’s Cat

            Noted.

            You’re too stupid and uneducated to have heard of UCLA’s research on media bias and accuracy let alone actually read it.

            BTW…..you live in the waning years of the Holocene interglacial dummy.

            Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…………..

          • SkyHunter

            The Holocene is over. Welcome to the Anthropocene.

            https://vimeo.com/39048998

          • Jaybird

            You’re obviously too enamoured with those pretty girls to have an understanding of the scientific method. There is no scientific method without “deniers”. Didn’t you know that it was scientific consensus that heavier-than-air flight by humans is impossible? Just saying…check your history.Then submit your data for peer review.

          • TSZodiac

            Lacking a coherent argument, Vendicar (aka Scotty Douglas the Canadian Janitor) YET AGAIN resorts to ad hominem attacks – google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” for the info…

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            https://www.google.com/#q=++VendicarDecarian+troll
            So, you watch Fox News and vote republican by your own standards?

          • RNGH

            Yep! Just another Baaaaa.

          • TSZodiac

            Just Google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” and you’ll get the truth…and Thank You for your service Thor!!

          • BlahBurt

            you sound like a homosexual who blames others because you chose to lick fece covered peenus and got AIDS

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Borrow and spending Republicans have bankrupted America.

          • Jaybird

            In the borrow-and-spend department, the Republicans are most definitely in distant second place. I agree that they’re also at fault, though. Until the populace votes in 60% fiscal conservatives, it will continue happening.

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            Good comment and observation. Unfortunately, the Republican party is not composed of 100% fiscal conservatives. John McCain has been in office for 30+ years, and although a true war hero, not much has changed during that time.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            WTF are you talking about? Obama ALONE has put more debt on the books than all other presidents combined. Try not to be a complete imbecile, janitor Scott.

            https://www.google.com/#q=++VendicarDecarian+troll

          • Frdm Rkt

            Actually Republican Capitalist Economics are the reason we have a country and a working economy. Democrat Socialist Economics are the reason we are still in a recession in this country and that France, England and Germany economies are sliding down a rat hole. Try to keep up Binky

          • John S

            The biggest reason why we have recessions and depressions is because of the unscrupulous activities of the Federal Reserve, which is, by the way, highly supported by both parties. As for France, England, and Germany, they, like the U.S., are under the control of central banking institutions which create money (debt) out of thin air and pass it off as something that has intrinsic value. This system has been tried repeatedly throughout history and on every single occasion, it has failed miserably.

            This is the reason why we have seen our economy get worse and worse over the years regardless of which party is holding power.

          • TTAS

            Obama’s budget!

          • Ordinary American 2014

            The majority of people pushing Global Warming are political science majors, not honest scientists.

            Another example of Liberals and Leftists NOT believing in scientific reasoning is the
            Global Warming Hoax.

            Even a kid in 7th grade who has to memorize the steps in proving a scientific theory can
            understand that the Global Hoaxters have skipped the steps in proving anything.

            You see: We don’t all have to be scientific geniuses to understand the flaws in Global
            Warming theory. All we have to do is get a “B” in 7th Grade Science Class.

            All we need is a good education to understand how much America has been conned.

            So we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a worthless unproven theory that
            has more real evidence against it than for it.

            Global Warming has never been proven.

            While reading the following, keep in mind that Al Gore’s prediction more than 8 years
            ago that the World would burn up within 10 years of his prediction has proven
            that his prediction was incorrect.

            The ability to make accurate predictions hinges on the seven steps of the Scientific
            Method.

            The Global Warming Hoaxters have not completed the seven steps of the Scientific Method.

            Even an art major can figure that out. Even a 7th Grade kid can figure that out.

            Step 1. Make observations.

            Step 2. Form a hypothesis.

            (It should be testable and potentially falsifiable. In other words, there should be a
            way to show the hypothesis is false; a way to disprove the hypothesis.)

            Step 3. Make a prediction.

            Step 4. Perform an experiment.

            Step 5. Analyze the results of the experiment.

            Step 6. Draw a conclusion.

            Step 7. Report your results.

            https://www.colby.edu/biology/BI17x/expt_method.html

          • Tamra

            “Step 4. Perform an experiment.”

            What “experiment” would you have them perform?

            “…unproven theory…”

            Do you know of any “proven” theories?

            “…Al Gore’s prediction…”

            Seriously, why are you so concerned with what Al Gore says?

            “…pushing Global Warming…”‘

            How do you “push” AGW?

            “…accurate predictions…”

            What is an “accurate” prediction?

          • ReallyReally

            Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his part of explaining how bad Global Warming, er…Climate Change…um, sorry…Climate Disruption….oh hell, Climate Chaos is.

            Ever wonder why the elites that can afford to pay more for things have to increase their carbon footprint flying all over the world by more than most of us use in a year just so they can tell us peons the sky is falling?

          • Tamra

            no…and I don’t care; doesn’t have anything to do with what I wrote anyway

          • ReallyReally

            Tamra wrote: Seriously, why are you so concerned with what Al Gore says?

            Because he won a Nobel Peace Prize for his part in promoting the notion of Climate Change, that’s why people should care.

            You should care because those that are telling you you should care about Climate Change are the biggest contributors to Climate Change.

          • Tamra

            Well, I don’t care. He’s neither a scientist nor an expert related to the matter of global warming and climate change.

          • ReallyReally

            Okay, Tamra, here’s another reason care.

            Simply put, the people and organizations that have promoted the notion of global warming/climate change/climate disruption or whatever they want to call it, have the money to pay more for things. The more the energy companies have to pay for their carbon footprint, the more all of us have to pay for EVERYTHING. Do not think for a moment that those ‘big bad oil companies’ are not passing any increases they have to pay to the government on to us, the consumers. The consumers of the ‘big bad oil companies’ are also the ‘big bad corporations’ who will also pass on any costs of doing business on to us little guys, by, of course, raising the price of goods.

            So, the elites at the top, the Al Gores of the world, might have to pay more, but they don’t care, they can afford it…meanwhile, the rest of us are paying more and we can’t afford it. The rich are getting richer and the poor (and not so rich…middle class, if you will) are getting poorer. Eventually, there will be only the upper crust elites and the very poor. That is the way they want it, because behind their public image of, “I just want to save the planet” their real agenda is to create a world where their kind doesn’t have to look at the likes of our kind…not on the road, in airplanes, in restaurants, etc etc They do not believe we are as good as they are in anyway and they won’t stop until we are all poor and living off the scraps they decide to throw our way.

            If they really did care, they would be trying to minimize their impact on this planet instead of flying around in private jets and heating pools that use more energy in a week than many of us use in a year.

          • Tamra

            I still don’t listen to Al Gore or oil company shills. I get my information from scientific sources – skeptical ones as well.

          • ReallyReally

            Nick, aka Tamra…it’s good to hear that you don’t just get your information from one source, but do you realize how many people do? And when a former VP of the United States wins a Nobel Peace Prize for his part in telling the rest of us that the sky is falling, a lot of ill-informed people listen and believe it must be true because it has come from Not a Scientist Al Gore.

            For any “scientist” to come out now and state that Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, or whatever the nom-de-jour is today–to claim it is settled science cannot be much of a scientist, because science is about theories and theories are never just that, theories. Perhaps they keep changing the name of it because, when, for that brief period of the earth’s life that the climate got warmer, they could say that Global Warming was settled science, because the climate was warmer than it had been during the brief time of the earth’s life there were records of temperatures.

            And, again, Climate Change is settled science, because the climate has always changed and always will. The new term, Climate disruption, they stopped using…I wonder why–is it because they would have to define how and who is disrupting it and stand behind their questionable assertion that it’s settled science. Just my two cents…

          • Nick

            OK, so the two words “settled science” from a non-scientist has you all bent out of shape.
            Got it.

          • Ordinary American 2014

            If you ask the average global warming Nazi on the street what the difference is
            between Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide, they probably can’t even tell you.

            We have been hearing repeatedly that we all must stop driving cars, which
            produce Carbon Monoxide, in order to reduce Carbon Dioxide.

            The Fraudsters at the top of the Money Chain probably know the difference, but
            their willingly ignorant followers on the ground think that CO = CO2.

            What else do the gruberites believe?

            They believe that CO2 is just like water pollution, soil contamination, and
            litter thrown on the street.

            It has never been proven that CO2 causes the Earth to get warmer.

            It has never been proven that all the money in the world would ever make a dent
            in the amount of CO2 that exists in the environment.

            The only thing that has been proven is that there are a lot of greedy people
            tricking a lot of stupid people into giving the greedy people a lot of money to
            solve a problem that does not exist.

            In fact, one of options the fraudsters had going was “indulgences”.

            You see: They never actually planned on reducing the CO2.

            They planned on charging industries billions of dollars for the privilege of
            producing more CO2 or other air pollutants FOR A FEE!

            So: As long as the industry or company keeps paying the government MORE
            MONEY, they could keep operating, regardless of the CO2.

            Wasn’t that brilliant?

            And the government would have lots of cash to keep wasting on the fake
            “scientists” who should be washing dishes in the restaurant, instead
            of making up stories and stealing our money.

          • Chas

            Ordinary American 2014: I’m not a believer in Global Warming, but I want to provide some information regarding CO and CO2. Once CO is produced by internal combustion, much of it is converted to CO2 through catalytic conversion. The remaining CO can exist for a while but will eventually go through a chemical process and become CO2. However, a huge amount of CO2 is released in the atmosphere from deacying materials. All that being said, the “scientists” who claim Global Warming exists are not doing real science. They are creating models, fabricating data, and ridiculing and real scientist who questions what they are doing. Real science demands questioning and evidence…no science is ever settled.

          • Joseph D’Agostino

            Although I agree with you, scientists have been able to measure the amount of C02 produce by man from the radioactive isotopes of the CO2.

            I find the best joke is that 99% of the models are currently WRONG. That’s consensus.

          • CB

            “scientists have been able to measure the amount of C02 produce by man from the radioactive isotopes of the CO2.”

            That’s absolutely true! Humans have increased the amount of CO₂ in the air from 290PPM before the industrial revolution to 400PPM today.

            Because of our activity, it continues to rise every year:

            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full

            If it’s so likely that polar ice caps will be able to withstand CO₂ as high as we’ve pushed it, why isn’t there a single example of them doing so in Earth’s history?

          • Bretfox

            I don’t want them touching my dishes. How about letting them take out the garbage.

          • CB

            I’m sure you would have scientists doing manual labour instead of doing research!

            …because you don’t actually care about what’s true.

            How many high temperature records were broken, worldwide, during the same period?

            Why didn’t Climate Depot report on that?

            If you know your sources of information are misleading you about threats to your well-being, why would you continue to rely on them?

            Are you suicidal?

          • ChasMoDee

            Pretty chart, but give me a reference to the source data. The data is being manipulated. Since you posted the chart, are you able to explain what a Joule is? Some of us already know. Better go to Wikipedia to find out.

          • CB

            “Pretty chart, but give me a reference to the source data.”

            It says quite clearly on the image where the data come from, but since your google fingers seem to be broken:

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT

          • Guest

            ►►get $69 /hr@aa9:

            Going Here you

            Can Find Out,,,

            ►►►► >https://NetsGreenJob12.com/get0/position

          • David Clark

            CB, They didn’t include the record high temps because they’re pointless. The “warmest year on record” was
            . 02 degrees higher than previously recorded temp. The margin error of data collection for ground temp readings is +/-. 01. A fraction of temperature change over 20 years. REALLY!?! Now look at the data on this chart….. Maybe the data we should be looking at is the connection between world economic decline and the “Global warming” hype. The powers that be are simply pushing for a global tax on industrial plant emissions. Which would be enforced by the UN under pain of economic sanctions

          • LibertyBill_1776

            Huh! Is the guy that thought up the “Carbon Credit” scheme named Johann Tetzel?

          • bb

            2 C8H18 + 25 O2 → 16 CO2 + 18 H2O

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            Your formula balances, and describes the complete combustion of Octane, a hydrocarbon alkane.

          • Atilla Thehun

            And that’s the funny thing. Sometimes the data don’t allow you to back into your convenient hypothesis

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            “it can consume a lifetime in “science.”

            Not to mention over $2.5 BILLION of hard earned tax revenue to fund it every year.

          • tedlv

            And they complain when oil companies give some money to a “denier” scientist.

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            Zactly!

          • SkyHunter

            Would you prefer all scientific research not be government funded, or just research you find politically distasteful?

          • MarineSarge

            If it’s that worthwhile to humanity at large, private funds should be used Skippy. But it’s all conjecture, lies, obfuscation, and government money, i.e. taxpayer dollars,that flow by the billions into research with very little, if any, return on the investment. The money just disappears, ala Solyndra and a hundred other boondoggles. The government doesn’t expect results.
            Case in point, the State Department and a dozen other government agencies have studied the Keystone Pipeline for over 6 years now and have confirmed it will not harm the air or water or ground, that it will create thousands of jobs, yet the Head Liar In Chief keeps knocking it down saying it hasn’t been studied adequately. Really? 6 1/2 years isn’t enough when all agencies agree it wouldn’t be harmful?
            It’s a money game, pure and simple, and it’s Obama’s people getting rich off of it.

          • SkyHunter

            You expect people to believe your specious narrative over reality?

            Are you not aware that the sources for your narrative are lying to you for economic reasons, IE., to make money.

          • TexasTeaFinder

            There are (literally) hundreds of thousands of miles of pipelines in this country, and even more running under the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, that carry, crude, NG, and all kinds of products that could harm the environment – one more pipeline is not going to make a difference. It is a political issue, nothing more.

          • SkyHunter

            This pipeline crosses international borders and must be approved by the State department, not the clown show that passes for the US Congress.

          • GrizzMann

            Already passed by Congress. Aborted by Dr. Obama.

          • SkyHunter

            And why is Congress meddling in affairs of State when they can’t even do simple things like fund Homeland security?

          • GrizzMann

            Already funded. They just do not want Homeland to abet Obama’s Amnesty.

          • SkyHunter

            For a week. If they don’t want Obama’s amnesty… they can fund a bill for $54 billion to deport 11 million people, or pass an immigration bill of any type.

          • GrizzMann

            Obama would abort that too. You do admit Homeland is funded, won’t you?

          • ManOnPoint

            As a former USBP Agent with friends still working, unfortunately it is closer to 20 million illegals and counting…

          • dkn1234

            It’s been on the table……

          • Rascal69

            The word ironic would be especially well placed were you to lose your job to an illegal immigrant. Those that have, don’t think much of this policy to reward illegal activity.

          • SkyHunter

            If an illegal immigrant could do my job, she would be very highly skilled and talented. Would probably have no problem getting citizenship.

          • Ordinary American 2014

            Hardly any of the illegal immigrants are as well-educated as you claim to be yourself.

            I have spoken to a lot of immigrants. I have met a lot of them.

            I did an extensive study in linguistics comparing the speech patterns of Latinos from 12 different regions of Latin America.

            I have met a lot of these people.

            The best educated and successful and honest stay home in their own countries.

            Those lease able to survive travel to the United States.

            Almost all illegals that I have met entered the United States with about one year of education, before they had to go back home and help the family make a living.

            I visited one school in near the west coast of Mexico, which was typical. The kids went to school either in the morning or in the afternoon. This means that they are in school 1/2 the time that American children are in school.

            They have no special skills. Many cannot read or write in their native language. Most cannot speak English with even a 6th-grade equivalency.

            The U.S. standard for education is a 12-year high school diploma or GED.

            The standard in Mexico is a 9-year diploma. Some go to high school and to a university or trade school, but the best educated stay home.

          • SkyHunter

            Which was exactly my point. The jobs they compete for are low wage jobs most Americans would be loathe to do.

            If we deport 11,000,0000 people, who is going to clean our houses, wash our cars, and pick are vegetables?

          • Ordinary American 2014

            I don’t have a good answer for that, but I think some of those young people watching TV all day long and all night long might need a job.

            I don’t think we have to deport 11 million people.

            I think we have to turn off the immigration waterfall and get first get control over who is entering the country.

            Some of those 11 million need to go back with their entire family. In fact, we could PAY THEM to go back, giving them enough cash to live for several months while they get themselves together in their native country.

            We can absorb a lot of new people coming into the country, but we can’t take them all at once, and we need to filter out those who are destructive to the country and its people.

          • planet8788

            Maybe some of the other 90 million that left the workforce?

          • numag

            Oh right, those things never got done BEFORE illegals arrived here. I must have forgotten.

          • Oscarphone

            Ever been to McDonald’s or any other fast food place. Lot’s of Spanish spoken there. Ever hired a painter or taper? Lots of Spanish spoken there. Ever buillt a house? Guess who the framers are now. Who does your yard? These are just a few examples beyond the liberal bumper sticker you quote. Are these jobs that Americans just won’t do? Minimum wage laws and illegal immegrant labor take from teens and those who need to enter the labor force and start their working careers AND disportionately blacks. How about we just adopt the immegration policies of Mexico. That would be fair wouldn’t it?

          • SkyHunter

            I am an organic vegan. I have not been to a fast food restaurant in decades.

            The average age of a minimum wage worker is 35.

            Being Latino doesn’t make a person illegal.

          • Oscarphone

            organic vegan”!? Ha! Ha! Ha! If you aren’t just a poster child for mind numbing liberalism! Ha! Ha! Ha! Do you live in Portland or Seattle? Clearly you are out of touch. That’s average dumbo. Eighty eight percent are younger than 20. Like I said, entering the workforce.

          • SkyHunter

            You are delusional. Or your choice of media personalities are lying to you. Perhaps both.

            According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2013 only 24.2% of all workers who were paid a minimum wage or less were 16 – 19. those 16 – 24 represented 50.4%, the other 49.6% were 25 or older.

          • Oscarphone

            You mean that same BLS that doesn’t count people who have stopped looking for work as unemployed? That BLS? The BLS that counts part time work as full employment? That BLS? Who’s delusional now? How about some stats that aren’t two years old?

            Seriously, do you live in Portland or Seattle?

          • SkyHunter

            I think it is obvious who is delusional here.

            I cite the government agency that is responsible for collecting labor statistics, while you pull numbers from your nether regions.

          • Oscarphone

            Why don’t you look up how they count unemployment figures there organ vegan? If you do read the periodicals that care about stuff like that, you’d know that they didn’t come from
            “nether regions”. Any government angency is far more likely to Nether Region stats to make things look nice to keep the money rolling. Telling your bugeteersYour blind trust in

          • BrightMind

            So is there a median or a mean associated with any of these statistics you quote, and wold you understand of there was?

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            He was describing Portland and Seattle.

            You are copying and pasting BLS statistics that appear to describe all workers.

          • SkyHunter

            No he wasn’t, he was asking me if I was from either of those cities.

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            Regardless, “Oscarphone” was speaking from his perspective (Portland, Seattle) and implying employment in that area. He was likely to be using hyperbole, anyway.

            Do not be blinded. The BLS figures citing working for minimum wage or less are 25 or older, is not a good economic sign.

          • BrightMind

            Oakland

          • DP

            john mccain couldn’t figure that out…who would clean cindy’s pool….she needs a pool boy …

          • douginjax

            Americans are not loathe to work, they are loathe to work for less than the job is worth. By importing cheap desperate labor, you have prevented wages for those jobs from going up. A roof has to be shingled, it’s hard work. Their is a price point at which I would gladly give up my 6-fig job and roof, other Americans would jump at it at a lower price point, but instead, you’ve cut out wage competition. Then you bitch that wages aren’t going up.

          • SkyHunter

            I didn’t import cheap labor, but I agree that the minimum wage should be a living wage, IE, it should be enough for a full time worker to be above the poverty line.

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            Agreed, except that entry-level jobs (newspaper delivery, fast-food preparation) were never meant to be careers.

            There has not been a recovery (13 million jobs recovered and 1-2 million new, lower quality jobs created). Keynesian economics is a failure for all practical purposes.

            The $6 trillion added to the publicly-held portion of the national debt could have directly employed 10 million people at $50K per year for two years, for perspective.

          • douginjax

            all you will do is get rid of entry level jobs. Many jobs simply aren’t worth what it costs to sustain a family of four in a house with two cars. So your proposal is to get rid of all jobs for entry level workers. That sucks for the poor. And yes you did import cheap labor.

          • SkyHunter

            I didn’t say raise the minimum wage to support a family of four with a house and two cars. But it should at least be above the poverty line.

            Raising the minimum wage increases demand for goods and services since poor people spend most of their money as soon as they get it.

          • douginjax

            Would you pay someone $5 to bag your groceries, most won’t. So you don’t magically create great jobs via mandate, you just mandate people out of jobs.

          • SkyHunter

            Whole Foods employees start at $10.00hr, and they will bag my groceries if I let them.

          • douginjax

            Whole Foods, how did I know? Any how, no one can buy a house, buy cars, raise kids, etc. for $10 an hour. Why don’t you pay them more? No one is stopping you. Seriously, pull out you wallet and give those employees enough to get them up to $35 an hour. That might get them out a decent lifestyle. Hell, I’ll quit my stressful job, and I’ll bag groceries and stock shelves 80 hours a week. No wait, I’d rather sell icecream or sit in a library for some of that 80 hrs.

            Have you ever wondered why your ideas failed in the USSR, Cuba, and now Venezuala?

          • SkyHunter

            That is $22,400 a year working full time. It is enough for one person to live on, but not much more. A living wage depends on the area but for a family of 4, 2 adults working, a living wage is $15 -$20 hour.

          • douginjax

            I lived on less than $5000 a year, without taking any assistance, but I think you are heartless. If you are going to mandate a minimum, why so low? If doubling or tripling the minimum wage is good for everyone and increases the GDP, aithout costing jobs, why not make the minimum wage $30, $40, or $50 per hour? I think I must cafe more than you do.

          • SkyHunter

            It is the law of diminishing returns. Raising the minimum wage in phases to a living wage and pegging it to the cost of living makes sense. You phase it in so that it is not disruptive. Raising higher is arbitrary and returns no added benefit.

          • douginjax

            Sky, here’s another way to look at it. Instead of mandating minimum wages, why don’t you mandate maximum prices on the things that you think people need? Do you understand the economic result of that? There is no difference. Studies to the contrary are garbage in garbage out, we have real world examples of what really happens. Hopey, wishful thinking might make you feel like a better person, but real people suffer real pain because of it.

          • SkyHunter

            There is a huge difference between minimum wages and maximum prices. There is no one to one relationship.

          • douginjax

            Same exact thing. How can you not see that? Why won’t I pay Jimmy $500 to mow my lawn? The same reason that if you tell Jimmy he can only charge $5 per yard, he won’t mow my lawn. You live in an imaginary world where workers, employers, and customers have no price sensitivity and there are no unintended consequences to your interfering with their free will and cost benefit decisions.

          • SkyHunter

            History shows that raising the minimum wage has a negligible effect employment. While history shows that putting a cap on prices has a negative effect on supply.

            The two are not the same.

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            In this economy, my children are actually doing that, and I may need to, myself (See TakeOurJobs.org). Good STEM jobs are disappearing.

          • DP

            tired, poor, wretched, they would come and start a free from tyrants life… now they come for the free stuff and the tyrant to keep them from starting a life..

          • numag

            The job of making a fool of yourself pays that well? Who would have thought.

          • ProjectThor

            LOL… you mean you actually have a job? I mean, other than OFA-Hole work? Your rebuttal ought to be funny… I haven’t had to work since i retired at 37…

          • BrightMind

            Do you do special back rubs? Or special handyman work?

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            $54 billion was just one month’s recent Quantitative Easing (creating money from thin air) at the Federal Reserve.

          • SkyHunter

            If the Republicans hadn’t blew up the budget and broken the economy, or if they would have cooperated with the administration in fixing it, The Fed would not need to keep stimulating the economy.

            Raising the minimum wage would go a long way toward stimulating the economy and increasing revenues.

          • Ordinary American 2014

            The debt went from $10 Trillion in 2008 to $18 Trillion under Obama in 2015 with 2 more years to go.

            From 2009 to 2011, for two years, the democrats ran a complete dictatorship. They owned it all.

            From 2011 through 2014, Obama continued running a dictatorship with the help of the Democrat Senate.

            Don’t go blaming Republicans for raising the debt 80% in 6 years.

          • SkyHunter

            The structural deficit was over $1 trillion, the economy was shedding 700,000 jobs a month, and the GOP has been actively sabotaging the President and the economy for six years. In spite of all that, the deficit is halved, and the economy is sound. After two years of the GOP clown show in Congress, Hillary will have a Democrat Congress and the threat of GOP devolution will be apprehended.

          • Ordinary American 2014

            You are such an amateur.

            Bush was President during very good economic times until 2008.

            In the fall of 2008, the American economy was degrading.

            And then Obama pushed it off the cliff.

            Obama’s election actually accelerated the deterioration of the American economy.

            The economy was shaky in the fall of 2008, and then Obama killed it in less than 10
            weeks while the Coronation Ceremony was being prepared and the deals were being
            made.

            OBAMA PROMISED to destroy everything in America that creates jobs and economic prosperity
            for everyone.

            The “economic fire” was burning in late 2008, and then Obama’s election threw
            gasoline on the fire.

            .

            I spent a little time studying a chart on unemployment put out by the U.S. Department of
            Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics.

            http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3

            .

            There is evidence that THE ELECTION OF BARACK OBAMA is what caused most of the damage
            that we saw upon Obama’s Coronation.

            The following are some of my observations:

            .

            Unemployment was low 2000 through 2001, the beginning of the George W. Bush Administration,
            which is about as far as Clinton could be given any credit or blame.

            .

            From January 2002 through October 2008, unemployment was always somewhere between
            4.4 and 6.5.

            .

            The rise in unemployment did not accelerate quickly until October 2008, just in time for a slick inexperienced know-nothing
            to lie his way into the Executive Office.

            After Obama won the 2008 election, it was about 10 weeks before he would actually
            assume office.

            .

            TEN WEEKS IS A LOT OF TIME TO SELL YOUR STOCK AND START SHUTTING DOWN YOUR
            BUSINESS BEFORE A COMMUNIST PRESIDENT BANKRUPTS YOU.

            In the interim period before the Coronation, unemployment jumped to 7.8% and then
            continued rising to 10% in October 2009, after the unimpeded Democrat
            one-party-rule government did almost everything they had wanted to do in
            Washington D.C.

            .

            There are many economic factors involved in rising unemployment, but it is true that
            between the November 2008 election and October 2009 after Obama was President 9
            months, unemployment went UP 3.5%, or almost 23% since before the November
            2008.

            .

            The Obama Administration has blamed Bush, banks, rich people, small businesses with
            receipts of $200,000, speculators, Congress, Wall Street, Japanese and Indonesian tsunamis, ATM’s, and bad luck – for our highest unemployment in many years and our longest recession since the 1930’s.

            .

            Obama’s supporters blame anyone who does not fit the radical social-engineering agenda.

            .

            I believe that employers, investors, and ordinary people believed Obama when he PROMISED
            in 2008 that he was going to make all those dirty-rotten investors,
            corporations and small businesses PAY for all that evil that OBAMA-supporters
            claim.

            .

            That was probably the last time anyone outside of the liberal bubble believed Obama.

            .

            Obama PROMISED America in 2008 that investors, corporations, and small businesses
            would no longer be welcomed or appreciated by a new Obama Administration or in
            America in general.

            .

            (Sort of like when Governor Cuomo told Conservatives to take a hike out of New York – “and bring all your stink’n
            money with you!”)

            Obama PROMISED that anyone in business would be taxed to d e a t h, regulated to death, and then be
            blamed if Obama’s socialization agenda didn’t work out.

            .

            The unemployment problem is Obama’s problem, and about all he did with all that stimulus money
            was to stimulate the bank accounts of his political supporters.

            .

            During the summer of 2012, Obama acted like President Hoover did before the great depression, and
            he acts like President James Buchanan did before the American Civil War.

            In 2013 and 2014, he wasted all his time pushing Global Warming and Gun Control, instead of
            working on our economy.

            Obama refuses to negotiate or to spend any time making friends with the opposition. He only knows how to be a dictator, not a
            president.

            .

            He just sits there with his thumb in his mouth.

            Now, every once in a while, Barack Obama mentions “job creation” just for laughs.

          • SkyHunter

            You should come out of your bubble more often.

            What are you going to do in 2017 when a new President takes over and all the bad things about Obama that you’ve been warning everyone about for 8 years don’t come to pass.

            It will be like the ACA Death Panels and calling yourself a TeaBagger. You’ll just pretend it never happened as you pick up the next talking points to rail against Hillary.

          • KGJMSr

            More to the topic at hand, you wrote: “What are you going to do in 2017 when a new President takes over and all the bad things about Obama that you’ve been warning everyone about for 8 years don’t come to pass.”

            What are you doing NOW that all the bad things that Al Gore has been warning everyone about for 10 years haven’t come to pass?

          • SkyHunter

            Who is Al Gore?

          • planet8788

            You are pretty stupid.

          • Ordinary American 2014

            SH:
            You have now claimed that you don’t know who Al Gore is.
            If you were in an auditorium, you would now be walked to the door in silence.

          • SkyHunter

            I made no such claim. You assume to much.

          • planet8788

            We’ve already had the weakest recovery in 100 years… and our allies are dropping like flies. What more do you want?

            And we’re nearly at 110 percent debt to GDP ratio… What more do you want? 150% like Greece?

          • Ordinary American 2014

            It’s all part of Obama’s Plan: Create civil unrest by any means possible, whether it be economic problems, some “social injustice”, or anything else.

            THEN DECLARE MARTIAL LAW.

            THEN INVITE THE UN, RUSSIA, CHINA, and any other of America’s enemies to send in their military to “help us”.

            Obama’s Economic plan is WORKING! (…to destroy the American economy.)

            -Almost PERFECTLY!

            (See www. clowardpivenstrategy.com.)

            Labor force participation rate hits 34-year low. 93,000,000 Americans out of work, tens of millions gave up looking for unemployment.

            Food stamp enrollment up 70% since 2008.

            Average family income down 5%.

            Highest poverty rate since the 1960’s.

          • numag

            No, YOU liberals call conservatives “teabaggers”. You have no truth to back up your failed policies so you go on the ad hominem attack bandwagon.

          • SkyHunter

            The Tea Party self identified as Teabaggers. Liberals just chuckled and played along. It was hilarious to see your reactions when you learned that tea bagging is an oral sex act popular with gay men.

          • BrightMind

            Um, no! Only duschbaggers like you use the tern teabagger. .

          • BrightMind

            You are right except for one thing. It was not a coronation, it was an immaculation. They believe Obama is the definition of perfect. This is their perfect world if only they could kill all the Republicans.

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            U.S. Jobs 2007: 138,359,000 (at the peak)
            U.S. Jobs 2014: 139,225,000

            This is less than 1 million new jobs since the 2007 peak. (BLS)
            The real rate of unemployment is 23.2% (John Williams – ShadowStatsDotCom)
            There has not been an economic recovery. (Stefan Molyneux)

          • SkyHunter

            Why are you telling me? You should write your Republican congresscritter and tell them to stop repealing Obmamacare and do something constructive.

            The GOP blew up the deficit and broke the economy under Bush, then did all they could to sabotage it in their efforts to discredit the President. Obama turned it around and kept it going. So the best argument you can make is that the recovery was weak. Well yes it was, but it was a recovery nonetheless, and in light of the active efforts by the GOP to shut down the government and hamper the stimulus, the economy is doing fantastic.

            Obama won, the GOP lost. That will be his legacy. A black President who twice beat the party of old white men.

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            Obama is a criminal. That is his legacy.

            Here are 1,000 well sourced examples of Obama’s lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy, waste, etc. –
            tinyurl.com/ku9vxug

          • SkyHunter

            I don’t do conspiracy theories. You Obama haters are even kookier than 9/11 truthers.

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            Care to refute even ONE accusation in the list?

          • SkyHunter

            They are mostly half truths.

            He wanted to close Gitmo, but Congress wouldn’t fund it.

            Tim Geithner was the most familiar with the crisis, he was a good choice at the time, in spite of his petty tax cheating.

            Haliburton was set up by Dick Cheney during the Clinton era to be an indispensable contractor to the military he privatized under George H. Bush. I don’t know the exact details here, but I do know that when the accusation was made during the Iraq occupation, that was the bottom line, often there was no other qualified contractor.

            My biggest complaint about Obama is that he tries to hard too placate the opposition. He should have gone for a bigger stimulus and single payer when he had Democrat majorities. The backlash would have been the same, but the results would have been better.

          • TSZodiac

            Hey “Skyhunter” – I think you may have suffered from being too close to Vendicar the Canadian Janitor..
            FACTS: The Left Wing Party has held control of each House of Congress for 62 of the last 82 years – and held the White House for 46 of those years, including the last 6 !

            MORE FACTS:
            African American Republicans: Thomas Sowell, Michael Steele, 50 Cent, LL Cool J, Stacey Dash, Condoleeza Rice, Justice Clarence Thomas, Sheryl Underwood, JC Watts, Herman Cain, Dr Ben Carson, Karl Malone, Lynn Swann, Larry Elder, TD Jakes, Armstrong Williams, Janice Rodgers Brown, Tony Dungy, Star Parker, Ward Connerly, Walter Williams, Edward Brooke, James Meredith, Ken Hamblin, Erika Harold, Roy Innis, Deroy Murdock, Shelby Steele, ALVEDA KING, Amy Holmes, Ken Blackwell, John McWhorter, Angela McGlowan, Stephen Carter, Stanley Crouch, Dale Wainwright, Michelle Bernard, Winsome Sears, Richard Parsons, Alphonso Jackson, Carol Miller Swain, Sophia Nelson, Rod Paige, Michael Williams, Keith Butler, Gary Franks, Vernon Robinson, LA Shawn Barber, Robert George, James Harris III, Akindele Akinyemi, Randy Daniels, Erik Rush, Lee Walker, Jesse Lee Peterson, Eric Motley, Wallace Jefferson, Mychal Jessie, Gary Franks, Mia Love, Tim Scott, and DONT EVER FORGET: DR MARTIN LUTHER KING was a REPUBLICAN!

            http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/

            Yet MORE FACTS:

            First woman appointed to the Supreme Court – by a Republican
            First African American Secretary of State – appointed by a Republican
            First African American Woman and Second African American appointed Secretary of State – by a Republican
            First Hispanic Attorney General of the US – appointed by a Republican
            First African American National Security Advisor – appointed by a Republican
            First Woman appointed as National Security Advisor – by a Republican
            Slavery in the United States – ended by a Republican
            First Non-White Governor of a State – a Republican
            The first SEVEN African American members of Congress – all Republicans
            First “Environmental” President Teddy Roosevelt – a Republican
            First Female Congresswoman – a Republican
            1921 Dyer Anti-Lynching Laws established by – Republicans
            First Female Ambassador to a Major foreign power (Clare Booth Luce) – a Republican
            1955 First African American appointed to a Executive position in the White House by Pres. Eisenhower – a Republican
            First Hispanic Treasurer of the US – appointed by a Republican
            First Hispanic to serve as a Cabinet Member – appointed by a Republican
            First woman and first Hispanic to become a Surgeon General – appointed by a Republican

            How about you and Vendicar (you “seem” to upvote a lot of his CRAP) stop puking out the Liberal talking points and actually ADD something to the conversation, huh? Don’t be a Dope !

          • BrightMind

            True, the economy has improved somewhat since the price of oil has dropped in half and the USA has become a net producer of oil. Obama is looking for ways to destroy this growth.

          • numag

            You’re wasting your time presenting the truth and facts to someone suffering from a mental disorder. To date, there is no known cure for the mental disorder called Liberalism.

          • Madman2001

            By all means, let’s increase the minimum wage to $50 an hour. Oh,wait, let’s try $100 an hour! That would make everyone rich and really really stimulate the economy.

          • numag

            I say $1000 an hour. After a hard day flipping burgers a guy should be able to enjoy a relaxing evening on his yacht.

          • numag

            Liberalism is a mental disorder and you display it quite nicely. Facts seem to bounce right off you. Wish there was a cure.

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            Six years of Obama, and at least six years of a Democrat-controlled Congress (before and after the start of Obama’s first term) has increased the publicly-held portion of the U.S. National Debt by at least $6 trillion.

            That is a broken Democrat budget, and a Democrat “blowing-up” of the National Debt.

          • SkyHunter

            Clinton left a budget surplus, Bush left a $1 trillion deficit and an economy shedding 700,000 jobs a month. The facts are clear. Democrats are fiscally responsible, Republicans are not.

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            All Federal U.S. budgets begin in the U.S. House of Representative, which was Democrat-controlled at the end of G.W. Bush’s presidency.

            After six years of Obama and Democrat control (U.S. Senate until 2015), the Federal Reserve has printed (created from nothing) trillions of U.S. Dollars (a total now of $6 trillion of the publicly-held portion of the national debt) and loaned it to the U.S. Treasury.

            This is Democrat fiscal irresponsibility.

          • SkyHunter

            Motivated reasoning. Not reality. That has become a serious problem with the right, ever since they abandoned science in favor of Agenda 21 conspiracy theories.

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            LOL. Those are the facts.

            However, I am sure plenty of Republicans acted as enablers.

          • BrightMind

            I see your lack of knowledge of economics is in line with your lack of knowledge of statistics.

          • BrightMind

            For a guy who gives back rubs and does handyman work for a living you sure talk big.

          • douginjax

            Totally disengenuous and you know it. Obama is breaking the current law of the land, in order to import Democrat voters, and your response is, if they don’t like lawlessness, pass more laws. I’ll warn you now, you aren’t going to like this precident you’ve started of enforcing only the laws you like to further your political will.

          • SkyHunter

            Obama is not breaking the law. He is not importing anyone. He is trying to solve a pressing problem that Congress cannot. They can’t do it because the GOP has gone bat-shit-crazy ever since they detached themselves from the scientific method in order to deny the existence of climate science.

          • douginjax

            He’s breaking the law, pure and simple. Don’t tell me that up is down and expect respect in return. The Left is driving this country toward a civil break. Ignoring the Constitution, violating personal liberty, and selective enforcement. There is no moral reason to abide by the authority of lawless leaders. You may think it’s oh so clever to violate the law to get to your ends, but the natural outcome of such crap will not be pretty and it will be on your hands. I’ve reached the point where I no longer think you even believe your nonsense, so I’m done with you. The same is coming about nationally. This is what you have wrought.

          • SkyHunter

            Breaking the law how?

            What civil break are you talking about?

          • mikey0311

            Let me know when DHS is NOT funded!!

          • dkn1234

            You will know when that happens…little boys will no longer be fondled at airports…

          • dkn1234

            State approved…barry denied

          • dkn1234

            Congress has no trouble funding DHS, they just don’t want to relinquish their Constitutional authority to control immigration to the executive branch.

          • Rascal69

            Since when does the State Department do anything right? Let’s discuss Benghazi, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran, etc., etc., etc.

          • SkyHunter

            Why? Your perception of those events are right-wing narratives, not actual events.

          • Ordinary American 2014

            Truth is truth is truth is truth.

            Truth is neither left nor right.

            Truth is truth.

            Benghazi is a coverup to hide Obama’s arms shipments to ISIS.

            The Syrian Civil War was supported by Obama so that another Middle East government would be ruled by the MB like Egypt and Libya.

            Obama took out Qaddafi so that the Muslim Brotherhood could take control of Libya.

            Obama supports Iran’s acquiring nuclear missiles and bombs, which they have promised to use in the massacre of 6 million Jews in Israel and then other American interests, such as AMERICA.

            You may disagree with my comments and debate them, but I will prove I am correct every time. So come and get me.

          • SkyHunter

            So is it your belief that Obama is a secret Muslim and is doing these things for Islam?

          • Ordinary American 2014

            I believe that Obama is an atheist and that he wants to use any means possible to destroy the United States, Israel, Christians, and Jews.

            For Obama, supporting ISIS and Iran are just tools.

            For Obama, using communists to take down the country is just a tool.

            Barack Obama thinks the United States must be brought to her knees.

            He believes that Western powers, such as the United States were terrible bullies and that they must pay for their sins of the past.

          • numag

            How do you get truth across to someone who will not see?

          • planet8788

            Yes, 4 people didn’t lose their lives… Yes, we didn’t help destabilize the place.

          • numag

            And liberals are sane.

          • numag

            Yes, you have the liberal mental disorder in FULL BLOOM.

          • Daniel Matuska

            You may not have noticed, but the state department approved it.

          • SkyHunter

            Really? When did they to that? Can you link the press release?

          • numag

            The State Department is about as non-partisan as YOU are.

          • Crozetian
          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            Good Reference: “US State Department Approves the Keystone XL Pipeline” 8/29/2011

          • SkyHunter

            The final approval for the $7 billion oil project will come after public hearings and consultation with other federal agencies.
            Read more: US State Department Approves the Keystone XL Pipeline | Inhabitat – Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

            That was 2011. Here is the final EIS released last January.

            http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221135.pdf

          • Jess_Axen

            How large must be the creel in which you tote around all those red herrings!

          • numag

            How about all the hay he needs to make all those strawmen?

          • Ordinary American 2014

            Democrats ask,

            “Why is Congress meddling in the running of the Federal Government. All we need is one dictator to make all decisions about everything.”

          • SkyHunter

            The executive order for the Keystone XL State Department directive is from GW Bush. Last time I checked, he was a private citizen, not a dictator.

          • GrizzMann

            Already passed by Congress. Aborted by Dr. Obama.

          • Crozetian

            The “clown show” just happens to be the elected representatives of the American people (and some illegal aliens). I can understand, you being a statist and a socialist, that you prefer the Stalinist model in which Obama aspires to, but that’s our system, and it has worked well for more than 200 years. The State Department and it’s head socialist, John Kerry, do what the dictator wants it to do.

          • dkn1234

            State approved….barry denied….

          • Rascal69

            Stretch much?

          • SkyHunter
          • https://twitter.com/davidjkramer DavidKramer

            Why does anyone talk to one of the paid sockies of this administration?

          • numag

            I ask myself that same question all the time. I keep forgetting that I’m not dealing with a rational, sane person.

          • mike

            Approval by the State Department was created by this administration. We used to work with Canada as our closest ally.

          • SkyHunter

            No it wasn’t, Executive order 13337 was issued by the Bush Administration.

            http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/WCPD-2004-05-10/pdf/WCPD-2004-05-10-Pg723.pdf

          • numag

            And the Sate Dept has since been HIJACKED by liberal statists like yourself who do Obama’s bidding. Over 100 studies have been done showing the pipeline would have NEGLIGIBLE impact on the environment and our national security. If the State Dept wasn’t doing Obama’s bidding they would have issued a statement in favor a LONG time ago.

          • Ordinary American 2014

            A liberal used the word, “clown” again.

            Everyone take another drink of water.

            Calling people names is not “scientific” and does not contribute to the discussion.

            If you want to prove something, prove something.

            Bullying other people proves nothing and gives everyone a bad impression of your intellect.

          • numag

            After countless fruitless arguments with liberals I have come to the same conclusion as Dr. Michael Savage. Liberalism IS a mental disorder. You’ll eventually reach that conclusion as well.

          • Oscarphone

            No it doesn’t you boob. That part was built years ago. The part that Obama won’t approve is in the middle of the country.

          • SkyHunter

            You have it exactly backwards. There would be no need for State department approval if it was a domestic project.

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            US State Department Approves the Keystone XL Pipeline

            http://inhabitat.com/us-state-department-approves-the-keystone-xl-pipeline

          • SkyHunter

            You need to read more than the headlines.

            Get back to me when you have read the whole thing.

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            “The Obama administration dismissed criticism (of the Keystone pipeline) from environmental advocates….”

          • SkyHunter

            In 2011 the State department approved the project. Giving the go ahead to begin the process of environmental impact studies and public comment. The final EIS was published in January 2014, with errata published in June. The final decision to approve construction has not yet been made.

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            Thanks for the link to the final EIS.

          • SkyHunter
          • GrizzMann

            Are you slamming Global Warming again? Al Gore would bot lie to us. He is a No Bell prize winner.

          • Paul in NH

            There is NO GLO-BULL climate anything … at least caused by man. And, if someday you happen to meet a radical environmentalist, just ask them; “”wasn’t it supposed to be an ice age by now?” (they said so, and predicted as much, back in the late 1960’s, 1970’s and early1980’s); then when that didn’t pan out, they changed it back in 1990’s and early 2000’s, to GLO-BULL warming, (again they said so, and predicted that the oceans would have covered much of the low lying planet with up to 20 feet of higher water levels, and no polar ice caps.) OOPS, looks as if that didn’t work as expected either; now it’s “climate change”, so that any unusual weather event is covered under this blanket non-fact. But wait!, but wait!, I do believe in “climate change”, what! you say, yes I do, I really, REALLY do. It’s called SPRING-TIME (global warming); SUMMER-TIME(global getting quite toasty); FALL-TIME(global cooling); and WINTER-TIME(global darn cold).

          • Rascal69

            As are your sources lying to you. There is a reason that investors in Solyndra made hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and it wasn’t because they were smart, just highly unethical and friends with the right people to send money their way.

          • SkyHunter

            Investors in Solyndra did not make millions, they lost billions.

            http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2011/08/31/after-investing-1b-solyndras-backers-finally-lose-their-grip/

            You should get out of your right-wing bubble more often.

          • Rascal69

            Wow, you ate the whole nine yards.

          • SkyHunter

            So I should accept your belief over that liberal rag, The Wall Street Journal?

          • numag

            But we KNOW you reject anything The Wall Street Journal says that doesn’t support your liberal agenda. Cherry picking is ALL you seem to know how to do. And you don’t even do that well.

          • TSZodiac

            SkyHunter is Vendicar’s lap dog

          • Ordinary American 2014

            It sure cost the taxpayers.

            When Solyndra went bankrupt and cost taxpayers up to $530 million,
            the Obama administration’s green energy loan program was subjected to
            congressional hearings and became an election-year issue. Now, another solar
            panel company may be headed for a similar fate.

            SoloPower, which makes thin-film solar panels at a new plant in
            Portland, Ore., opened Sept. 27 with an upbeat ribbon-cutting ceremony. Local
            and state politicians gushed about the company eventually operating four
            production lines and creating 450 well-paid green jobs.

            Just a few months later, those predictions, and SoloPower’s
            future, are on shaky ground.

            The first production line was never completed.

            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/20/taxpayer-backed-solar-firm-faces-layoffs-shakeup-amid-calls-for-more-government/#ixzz2O7kjd1xb

          • ProjectThor

            Now i’m beginning to think you’re a bot… you keep repeating the same
            “insult” over and over…

          • SkyHunter

            Not an insult. An observation.

          • Ordinary American 2014

            Reason#3 that ½ the voters rejected Obama: MISAPPROPRIATION OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS = “Money laundering” . As much as 80% of the
            “$timulus” money went to Obama’s political supporters; i.e. A CORN=SEIU=OWS, $olyndra, Fiskar, GE/NBC… (See w
            w w . t h e g a t e w a y p u n d i t . c o ) Currently, there are 1,900 on-going federal investigations into “stimulus” fraud. DOE was used to help political friends: ( h t t p ://ww w . b reitba r t . com/Big- Jo urnalism/2012/11/11/Media-Covers-up-Obama-Admin-Emails.)

          • Daniel Matuska

            Excuse me sir, what is the source of your reality?

          • BrightMind

            How would you know? You are a closed minded idiot who doesn’t know the difference between median and mean.

          • numag

            But I’m sure he’s an expert on marijuana.

          • Jess_Axen

            Normal people understand that the industries that facilitate the production that meets most of the world’s energy needs are in the business for profit, and normal people don’t begrudge them for it.

            Are you not aware that the sources for your narrative are lying to you for political reasons, i.e., to destroy capitalism, reduce the population, and attain totalitarian control?

          • numag

            The operative word is “normal”. Have you met a normal liberal?

          • lcs1956

            Your’s is not to wonder why, Sarge.

          • TexasTeaFinder

            “The Government” doesn’t fund anything. The TAXPAYERS fund EVERYTHING. If I am funding it, it better be rigorous and beyond reproach with no political agenda attached – “man-caused climate change” breaks all three of those criteria.

          • SkyHunter

            How would you know?

          • GrizzMann

            Friedrich Nietzsche, 1890 “Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.”

          • SkyHunter

            So you are an irrational anarchist, that doesn’t make your beliefs true.

          • GrizzMann

            2+2=5. does it make them false? Like your doctor, you can keep him, You like your insurance, You can keep it. I am angry as anyone . I’ll get to the bottom of this. Not a smidgen of corruption at the IRS. FAST AND FURIOUS, is that a movie? TEE time . etc..

          • SkyHunter

            That you believe these are scandals says the world about you and where you get your narratives.

          • Crozetian

            That you don’t know they are scandals says that you are in denial — or ignornant of the facts. It would be better for the world if you would be in De Nile (with the crocodile). If you think that the government should use its agencies to punish and harass political enemies, then you are beyond help.

          • numag

            No, he’s not in denial. He’s a willing PARTICIPANT of a corrupt system. Liberals believe in the ends justifying the means. They KNOW they are lying but don’t care, so long as it furthers their agenda.

          • GrizzMann

            NEWSPEAK again?

          • planet8788

            I the fact you don’t says even more about you. Criminal investigation now pending on the hiding of Lerner ‘ s emails.

          • SkyHunter

            What is in the emails that was worth hiding, and who hid it?

            The GOP Congress has spent most of it’s time and millions of our tax dollars on the faux scandals, instead of doing the peoples business. The IRS did not target PACs for political reasons.

            Now they are trying to what, prove someone deliberately hid the fact that there was a backup of the crashed hard drive?

            What is the punishment for that?

            What about the progressive PACs that were targeted?

            You are a tool being used for all your worth, and will be discarded when you are no longer useful.

          • planet8788

            Which progressive groups were affected? Can any compare to True the Vote? How could they decide if it was political without all the emails.?

            You are too funny.

          • SkyHunter

            Now they have the emaials and there is no there there.

          • planet8788
          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            Good Reference

            Lois Lerner sent out this email on June 29, 2011 just three weeks after the House Ways and Means Committee asked the tax agency was targeting conservatives: “No one will ever believe us” if our hard drives crashed.

          • planet8788

            I missed your answer…. which progressive groups were affected?

          • numag

            You won’t get an answer yet. He’s still checking his Mother Jones website for any disinformation he can throw at you and hope you won’t be able to see through it.

          • planet8788
          • SkyHunter

            How are the climate gate emails working out for your side?

          • planet8788

            Anybody who actually read them can easily tell these aren’t scientists… they are activists….Or as i prefer, climastrologists.

          • planet8788

            For example, Email 19, where they admit ….

            Email 19

            1. There are few tree-core series that extend beyond the early 1980s. This is because
            many of the sites we’re using were cored before the early 1980s. So most tree-ring records
            just don’t exist post 1980. [Phil Jones]

            If you look at the figure in the attached article in Science by Briffa and
            Osborn, you will note that tree-ring temperature reconstructions are flat
            from 1950 onward. I asked Mike Mann about this discrepancy at a meeting
            recently, and he said he didn’t have an explanation. It sounded like it is
            an embarrassment to the tree ring community that their indicator does not
            seem to be responding to the pronounced warming of the past 50 years. Ed
            Cook of the Lamont Tree-Ring Lab tells me that there is some speculation
            that stratospheric ozone depletion may have affected the trees, in which
            case the pre-1950 record is OK. But alternatively, he says it is possible
            that the trees have exceeded the linear part of their temperature-sensitive
            range, and they no longer are stimulated by temperature. In this case
            there is trouble for the paleo record. Kieth Briffa first documented this
            late 20th century loss of response.

            Personally, I think that the tree ring records should be able to reproduce
            the instrumental record, as a first test of the validity of this proxy. To
            me it casts doubt on the integrity of this proxy that it fails this test.

            Sincerely,
            Jeff [Severinghaus]

          • planet8788

            http://junkscience.com/2013/03/17/climategate-3-0-interesting-to-note-that-many-of-the-coral-records-utilised-by-mike-mann-also-failed-my-screening-procedure/

            It is also interesting to note that many of the coral records utilised by
            Mike Mann also
            failed my screening procedure.
            The attached figure shows normalised series of the 5 coral records that go
            back to 1801 in
            my ‘SST sensitive’ data-set. The y-axis has been inverted as the series are
            negatively
            correlated to SSTs.
            Only one record (MAL = Malindi: western Indian Ocean – Julia Cole) shows an
            inferred cool
            year in 1816.

          • planet8788

            Let me know if you want some more, in the meantime… Which progressive group was affected… I am still waiting.

          • SkyHunter

            I don’t see a problem with those emails. But then, I am not biased. I see private discussions between scientists attempting to do something very difficult, that had never been done before.

            The results speak for themselves, the hockey stick is the shape of the data.

          • planet8788

            No, the data has been manipulated to form the hockey stick. Again. Look at NAS data from the 1970’s… EVERYBODY agreed we were cooling since the 1940’s…. That’s why Global Cooling was the media rage in the 1970’s. There had been cooling, It was undeniable. Whether people predicted the cooling would continue… is a whole other topic… Now look at the data… THAT COOLING HAS DISAPPEARED FROM THE HISTORICAL RECORD. Now it just shows flat from 1940 to 1970 instead of the .6C drop that used to exist. … IT’s total BS.
            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/hansen-the-climate-chiropractor/

          • SkyHunter

            Steven Goddard is quack, even the other skeptics agree he is off his rocker.

            All paleoclimate reconstructions show a hockey stick.

            https://andyrussell.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/ipcc_ar4_1200.png

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            Berkeley Professor Richard Muller:

            “McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.”

            “Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called “Monte Carlo” analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!”

            “That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen?”

          • SkyHunter

            M&M did discover an anomaly with principal component analysis, but it did not affect the results of MBH98/99. Even though they did discover something of interest, their paper was deeply flawed. They improperly excluded 3 of the 5 significant PCs.

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            Post a reference – I am certainly interested.

          • SkyHunter

            No one uses PCA anymore, I believe the preferred methodology is RegEM.

            Here is an old link.

            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/

            Wikipedia has a page about it.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#McIntyre_and_McKitrick_2005

            And the National Academies Press published the North report.

            http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676/surface-temperature-reconstructions-for-the-last-2000-years

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            Thank you.

            I see I will end up doing some research and capturing relevant publicly-available data and writing my own computer programs for analysis and display, for my satisfaction.

            I hope to avoid most of the climatology research papers. The students/professors come up with theses that are interesting ideas, but are apparently not testable by direct experiment.

          • planet8788

            Hey moron. Look at his references. He references NSA data. He references James Hansen’s 1999 report. Look it up… He provides all the links.
            Yes that is what they show NOW…..
            They all showed cooling from 1940-1975 up until a few years ago.

          • SkyHunter

            I don’t need to have my science filtered through Steve Goddard. He is a joke, not worthy of my time.

            If you have a global paleoclimate reconstruction published in the scientific literature that does not have a hockey stick shape, let’s see it.

          • planet8788

            Yes, you like the filters you have on now.
            Again. he provides no original data…. He links back to what they said 30-35 years ago.
            Were they lying then? What happened to the cooling SkyHunter. What happened to it? Did it never exist? Was it a big global cooling conspiracy?

          • SkyHunter

            What filters? I already told you, I go directly to the published research.

            SG is just spinning a specious narrative, it is not the truth. He is the one telling lies.

          • planet8788

            So the NAS was lying in the 1970’s?

          • SkyHunter

            Lying about what?

          • planet8788

            Lying about 0.8C degrees of cooling in the Northern Hemisphere from 1940 to 1975.

          • SkyHunter

            No such cooling took place. You are mistaken.

          • planet8788
          • SkyHunter

            No one is lying, science is not static, as new information becomes available, it is incorporated and the scientific opinion evolves. Global cooling in the 1970’s was a minority opinion, only 10% of scientific publications from 1965 – 1979 predicted cooling. Clean air legislation worked, the SO2 was washed out of the atmosphere and the GMST started to rise again.

            The NASA link shows a slight cooling trend from 1940 to 1975 of ~0.1°C. The latest analysis from GISS shows a trend on -0.001°C. Science evolves. Once the station data is adjusted for Time of day, station moves, equipment changes etc. the older data was found to have a warm bias.

            The newsweek article is about air pollution causing solar dimming, the NCAR graph shows only 0.5°F cooling.

            The last article is very speculative.

            There were literally

          • planet8788

            The article is speculative. The temp chart is very specific. So… people couldn’t tell if it got colder or hotter? LOL… and Hansen… he isn’t slanted… doesn’t have an opinion either way… just a good perfect scientist.. LOL. that gets arrested every so often… LOL. We couldn’t tell if it was getting warmer or colder… LOL.

            Hansen’s got a bridge to sell you… OH wait… you already bought it.

          • SkyHunter

            The global temperatures were flat, hard to determine whether it was warming or cooling. The GHCN had not been homogenized in 1975, so scientists couldn’t determine with any accuracy whether the Earth was warming or cooling.

          • planet8788

            Nor could they after.

          • SkyHunter

            Yes they can. The trend since 1880 is 0.067°C/decade ±0.007°C (2σ).

          • planet8788

            Yes. Suuuuure they can. Lol. And if they are wrong how does anyone know? LOL
            But still much lower than predicted. Real scientists would question the theory. Climastrologists look for excuses.

          • SkyHunter

            What theory is that? CO2 absorbs IR that is a fact. The theory says that will result in 1.5°C – 4.5°C per doubling. The warming trend is consistent with the theory.

          • planet8788

            And their application of that theory says temps should be rising much faster. They aren’t. Thus… somethings is wrong… unless you think like a climastrologist. And of course there are several other indications that the theory is wrong. Like the fact that historically co2 lags temp.

          • SkyHunter

            No it doesn’t. Temperatures have risen about 1°C in response to the increase from 280 – 400 ppmv. Well within the equilibrium sensitivity range.

          • planet8788

            Only after they adjust the past colder to fit their theory. You still have no explanation for the last 18 years. Not one.

            and almost half the rise came prior to 1940 before CO2 significantly increased.

          • SkyHunter

            The GMST record over the last 18 years is positive, and the oceans, the climates heat sink, has accumulated 15×10^22 Joules of energy in the top 2000 meters.

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

            And the past was colder, once the station data is homogenized and the various biases corrected.

          • planet8788

            You can’t measure ocean heat accurately. There aren’t enough probes deep enough and you have no historical record so you don’t know how much it fluctuated before even if you could measure it reliably. You are only looking there because surface temps aren’t rising in a statistically significant manner.

            100 percent hand waving. Funny how you haven’t mentioned the satellite rrecord. oh yeah. Because that is barely rising.

            The surface record is much more reliable because you can make all sorts of reasons up to tweak it while claiming UH I is insignificant. LOL. Joke after Joke after joke.

          • SkyHunter

            Denying all the evidence won’t make it go away, it just makes you look like a fool.

          • SkyHunter

            Who said UHI was insignificant?

            If you use all the raw data, the warming trend is greater, since most of the adjustments reduce the trend.

          • planet8788

            Ahhh. Ask your high priests. They are the ones that say it is insignificant. You don’t know? What does common sense say?

          • SkyHunter

            i don’t have any high priests. I am an atheist. The UHI is adjusted for, and it never was a great problem, just a popular talking point.

          • planet8788

            Figures. So how much is the UH adjustment. Oh. You just have FAITH that they are doing it right? How much is it?

          • SkyHunter

            If you are curious about how they adjust the data, here is an explanation.

            http://skepticalscience.com/understanding-adjustments-to-temp-data.html

            If you want to know how to check it out for yourself, Kevin Cowtan gives you the tools and the training in this video.

          • Michael Stone

            I post uppers on all of your posts but here at climate depot after a couple of hours they are erased.

          • planet8788

            You have as much faith in Climastrologists as an average believer has in any religion.

          • SkyHunter

            It is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of reason and logic.

            You use ideology to determine what science you trust. I use science to determine what ideology to trust.

          • SkyHunter

            And you are willfully ignorant, I have provided you with the tools to answer for yourself, but you prefer to curse the dark instead of lighting the candle.

          • planet8788

            How many temp stations have been lost in the USA in the last 20 years?

          • SkyHunter

            I give up, how many?

          • planet8788

            I ain’t looking up squat for you. You have proven your faith. If you aren’t curious enough to do the research you certainly aren’t going to give up your faith in Climastrologists until you start to look up things for yourself. I show you data. You blow it off. Certainly you believe the UHI may be significant. Find out what your High Priests say first for yourself. Are you going to believe them or your own common sense?

          • SkyHunter

            You asked the question, I thought you knew the answer.

            I should have guessed. You are just another conservative ignoramus .

          • planet8788

            And you don’t know either apparently so you are just another blind worshipper.

            THE ANSWER IS. IT DEPENDS WHO YOU ask. But generally less than 0.2C.

            I read your link and it was quite unimpressive. From the description, assumes that UHI can only affect one station at a time In a given area. If it affected multiple ones in the same time the algorithm wouldn’t pick it up.

          • SkyHunter

            You asked:

            planet8788 SkyHunter • 15 hours ago

            How many temp stations have been lost in the USA in the last 20 years?

            to which you answered:

            generally less than 0.2C.

            I think you might be half a bubble out of plumb.

          • planet8788

            You were resplyung to a question on UHI. Sorry… I’ve got more bubbles than you.

          • SkyHunter

            You were resplyung to a question on UHI. Sorry… I’ve got more bubbles than you.

            No I wasn’t. You appear to be in your natural state, confused.

            Seek help before you wind up in a home for the terminally bewildered.

          • planet8788

            And the Urban Heat Island Effect… Is only 0.1C…. LOL…
            You are so smart.

          • SkyHunter

            The UHI is accounted for in the analysis.

          • planet8788

            At pennies on the dollar.

          • planet8788

            James Hansen 1999: What’s happening to our climate? Was the heat wave and drought in the Eastern United States in 1999 a sign of global warming?

            Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.

            http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

          • SkyHunter

            Did you think that scientific opinion is set in stone?

            You must not be familiar with the scientific method. Here is a primer;

            In an infinite universe, it is impossible for a finite being to know everything about anything. Therefore we must begin from the logical premise that everything we know is wrong or incomplete. The best we can hope for is to learn why we are wrong or discover more missing pieces, becoming less wrong.

          • planet8788

            Oh, so because scientists think that everything they know is wrong, that is why my electricity rates are soaring? Absurdum infinitum.

          • SkyHunter

            If your electricity rates are soaring, you should install solar panels.

          • planet8788

            Condo faces north… Not going to work well in Minnesota. but nice dodge,.

          • SkyHunter

            They work very well in the summer, long days, and that is when you need your AC. You chose to live there.

          • planet8788

            Still need lights all year round. And ovens and refrigerators. but you are still dodging the issue… Condo also probably wouldn’t allow it.

          • SkyHunter

            That is your personal problem, not a global issue.

          • planet8788

            There is no global issue except an imaginary one that the Climastrologists invented.

          • planet8788

            So thermometers didn’t work in the 1970’s? Is that what you are saying? Absurd.

          • SkyHunter

            What you just said is absurd. What does Hansen’s refusal to link a single event to climate change in 1999 have to do with thermometers in the 1970’s?

          • planet8788

            It’s not about a single event. It’s about the entire lack of warming in the USA for 30 years. And how that has now disappeared from the charts and distorted in other ways too. It’s about changing history.

          • SkyHunter

            The US is 1.8% of the globe’s surface. Most of the climate’s thermal mass is the oceans, and they show no sign of cooling.

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

          • planet8788

            And how accurately can you measure the .002 C change it took to get there? LOL
            Even several warmists don’t buy that poppycock.

          • planet8788

            What happened to the cooling that everybody was talking about?

          • SkyHunter

            Clean air legislation in America and Europe was passed and SO2 levels dropped. Sulphur dioxide reflects sunlight back into space before it can warm the surface. This was offsetting the increased back radiation from added ghg’s.

          • planet8788

            BLA BLA BLA… And recently MIT scientists found that we still have SO2 much higher up in the atmosphere than they have ever looked before. So they have no idea how much was up there before…

            The climate is way too complex to model. We don’t understand the basics of cloud formation yet and we’re talking all kinds of stupid actions based on a bunch of poppycock. The models are bogus… which is why their predictions haven’t been worth the toilet paper I used today.

            Real scientists change their hypothesis when proven wrong… Climastrologists keep yelling louder…. make up stories about missing heat “hiding in the ocean” and then start investigating skeptics… At least McCarthy was after a real threat…. You guys are completely worthless. How many years more do your models have to fail before you admit they are worthless?

            The climategate emails, the politics, the rewriting of the past all show that this is all a bunch of handwaving..and there is nothing to it.

          • planet8788

            It’s all laid out for you. He provides no original data.. He just links back to their own research and their own history. But you can’t think for yourself… because you are a MORON Climastrologist of the highest order. A complete knucklehead who can’t think for himself.

          • SkyHunter

            He is misrepresenting and spinning a narrative. Useful tools like you are taken in and exploited. I have no interest in anything SG has to say.

            Obviously you are not capable of making your own argument, so why should anyone trust your ability to judge the veracity of SG’s?

          • planet8788

            I followed his links and verified them… It’s easy to do. Except for a moron like you I guess.

          • SkyHunter

            And you still can’t verbalise an argument. Very telling.

          • planet8788

            The argument has been verbalized one million times. The fact that you can’t understand it is very telling.

          • SkyHunter

            What argument, all you have done is link a well known liar’s blog.

            What is it that he is saying that you believe to be true?

            Verbalize the argument and I will respond to it.

          • planet8788

            You have a reading comprehension problem? Goddard sums it up quite succinctly and has links to all of his data sources… but I did sum them up for you again in one place.

          • SkyHunter

            Your links are all broken.

          • planet8788

            Why do you think Global Cooling was all the rage in the 1970’s… because it was heating? because temps were staying the same? Were all of those scientists stupid? How big of a moron are you…. It’s looking pretty big from here.

          • SkyHunter

            Global cooling was not all the rage in the scientific community.

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/1970s_papers.gif

          • planet8788

            Tell that to the New York Times. So it wasn’t cooling considerably from 1940-1975… Again your confusing what happened with what was being predicted in the future. We were cooling. Everyone knew that. The NAS, James Hansen… Everyone. But now that cooling has vaporized. It doesn’t exist in the historical record.
            I realize these details are too much for your puny mind.

          • SkyHunter

            You are projecting your own puny mind onto me. A common psychological phenomenon with science deniers.

            There were a few papers in the 1970’s that were studying global dimming in the northern hemisphere from air pollution, there were also a few that noted our current orbital cycles favored cooling. But the bulk of the published research was about global warming.

          • planet8788

            And you fail to understand the very clear point.

            The USA and the northern hemisphere cooled from 1940 to 1975. That amount of cooling no longer exists in the historical record. History has been tampered with. That is the point. Which should be obvious.

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            Climate experts believe the next ice age is on its way.” – Leonard Nimoy, 1978.

            Media articles:

            1970 – Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
            1970 – Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
            1970 – New Ice Age May Descend On Man (Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970)
            1970 – Pollution Prospect A Chilling One (Owosso Argus-Press, January 26, 1970)
            1970 – Pollution’s 2-way ‘Freeze’ On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970)
            1970 – Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 1970)
            1970 – Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
            1970 – Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century (Boston Globe, April 16, 1970)
            1970 – Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
            1970 – Dirt Will Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970)
            1971 – Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground (The Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971)
            1971 – Pollution Might Lead To Another Ice Age (Schenectady Gazette, March 22, 1971)
            1971 – Pollution May Bring Ice Age – Scientist Rites Risk (The Windsor Star, March 23, 1971)
            1971 – U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
            1971 – Ice Age Around the Corner (Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)
            1971 – New Ice Age Coming – It’s Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
            1971 – Another Ice Age? Pollution Blocking Sunlight (The Day, November 1, 1971)
            1971 – Air Pollution Could Bring An Ice Age (Harlan Daily Enterprise, November 4, 1971)
            1972 – Air pollution may cause ice age (Free-Lance Star, February 3, 1972)
            1972 – Scientist Says New ice Age Coming (The Ledger, February 13, 1972)
            1972 – Ice Age Cometh For Dicey Times (The Sun, May 29, 1972)
            1972 – There’s a new Ice Age coming! (The Windsor Star, September 9, 1972)
            1972 – Scientist predicts new ice age (Free-Lance Star, September 11, 1972)
            1972 – British Expert on Climate Change Says New Ice Age Creeping Over Northern Hemisphere (Lewiston Evening Journal, September 11, 1972)
            1972 – Climate Seen Cooling For Return Of Ice Age (Portsmouth Times, ?September 11, 1972?)
            1972 – New Ice Age Slipping Over North (Press-Courier, September 11, 1972)
            1972 – Ice Age Begins A New Assault In North (The Age, September 12, 1972)
            1972 – Weather To Get Colder (Montreal Gazette, ?September 12, 1972?)
            1972 – British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)
            1972 – Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)
            1972 – Science: Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
            1972 – Geologist at Case Traces Long Winters – Sees Ice Age in 20 Years (Youngstown Vindicator, December 13, 1972)
            1972 – Ice Age On Its Way, Scientist Says (Toledo Blade, December 13, 1972)
            1972 – Ice Age Predicted In About 200 Years (The Portsmouth Times, December 14, 1972)
            1973 – The Ice Age Cometh (The Saturday Review, March 24, 1973)
            1973 – ‘Man-made Ice Age’ Worries Scientists (The Free Lance-Star, June 22, 1973)
            1973 – Fear Of Man-made Ice Age (Herald-Journal, June 28, 1973)
            1973 – Possibility Of Ice Age Worries The Scientists (The Argus-Press, November 12, 1973)
            1973 – Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)
            1974 – Ominous Changes in the World’s Weather (PDF) (Fortune, February 1974)
            1974 – Atmospheric Dirt: Ice Age Coming?? (Pittsburgh Press, February 28, 1974)
            1974 – New evidence indicates ice age here (Eugene Register-Guard, May 29, 1974)
            1974 – Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)
            1974 – 2 Scientists Think ‘Little’ Ice Age Near (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)
            1974 – Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)
            1974 – Imminent Arrival of the Ice (Radio Times, November 14, 1974)
            1974 – Believes Pollution Could Bring On Ice Age (Ludington Daily News, December 4, 1974)
            1974 – Pollution Could Spur Ice Age, Nasa Says (Beaver Country Times, ?December 4, 1974?)
            1974 – Air Pollution May Trigger Ice Age, Scientists Feel (The Telegraph, ?December 5, 1974?)
            1974 – More Air Pollution Could Trigger Ice Age Disaster (Daily Sentinel, ?December 5, 1974?)
            1974 – Scientists Fear Smog Could Cause Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 5, 1974)
            1975 – Climate Changes Called Ominous (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)
            1975 – Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)
            1975 – B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)
            1975 – Cooling Trends Arouse Fear That New Ice Age Coming (Eugene Register-Guard, ?March 2, 1975?)
            1975 – Is Another Ice Age Due? Arctic Ice Expands In Last Decade (Youngstown Vindicator, ?March 2, 1975?)
            1975 – Is Earth Headed For Another Ice Age? (Reading Eagle, March 2, 1975)
            1975 – New Ice Age Dawning? Significant Shift In Climate Seen (Times Daily, ?March 2, 1975?)
            1975 – There’s Troublesome Weather Ahead (Tri City Herald, ?March 2, 1975?)
            1975 – Is Earth Doomed To Live Through Another Ice Age? (The Robesonian, ?March 3, 1975?)
            1975 – The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)
            1975 – The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
            1975 – Cooling trend may signal coming of another Ice Age (The Sun, May 16, 1975)
            1975 – Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)
            1975 – Summer of A New Ice Age (The Age, June 5, 1975)
            1975 – In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)
            1975 – Oil Spill Could Cause New Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 11, 1975)
            1976 – The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? [Book] (Lowell Ponte, 1976)
            1976 – Ice Age Predicted (Reading Eagle, January 22, 1976)
            1976 – Ice Age Predicted In Century (Bangor Daily News, January 22, 1976)
            1976 – It’s Going To Get Chilly About 125 Years From Now (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, January 23, 1976)
            1976 – Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
            1977 – Blizzard – What Happens if it Doesn’t Stop? [Book] (George Stone, 1977)
            1977 – The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age [Book] (The Impact Team, 1977)
            1977 – The Ice Age Cometh… (New York Magazine, January 31, 1977)
            1977 – The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
            1977 – Has The Ice Age Cometh Again? (Calgary Herald, February 1, 1977)
            1977 – Space Mirrors Proposed To Prevent Crop Freezes (Bangor Daily News, February 7, 1977)
            1977 – We Will Freeze in the Dark (Capital Cities Communications Documentary, Host: Nancy Dickerson, April 12, 1977)
            1978 – Ice! [Book] (Arnold Federbush, 1978)
            1978 – The New Ice Age [Book] (Henry Gilfond, 1978)
            1978 – Winter May Be Colder Than In Last Ice Age (The Deseret News, January 2, 1978)
            1978 – Current Winters Seen Colder Than In Ice Age? (The Telegraph, January 3, 1978)
            1978 – Winter Temperatures Colder Than Last Ice Age (Eugene Register-Guard, Eugene Register-Guard, January 3, 1978)
            1978 – Little Ice Age: Severe winters and cool summers ahead (Calgary Herald, January 10, 1978)
            1978 – Winters Will Get Colder, ‘we’re Entering Little Ice Age’ (Ellensburg Daily Record, January 10, 1978)
            1978 – Geologist Says Winters Getting Colder (Middlesboro Daily News, January 16, 1978)
            1978 – It’s Going To Get Colder (Boca Raton News, ?January 17, 1978?)
            1978 – Another Ice Age? (Kentucky New Era, February 12, 1978)
            1978 – Another Ice Age? (Reading Eagle, ?February 13, 1978?)
            1978 – Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
            1978 – The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, Host: Leonard Nimoy, May 1978)
            1978 – An Ice Age Is Coming Weather Expert Fears (Milwaukee Sentinel, November 17, 1978)
            1979 – A Choice of Catastrophes – The Disasters That Threaten Our World [Book] (Isaac Asimov, 1979)
            1979 – The New Ice Age Cometh (The Age, January 16, 1979)
            1979 – Ice Age Building Up (Ellensburg Daily Record, June 5, 1979)
            1979 – Large Glacial Buildup Could Mean Ice Age (Spokane Daily Chronicle, June 5, 1979)
            1979 – Ice Age On Its Way (Lewiston Morning Tribune, June 7, 1979)
            1979 – Get Ready to Freeze (Spokane Daily Chronicle, October 12, 1979)
            1979 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)

          • SkyHunter

            How many of those articles are published in the refereed journals?

            Media sensationalism is not the equivalent of scientific research.

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            Agreed.

            Media or political sensationalism is not the equivalent of scientific research.

          • numag

            And here lies your true motive. Side? It’s all about sides for a partisan hack like you. Pathetic.

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            Good Reference: New IRS Scandal Hearings Reveal 32,000 More Emails, Possible Criminal Activity

          • planet8788

            Who has read them?

          • SkyHunter

            True the vote? You mean the white supremacists who try and intimidate black voters?

            You believe they should have tax exempt status?

          • planet8788

            Lol. Intimidate voters how? Any proof? By pushing voter I’d laws?
            Yeah. Because in the age of Obamacare nobody needs an I’D when they go to the doctor. Really. Are you thatstupid?

          • numag

            Says the useful idiot.

          • numag

            Oh, you mean the ONE progressive PAC for every 100 conservative groups that were targeted? Yeah, that sounds fair and balanced. No wonder you hate Fox News so much.

          • Rascal69

            Lois Lerner’s email were destroyed…oops…we found 32,000 of Lois Lerner’s email. How? We asked the IT guys. Now, if you can understand that little scenario and still believe there was no corruption, you have a pair of the strongest Rose-Colored glasses ever created by man.

          • SkyHunter

            Another kooky conspiracy theory. 32,000 emails and all you can accuse anyone of is not being able to find them.

            Hilarious.

          • numag

            They are Partisan-Colored glasses so thick he doesn’t even know what planet he’s on. And he PROJECTS his partisanship on others accusing them of the very thing he does. In summary, he’s a liberal.

          • numag

            The only scandal is the degree you got purporting that you are an educated person.

          • GrizzMann

            2+2=5. does it make them false? Like your doctor, you can keep him, You like your insurance, You can keep it. I am angry as anyone . I’ll get to the bottom of this. Not a smidgen of corruption at the IRS. FAST AND FURIOUS, is that a movie? TEE time . etc..

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            Nope- false syllogism.

          • sirgareth

            How about the anagram; “You can trust the state?”

          • Crozetian

            If it can’t get private funding, then it probably isn’t worth studying. Government is good at wasting money on studies such as shrimp on treadmills, or on spending $750,000 for a new soccer field for terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay while at the same time planning to close it.

          • SkyHunter

            So give up all the benefits of government funded research, get off the internet, lose your cell phone, and crawl back into your cave.

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            The Government may have birthed the Internet (as a piece of Cold War warmongering, you know), and as long as The Government had it, it was a half-dozen computers tied together with tin cans and string. ONLY when it got out into private commercial hands (specifically, CompuServe) did it start to resemble anything like what we have now.

            And The Government had NOTHING to do with the development of cell phones. Would you like a lecture on how the Telecommunications Act of 1934 throttled innovation in telephone technology in its cradle? Oh, by the way, that’s the same law that this woefully misbegotten, misnamed teratologism “Net Neutrality” has been given to us under. Isn’t that grotesque? I am a grandfather, and the Internet has just been commandeered under a law that was enacted BEFORE MY MOTHER WAS BORN.

          • sirgareth

            Actually TCP/IP was the governments “internet” and it is merely a protocol like many others.

            IBM had already linked its hundreds of mainframes across the world with its SNA in the late 1960s.

          • SkyHunter

            Science has been government funded since there was science.

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            And . . . ?

          • numag

            What the mindless liberal is trying to say is that government funding science is GOOD under liberal socialist administrations and BAD if conducted under the auspices of a republican administration. It’s ALL about politics in their drug addled minds.

          • TSZodiac

            Don’t worry Fan – Skyhunter is Vendicar Decarian’s lap dog

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            No, plenty of research I saw done by engineering graduate students at my university, under the direction of their professors, was *privately* funded.

            Isaac Newton invented Calculus as a student during a black plague, without government funding, several hundred years ago.

          • SkyHunter

            I love the way you Randians rewrite history to fit your fairy tale.

            Cambridge is a public university, and was publicly funded in Newton’s day as well. Science has historically been government funded. The private funding at your university is private companies exploiting the commons for private gain, in particular, cheap labor in the form of grad students.

            Those with leverage exploit those without. That is how it has always been. The “free market” does not change that. Only a democratic government with an educated and informed electorate can change that.

            As evidenced by the comment section here, America lacks an informed

          • numag

            And SkyHunter stands alone to fight against the uninformed, ignorant hordes that populate these comment boards. Gee, where are all your “educated” comrades rallying to your defense? Could it be that YOU are the odd ball blathering your ignorant specious diatribes? No, you’re obviously too arrogant to even consider that. Where do people like you come from? And how are you created? I would support a government funded project to answer THOSE questions.

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            When Private Enterprise funds graduate-student research, it pays for the students’ tuition, healthcare, and a 20 hours-per-week generous salary.

            I would know, since my graduate research was funded.

            The amounts spent by private companies are not “cheap”, in the least.

          • SkyHunter

            Cheaper and more effective than doing it in house. I am not against private public relationships. Just pointing out that your fear of government is irrational. It is generated by plutocratic propaganda. The only thing stopping powerful private interests from doing whatever they want is the government. Therefore they need to manufacture opposition to the government. It isn’t hard to do once you understand how humans form beliefs it is easy to manipulate those beliefs.

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            “Just pointing out that your fear of government is irrational.” (SkyHunter)

            —->I have no fear of government-funded research.

            I am refuting your claim, and your implication, that ALL “Science has been government funded since there was science.” (SkyHunter)

          • SkyHunter

            I said most, not all. You are reading more than I am writing. A common human trait. We fill in the blanks from our own experience.

          • Jess_Axen

            Government has certainly wasted the most money of all entities funding research in ‘science’, but most science since the Industrial Age has been funded by private industry through investment in R&D. ‘Government funding’ of anything is courtesy of the taxpayer. You’re welcome.

          • Daniel Matuska

            Sorry I have repeated your post, didn’t see it below. This fellow is really clueless.

          • numag

            Lecturing a liberal is a complete waste of time. They have stopped up their ears to anything that doesn’t further their agenda. Truth and lies are merely tools they use to accomplish their demented plans. A sorry, dangerous lot.

          • Crozetian

            I’m already in a cave, although I call it my “man cave.” Most innovations affecting the Internet and cell phones seem to come from bright college students and not scientists, and they become stinking rich while the scientists are busy pimping for taxpayer funding to study whether cocaine makes Japanese quail engage in sexually risky behaviors. That’s a real study, by the way.

          • Daniel Matuska

            Wherever do you get your sources of misinformation? Government funded research is not of any real value except to those getting grants, loans and subsidies. The cell phone owes nothing to government. The internet did leverage off DARPA-funded but that was a command and control project that was exploited by industry.

          • Jess_Axen

            Right after you give up all the benefits of petrofuel industry funded research and products, including everything you own and use containing plastic. Also Vaseline, flooring materials, contact lenses, dishware, dyes, paints, varnishes, adhesives, and synthetic rubber. Double-talking, red herring-dragging hypocrite.

          • numag

            But he got an A in political science and sociology at one of our finest liberal institutions of learning.

          • GrizzMann

            Well YES. Governments want their answer, not the true results.

          • SkyHunter

            I see, you want to give up all the modern conveniences of government funded research and go live in a cave, be my guest. Just don’t expect the rest of us to follow back into your hole.

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            Haha, you’re doing it again! COMPLETE non sequitur.

          • GrizzMann

            Yeah, like Solyndra and windmill power and the development of buggy whips, BTW these storms and earthquakes are caused by the use of windmills. The blades draw heavy cold air through the blades, cooling the air more. The imbalance of the blades cause a vibration in the earth’s crust accounting for more severe earthquakes. This effect is amplified by the proximity of solar panels to the windmills. Tesla experimented with vibrations and found them indeed dangerous .

          • MichMike

            ALWAYS all or nothing with you. Even the simple minded don’t buy that all the time. Do you ever have a point?

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message. Here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention.

            What the Government Climate Scientists Say

            The climate models. If the CO2 level doubles (as it is on course to do by about 2070 to 2100), the climate models estimate the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1°C x 3 = 3.3°C.

            The direct effect of CO2 is well-established physics, based on laboratory results, and known for over a century.

            Feedbacks are due to the ways the Earth reacts to the direct warming effect of the CO2. The threefold amplification by feedbacks is based on the assumption, or guess, made around 1980, that more warming due to CO2 will cause more evaporation from the oceans and that this extra water vapor will in turn lead to even more heat trapping because water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. And extra heat will cause even more evaporation, and so on. This amplification is built into all the climate models. The amount of amplification is estimated by assuming that nearly all the industrial-age warming is due to our CO2.

            The government climate scientists and the media often tell us about the direct effect of the CO2, but rarely admit that two-thirds of their projected temperature increases are due to amplification by feedbacks.

            What the Skeptics Say

            The skeptic’s view. If the CO2 level doubles, skeptics estimates that the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1°C × 0.5 = 0.6°C.

            The serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The argument is entirely about the feedbacks.

            The feedbacks dampen or reduce the direct effect of the extra CO2, cutting it roughly in half. The main feedbacks involve evaporation, water vapor, and clouds. In particular, water vapor condenses into clouds, so extra water vapor due to the direct warming effect of extra CO2 will cause extra clouds, which reflect sunlight back out to space and cool the earth, thereby reducing the overall warming.

            There are literally thousands of feedbacks, each of which either reinforces or opposes the direct-warming effect of the extra CO2. Almost every long-lived system is governed by net feedback that dampens its response to a perturbation. If a system instead reacts to a perturbation by amplifying it, the system is likely to reach a tipping point and become unstable (like the electronic squeal that erupts when a microphone gets too close to its speakers). The earth’s climate is long-lived and stable — it has never gone into runaway greenhouse, unlike Venus — which strongly suggests that the feedbacks dampen temperature perturbations such as that from extra CO2.

            What the Data Says

            Hansen’s predictions to the US Congress in 1988, compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites.

            Hansen’s climate model clearly exaggerated future temperature rises.

            In particular, his climate model predicted that if human CO2 emissions were cut back drastically starting in 1988, such that by year 2000 the CO2 level was not rising at all, we would get his scenario C. But in reality the temperature did not even rise this much, even though our CO2 emissions strongly increased — which suggests that the climate models greatly overestimate the effect of CO2 emissions.

            A more considered prediction by the climate models was made in 1990 in the IPCC’s First Assessment Report: It’s 20 years now, and the average rate of increase in reality is below the lowest trend in the range predicted by the IPCC.

            Ocean Temperatures

            The oceans hold the vast bulk of the heat in the climate system. We’ve only been measuring ocean temperature properly since mid-2003, when the Argo system became operational. In Argo, a buoy duck dives down to a depth of 2,000 meters, measures temperatures as it very slowly ascends, then radios the results back to headquarters via satellite. Over 3,000 Argo buoys constantly patrol all the oceans of the world.

            Climate model predictions of ocean temperature, versus the measurements by Argo. The unit of the vertical axis is 10^22 Joules (about 0.01°C).

            The ocean temperature has been basically flat since we started measuring it properly, and not warming as quickly as the climate models predict.

            Atmospheric Hotspot

            The climate models predict a particular pattern of atmospheric warming during periods of global warming; the most prominent change they predict is a warming in the tropics about 10 km up, the “hotspot.”

            The hotspot is the sign of the amplification in their theory. The theory says the hotspot is caused by extra evaporation, and by extra water vapor pushing the warmer, wetter lower troposphere up into volume previously occupied by cool dry air. The presence of a hotspot would indicate amplification is occurring, and vice versa.

            We have been measuring atmospheric temperatures with weather balloons since the 1960s. Millions of weather balloons have built up a good picture of atmospheric temperatures over the last few decades, including the warming period from the late 1970s to the late ’90s. This important and pivotal data was not released publicly by the climate establishment until 2006, and then in an obscure place.

            On the left is the data collected by millions of weather balloons. On the right is what the climate models say was happening. The theory (as per the climate models) is incompatible with the observations. In both diagrams the horizontal axis shows latitude, and the right vertical axis shows height in kilometers.

            In reality there was no hotspot, not even a small one. So in reality there is no amplification — the amplification does not exist.

            Outgoing Radiation

            The climate models predict that when the surface of the earth warms, less heat is radiated from the earth into space (on a weekly or monthly time scale). This is because, according to the theory, the warmer surface causes more evaporation and thus there is more heat-trapping water vapor. This is the heat-trapping mechanism that is responsible for the assumed amplification.

            Satellites have been measuring the radiation emitted from the earth for the last two decades. A major study has linked the changes in temperature on the earth’s surface with the changes in the outgoing radiation.

            Outgoing radiation from earth (vertical axis) against sea-surface temperature (horizontal), as measured by the ERBE satellites (upper-left graph) and as “predicted” by 11 climate models (the other graphs). Notice that the slopes of the graphs for the climate models are opposite to the slope of the graph for the observed data.

            This shows that in reality the earth gives off more heat when its surface is warmer. This is the opposite of what the climate models predict. This shows that the climate models trap heat too aggressively, and that their assumed amplification does not exist.

            Conclusions

            All the data here is impeccably sourced — satellites, Argo, and weather balloons.

            The air and ocean temperature data shows that the climate models overestimate temperature rises. The climate establishment suggest that cooling due to undetected aerosols might be responsible for the failure of the models to date, but this excuse is wearing thin — it continues not to warm as much as they said it would, or in the way they said it would. On the other hand, the rise in air temperature has been greater than the skeptics say could be due to CO2. The skeptic’s excuse is that the rise is mainly due to other forces — and they point out that the world has been in a fairly steady warming trend of 0.5°C per century since 1680 (with alternating ~30 year periods of warming and mild cooling) where as the vast bulk of all human CO2 emissions have been after 1945.

            We’ve checked all the main predictions of the climate models against the best data.

            The climate models get them all wrong. The missing hotspot and outgoing radiation data both, independently, prove that the amplification in the climate models is not present. Without the amplification, the climate model temperature predictions would be cut by at least two-thirds, which would explain why they overestimated the recent air and ocean temperature increases. Therefore,

            1. The climate models are fundamentally flawed. Their assumed threefold amplification by feedbacks does not in fact exist.

            2. The climate models overestimate temperature rises due to CO2 by at least a factor of three.

            The skeptical view is compatible with the data.

            Some Political Points

            The data presented here is impeccably sourced, very relevant, publicly available, and from our best instruments. Yet it never appears in the mainstream media — have you ever seen anything like any of the figures here in the mainstream media? That alone tells you that the “debate” is about politics and power, and not about science or truth.

            This is an unusual political issue, because there is a right and a wrong answer, and everyone will know which it is eventually. People are going ahead and emitting CO2 anyway, so we are doing the experiment: either the world heats up by several degrees by 2050 or so, or it doesn’t.

            Notice that the skeptics agree with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2; they just disagree about the feedbacks. The climate debate is all about the feedbacks; everything else is merely a sideshow. Yet hardly anyone knows that. The government climate scientists and the mainstream media have framed the debate in terms of the direct effect of CO2 and sideshows such as arctic ice, bad weather, or psychology. They almost never mention the feedbacks. Why is that? Who has the power to make that happen?

          • SkyHunter

            Do you really think I am going to read your cut and pasted article just because you are impressed?

            Get real. I read Science journals, not random commenters who get their information from denier blogs.

          • numag

            Reading and UNDERSTANDING are two different things.

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            Of course you will remain ignorant and partisan, just as you intend.

          • SkyHunter

            No. I read SCIENCE JOURNALS, not denier blogs. I become less ignorant, while you become more ignorant.

            There are no legitimate skeptics. Transient climate sensitivity is already more than 0.6°C/doubling.

            CO2 forcing since 1880 is 5.35 ln(400/280) = 1.9W/m2

            http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009.gif

            Temperature rise is already 1°C, meaning that equilibrium sensitivity is at least 2°C/doubling.

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            Yes, good information if the chart can be believed. Can you post a URL or another reference for my investigation?

            The reason your comments are not accepted here and that you are considered partisan and intellectually dishonest, is that you continuously call others “stupid” or use other pejoratives to describe anyone who disagrees with you.

            I have a seven-month-old infant who understands at least a dozen words, and is beginning to talk with rudimentary expressions, but I do not call her an “IDIOT” or a “DENIER” because she cannot do algebra or has not knowledge of classical or modern physics.

            The type of berating behavior you display generally indicates someone with a closed mind, a political axe to grind, or a bottle of snake-oil to sell. It is not a mystery therefore that anything you might say or is suspected to be devoid of truth.

            Facts and truth are what we need, not political dispensations designed to protect politicians and classes who benefit from obfuscation and alarmism, if it exists.

          • SkyHunter

            For CO2 you go here.

            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html

            For temperature trends I like this tool.

            http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

            Here is a UK graph that extends CO2 back to 1700 using ice cores.

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/staticarchive/751fc904560eadbdb1798807c76d4e9b9abbf7a4.gif

          • numag

            Tell ya what. We’ll stay in our holes if you stay in yours. The problem is you keep popping out of your hole to mess up the government and our lives. You and your liberal cohorts.

          • MichMike

            Of course, there are only the two straw man choices you present……………something like a 3rd grader would do. Impressive.

          • dkn1234

            No, as long as you fund all THEORIES!

          • Down Lowbama

            I think it would be better if their funding wasn’t directly proportional to the results produced.

          • Rascal69

            Personally, I would prefer the government to stay out of funding since they know nothing of it and spend far too much money on useless crap. I really don’t need to know (nor should you) how long a shrimp can stay on a treadmill.

          • Daniel Matuska

            As a scientist I would prefer no government funding. Government involvement in anything becomes political.

          • numag

            But SkyHunter fancies himself a scientist too. He said he reads scientific journals.

          • Ordinary American 2014

            We should not fund dishonest frauds.

            Wasn’t that easy?

          • SkyHunter

            No worries. There is no plan to provide you any funding.

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            research I find politically distasteful TAINTED.

          • SkyHunter

            But you are a partisan hack, so everything you don’t like is politically tainted.

          • LibertyBill_1776

            Huh! $2.5 billion dollars is a HUGE amount of money to most people…I know it is to me!

            But $2.5 billion dollars is just a ROUNDING ERROR for the federal government. The US Federal Gov’t spent $3,504 billion last year (FY 2014). The $ spent by our government on man-made Global Warming/Climate Change is .07% of the entire federal budget.

            To look at it another way, that works out to just about $7.81 per person in the US.

            Even so, it is still too much to spend out of my pocket for something based on “Junk Science”.

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            $2.5 billion is still a huge amount of money compared to … any amount of money leftists doggedly accuse Big Oil of spending on “anti Climate Change propaganda”. Example, Fred Singer got under $100k in honorariums from oil interests speaking about the falsehoods of AGW while the entire careers plus pensions of climate “scientists” (they are really just computer programmers playing with big computers), thrive on that $2.5B gravy train.

          • DamnThemToHELL

            Can you say Chemtrails, Solar Radiation management and Geoengineering? Thats why the weather is so cold over here. They are playing God!

          • sirgareth

            These g-man geniuses cant keep track of the money we send them but they can drive the climate for sure.

            Wow Obama and company must like, be even more smarter than, like, Lex Luther, man.

          • tedlv

            Brilliant sarcasm!

          • Ordinary American 2014

            See more data manipulation by Global Warming cultists:

            http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/30/forget-climategate-this-global-warming-scandal-is-much-bigger/

            There is too much non-Obama-government evidence refuting that the Earth has been
            getting warmer recently or that it is because of CO2.

            To make the Global Warming Hoax work, you have to prove both non-proven things:

            1. That the Earth is on a permanent trend leading to the warming and eventual burning
            up of the planet.

            2. That CO2 causes global warming.

            Just a parallel correlation is not good enough. If you say that CO2 level rose at the same time that Earth temperatures rose, then it is would be just as possible that global warming causes a rise in CO2.

            The fake scientists need to prove that one causes the other, and they never have.

            They’ve never proven anything.

        • VendicarDecarian0

          Actually, it means a cleaver procedure to perform a desired task.

          For example: One trick you can use to see if a number is divisible by 3 is to sum it’s digits, and if the result is divisible by 3 then the original number was as well.

          Experts employ a wide variety of tricks to simply problems.

          If something has bilateral symmetry for example, you can sometimes perform a trick by doing a calculation once for one side and apply it immediately to the other.

          The standard method of deriving the quadratic equation for example is to first express the originating equation as a similar factorable equation and a constant error term, and then proceeding from there using standard methods.

          The trick to getting heavy oil out of the ground is trough the use of “fracking” fluids, etc. etc. etc.

          • buyitcheap

            OK, when you change the time at which you take the temperatures and then go back and “adjust” previous data as if (but not actually) it were taken at the new time, that’s manipulation. It’s not a “cleaver procedure” or anything else…

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Yes. That is one of the many kinds of corrections that are applied to the satellite data, and one of the lesser reasons why the satellite record isn’t considered as reliable as the surface record.

          • buyitcheap

            NO. What you do is compare the two samples and see if the trends exist separately as their own data set, rather than merge… totally wrong.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            You can do that if you like, but then the corrections needed to compute a global average just come into the calculations at a different point.

            Neither method is invalid as indicated by the fact that Berkeley Earth which uses your preferred method comes to precisely the came conclusions as the other temperature reconstructions that adjust the temperature data using the method you don’t like.

          • sirgareth

            How does one asses the average kinetic energy of all the earth’s molecules or is it just a subset of them?

            Which ones do we include and which do we exclude and even more importantly why?.

            Why do we measure temperature when its heat that is supposedly going to be trapped?

            What is an average? Is it the daily high and low added up and divided by two? Or is it a fully integrated mean. How did people in 1890 decide when the daily low occurred? did they watch the thermometer round the clock?

            Do spacial average or temporal averages count more? If the globe is warming isn’t one thermometer strategically placed enough to illustrate a 30 year trend? Do we know where the globe is going to be warming in advance of it occurring do we know where it is presumably going to cool? If we don’t know this how can we be sure we have thermometers in the right place. Why do we care? The earth has milllions of climates not one.

            What does a mish-mosh of all it it put in a Jumbalaya stew prove?

            I agree, satellite data is bogus as is all of the rest.

            Why do even even care about atmospheric data when the fluid oceans contain at least 100 times more heat than the air. The heat machine of the oceans transport almost all the earths heat, not the air. The air is a sideshow.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Me thinks you’ve blown that turds mind and he won’t be responding to you.

          • SkyHunter

            You don’t, you measure the anomaly fool. It is obvious that you don’t science.

          • sirgareth

            In your science you repeat what you are told, then you will be sure to have it right; ie as a mantra – is that how you learned everything you know for certain?

            Others might call this brainwashing, but real science questions at all times; real science never lays down and “accepts” a mantra.

            Temperature represents the average heat intensity of well mixed molecules of the same stuff (dry air, moist air, salt water, fresh water etc. How can you measure how much it has cooled or warmed without knowing what is was to begin with?

            I presume that you are aware that moist air possesses quite a bit more heat than dry air at the same temperature, or is that being too presumptive? What is the average global heat anomaly of the earth day by day month by month, year by year, century by century?

            How would you go about measuring the “anomalous” average speed of the worlds automobile fleet without knowing how fast or slow each of them were going on average to begin with?

            How many automobiles are there in the worlds fleet of matter and what percentage of them would give you a precise figure?

            How many molecules are there in the earths fleet and what percentage of them will give you a precise figure?

          • SkyHunter

            There is a branch of mathematics called statistics, you might find it enlightening.

          • sirgareth

            Again your comment is non responsive, you simply don’t know the answer to my straightforward questions so you reach behind you, dig some poo out of your ass, and fling it in the air hoping we wont notice that your shit-storm doesn’t constitute an answer.

            Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881): “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

            Here is a primer on how to tell the differences between these three things when there are any.

            http://www.amazon.com/Damned-Lies-Statistics-Untangling-Politicians/dp/0520274709/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

            You might find it enlightening.

          • SkyHunter

            Climate is weather statistics. You are the one conceptually impoverished.

          • sirgareth

            Big stuff is made of smaller stuff; what an insight!

          • SkyHunter

            Obviously not, since your response missed the point.

          • sirgareth

            Help me out was the dust bowl a weather event was it a change in the climate of the the region?

          • SkyHunter

            The dust bowl is irrelevant to global climate statistics. I am not going to play word games with you.

          • sirgareth

            You hit on a truth although I’m quite sure it was unintended. The globe has no climate, it has millions of climates. Likewise humans have assholes, millions of them but there is no global asshole although Detroit comes close. So one cannot say the global asshole sports hemorrhoids. Some individual assholes do. We can speak of the health of individual assholes but not of a global asshole

            I live in a local temperate climate and of course the local climate is why I chose to live where I do. I prefer my climate to the temperate climate few hundred miles to the North of me.

            Since the globe has no global climate, then global climate statistics are as useful as global assholes statistics

          • SkyHunter

            I already set that nail a few posts ago.

            Climate is weather statistics. Your local area has a climate, your region of the world has a climate, the Earth has a climate, the entire solar system has a climate.

            You can’t grasp the whole concept because it contradicts your bias. The cognitive dissonance would be uncomfortable, so you convince yourself with a half truth.

          • sirgareth

            So how would you describe the world’s climate.

            I can tell you that my local climate is temperate with mild winters and warm summers featuring even precipitation (between 2.6 and 5.2 inches per month, year round)

            Now you have a pretty good idea of my climate.

            Please describe the globe’s climate in a similar fashion?

          • SkyHunter

            Why would I describe global climate in the same fashion you describe local climate?

            You are parsing words and comparing apples to oranges as if they are the same fruit.

          • sirgareth

            In real science we assign meaning to words. We are now talking about words (and phrases) for which you cannot ascribe any meaning

            (wacky weather, climate disruption, extreme weather, global climate)

            All of these terms have no real meaning and they are further watered to nothing by terms like “might” “could” or “maybe.”

          • SkyHunter

            And clever wordsmiths can twist words into circles and even fool themselves.

          • sirgareth

            Perhaps so, then its best not to “believe” in anything you are told unless you have rock solid evidence that what you are being told conforms with reality as your own senses and intellect inform you.

            I probably have an advantage over you; I have lived longer, done more and seen more than you probably ever will; this is not your fault.

            I am more or less immune to the sandwich board doomsayers because I have seen so many come and go.

            I suspect like most devotees of this religion that you are not a broad reader or traveler. Both offer great opportunities to augment a wider perception of reality and an immunization against fantasy

            Have you read or even heard of H.L Mencken.

            He had an observation (probably penned in the 1920s) that you might find useful:

            “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

            You see the global warming hobgoblin hadn’t even been dreamed up yet so this is a universal observation that applied equally to the state’s favorite science hobgoblin of the 1920s (racial eugenics) as it does to today’s.

            You probably think people are smarter now but that simply because you have such a limited perspective of the world that surrounds you; its really not your fault. Most people are easily malleable when you discover their primal fears.

            Your generation his its own primal fear (the world of my childhood is going away and I want to to last forever or “sustain” it)

            You have not yet synthesized the idea that nature appears to despise “sustainability.” All must be tested and all must die not just as individuals but as species. Nothing has permanence in nature.

            This is the fear that make you tremble about the weather, my generation would hold that your fears are evidence of un-manliness but I suspect that value is unimportant to you

            Ask a Sudanese refuge child if he is interested in “sustainability” and he will laugh in your face if he even could understand an alien creature such as yourself.

          • sirgareth

            In real science we assign meaning to words. We are now talking about words (and phrases) for which you cannot ascribe any meaning

            (wacky weather, climate disruption, extreme weather, global climate)

            All of these terms have no real meaning and they are further watered to nothing by terms like “might” “could” or “maybe.”

          • MichMike

            Did you know that the personal behavior of about 1% of the U. S. population results in their CO2 footprint being 50 TIMES the actual average / person. As such, they are responsible for more than 33% of ALL U. S. CO2 emissions. How come all the plans proposed and promoted by the president and his party will allow this small group to continue to spew CO2 unabated, actually increasing their percentage, while financially hammering the lower income and middle class folks? By the way, you can PROVE this to yourself with a couple of hours of simple research using only published government data on emission sources relative to individuals. You do need to be able to do entry level algebra. I can help if you need help on this.

          • SkyHunter

            I don’t repeat what I have been told. I learn and understand the concepts and how to apply them.

            It is impossible for you to know the speed and direction of every molecule of mercury in a glass tube. bIt is impossible to know the frequency of every photon emitted by the Sun, or any black body object. However, we can calculate the temperature of a black body using the laws of physics. The mercury will expand at a consistent rate, so we can make a scale that correlates to the phase changes of water 0° = freezing 100° = boiling. And we can calculate the temperature of a star by measuring the peak emittance frequency.

            So when you have a record of temperatures from instruments and paleoclimate proxies, you don’t need to know the exact motion of every molecule, you just need enough temporal data to see the changes, anomalies.

          • sirgareth

            Wonderful, i have read these same things and understand the proveable concept of physics perhaps more than you.

            Of course things can be recorded and we might even call these records data. Its when we attempt to draw inferences from data that are toutally unsuitable for the purposes at hand that psuedo-science emerges.

            Do you think spacial distribution is important when attempting to take measurements of of large geographically dispersed areas?

            For instance if you wanted to take the “average rainfall” of Africa, would citing of rain gauges be important. Could you arrive at a figure by just averaging all of them up. What if there were no literally no rain gauges at all in the Sahara?

            Can you jiggle data from elsewhere to make it represent the entire Sahara?

            Here is the CRU map of global temperature monitoring stations. Are these stations geographically dispersed – how about the oceans and the air above them?

            http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/locations.GIF

            Global warming is agenda driven political science of the kind that has killed two of NASAs shuttle crew simply because its budget was at stake. In each case contradictory data was ignored that literally murdered two shuttle crews. Neither shuttle should ever have flown, in fact the whole program was a disaster but all the contradictory data it was glossed over by “government science”

            NASA has had its wings clipped because it has fudged the data too many times. When they fudge climate data no one knows and we cannot identify the victims of its data fudging.

          • SkyHunter

            You obviously don’t understand physics or statistical analysis. You opinion is based on your ideology. An ideology that is completely devoted to the idea that free markets solve all problems.

            NASA has never “fudged data” that is a lie, that has become part of the ideological narrative that you believe.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            The same way you measure the temperature of a cup of water.

            With a thermometer.on in the case of the earth a series of thermometers.

            It would be unwise for you to argue that there is no such thing as temperature.

          • sirgareth

            I see, how many cups of water are in the oceans.

            Its rather easy to keep a cup of water well mixed while taking its temperature.

            I’m curious, how do “scientists” keep 326 million cubic miles of ocean well mixed as they take its “average” temperature?

            I’m sure you must know this since you “believe” what you are told.

            How many thermometers are needed in this “series” to cover 326 million cubic miles of ocean from average depths of two miles to sounds as deep as 7 miles.

            When you have pulled the figure out of yours or someone else’s ass tell us all which magic fairy tells you that you have the right number?

            How would one take the “average” temperature of two points, one of the air at one meter of altitude in the center of the Sahara desert, the other at a similar altitude in center of the everglades. How would one record the average heat per unit unit of air in this instance

            Is global warming supposed to be about heat trapping gasses or temperature trapping gasses?

            If it’s the latter where are the heat records kept?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            “I’m curious, how do “scientists” keep 326 million cubic miles of ocean well mixed as they take its “average” temperature?” – sirgareth

            What makes you think that they have to?

            There is a network of tens of thousands of thermometers placed all over the planet. It is an interesting fact that the global temperature record can be reconstructed with a properly selected subset of just 60 or so of those thermometers.

            Science is a powerful tool for understanding the world.

            Why are you content with being ignorant?

          • sirgareth

            Science can be a powerful tool for self delusion: alchemy, phlogiston, eugenics, phrenology etc etc etc.

            So 60 thermometers give us the “average” temperature of just what?

            a) the fluid atmosphere (from what and to what altitude)

            b) the fluid oceans (from the surface to which depths?)

            c) both a and b

            d) both a and b plus the heat of the non fluid surface – to what depths?

            Show me how the number 60 was derived – not opinion, the data and the calculations.

            How many sets of chicken entrails (how roman science predicted the future) were necessary to get an accurate reading by soothsayers of the day. Some say three other’s say more than a dozen, inquiring minds want to know?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            “So 60 thermometers give us the “average” temperature of just what?” – Sirgareth

            They give measures of individual air temperatures around each thermometer.

            The average is a mathematical process.

            If you don’t understand how averages are computed then please visit a local public school and learn.

            a) the global fluid atmosphere (from what and to what altitude)

            About 1.5 meters from the surface of the ground or water.

            That is where the thermometers are placed.

            You silly little Toadie.

          • sirgareth

            Re “the average is a mathematical process”

            This sounds so profound, but is it?

            Which process? Describe it?

            I know how to take a lot of averages, simple means of a few values, simple modal averages and even a simple median average

            Which is the best way “average” the daily temperature and why?

            Is the median better or worse than a mean of a few values?

            why? please explain yourself?

            But then there might be more suitable averages such as a fully integrated mean, would that be superior?

            of course there are many more ways to “average” aren’t there so lets do a practical example

            Here are some temperatures observed for the day hour by hour (24 hour clock)

            0:00 to 8:00 —- 20 C
            8:00 to 20:00 —- 30 C
            20:00 to 22:00 —- 25C
            23:00 to 0:00 — 0 C

            I know this must be real simple stuff for a profound mathematician such as yourself – what would a global warming scientist claim was the average temperature for this day?

          • Jess_Axen

            NASA and NOAA have always considered satellite data, since their introduction, to be more reliable than surface data. That is, until recently when satellite data belied the narrative they are trying to maintain. You and your posse are nothing but dishonest activists and propagandists.

          • deniertribemember

            What is sad no matter what real time data indicates it will be adjusted or any cooling will somehow be distorted and contributed to AGW and preached through the media as gospel.

          • MyOpinionPost

            It is a religion. I particularly enjoy how the conclusion is made and the data changed to support the conclusion.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            The 80’s were a 10 year period, and all 10 year periods are dominated by weather noise, rather than climate change.

            Climate change is only detectable over 20 to 30 year minimum time frames.

            The statement made in by your source therefore has no relevance to Climate change.

          • planet8788

            Which all is really stupid because we’ve learned 30 years is nothing and PDO and ADO’s cover much broader periods of time. You’re a fraud just like Global Warming.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            2005, 2010 and 2014 have all exceeded the temperature for 2009, which due to El-Nino warming was an exceptionally unusual year.

            A cold temperature mode switch in the PDO has already been triggered and still global temperatures are the highest ever recorded.

            Awwwwwwww Poor Planet 8788. The world just doesn’t want to cooperate as you claim.

          • planet8788

            LOL… All the warming is imagined. You’re an idiot and it becomes more obvious every day.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            How long have you thought that Thermometers have imaginations?

            Koook.

          • planet8788

            The thermometers show cooling. Moron. Only after the “scientists” adjust the data is there any warming. And they should be adjusting it colder.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            “The thermometers show cooling. Moron.” – PlanetKook

            And 911 was a bigfoot conspiracy. The YouTube videos prove it.

          • planet8788

            The raw data proves it.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Yup, the raw data proves that 911 was done by bigfoot, and Dinosaurs were just big chickens.

            Well at least according to republican kooks

          • planet8788

            The raw data shoW’s your man boobs are ugly and we don’t want to see them.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            What man boobs?

            How long have you been mentally ill?

          • planet8788

            Right there in your photo. A lot less time than you.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            I see, so you can’t distinguish between these pair of perfectly formed titties and man boobs.

            You must be a homo.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            I see, so you can’t distinguish between these pair of perfectly formed titties and man boobs. You must be a homo.

            OH NOES!!! Did an enlightened libtard really just commit an egregious act of homophobia and bigotry right here for all to see.

          • Tariq_Toulhead_Al_Tabilcloth

            How’s your “hockey stick” doing? Is that you Michael Mann? lol !

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Which one? There are more than a dozen of them now, each using different data sets and methodologies?

            You did know that, didn’t you?

          • MyOpinionPost

            El Nino warming is all part of the global climate. Did you happen to miss that little crack in your opinion?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            No El-Nino formed in 2014.

            So we have a non-El-Nino year warmer than one of the strongest temporary El-Nino warming ever recorded – 1998.

            It is good to see you admit that 1998 was an unusually warm year due to El-Nino, and by implication admit that it is therefore an invalid year to select for a starting period for a trend.

          • MyOpinionPost

            Excuse me, but El Nino and El Nina are local phenomena, that are meaningless to global temperatures. Their changes are cancelled out by the rest of the world. Can you understand the concept of Global?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Regional temperatures are averaged together to produce a global average.

            Is it the concept of averaging that is confusing you or are you just confused by the numerical division part?

            Please visit any local grade 5 classroom and have the children explain it too you.

          • MyOpinionPost

            You are a jokester right? No one can be this stupid and proud of being that stupid.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            You need to say that out loud every morning when you are shaving.

            It will change your ignorant life.

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            Only a couple US (NOAA? NCDC?) land based global data sets show 2014 as warmer than ~2007 or ~1998, oher data sets show these as highest –

            HadCRUT3: ~1998 (UK)

            HadCRUT4: ~2007(UK)

            RSS satellite: ~1998 (US)

            UAH satellite: ~1998 (US)

            CRUTemp4 land: ~2007 (UK)

            GisTemp LOTTI: ~2007 (NASA)

            GisTemp dts: ~2007 (NASA)

            BEST: ~2007 (US)

            Besides – what YOU are doing is getting people to chase their tails with your subterfuge. Peak highs and lows are as meaningless as the record LOWS! You want to compare peak highs then we get to compare the lows.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Liar… Liar… Pants on fire…

            The Average Temperature of 2014
            Results from Berkeley Earth
            January 14, 2015

            Berkeley Earth has constructed an estimate of the global average temperature during 2014, including’ and and’ sea. The key findings’ are:

            1. The global surface temperature average (land and sea) for 2014 was nominally the warmest since the global instrumental record began in 1850

            http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/Global-Warming-2014-Berkeley-Earth-Newsletter.pdf

          • planet8788

            The 1880 coverage of temps was immense I am sure. Haha..

          • VendicarDecarian0

            It was.

            Every sea shell, every tree, every glacier, etc, were recording it.

          • planet8788

            Nope. Tree rings also are moisture dependent. Can’t tell if it’s colder or just less rain.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            You have discovered one of the reasons why Mann truncate the tree ring record when he discovered the decline in correlation between tree ring thickness and global temperatures.

          • planet8788

            There never was a good reliable correlation. Just like a climastrologist to only use the data that tells their fairy tale.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            You have now made a statement that you could only make if you have run the numbers.

            What is the correlation coefficient for the correlation between the tree ring data and local temperatures over the period Mann used the data, and over the period that he rejected the data as too badly correlated.

            Knowing those two numbers is the only way you could factually make your claim.

            If you can’t provide the numbers then we know you are a liar.

          • planet8788

            He throws out the ones that disagree. so who knows.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            You have now admitted that you don’t have any data on which to base your accusations.

            You are therefore guilty of fraud.

          • planet8788

            What’s funny is the divergence starts in 1960’s when the NAS used to show cooling from 1960 to 1980, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, then your Climastrologists tweaked with the record. Tree rings probably only have this divergence problem now, because your side jacked with the temp history.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Why is a divergence that starts in the 1960’s funny?

            Is there some Illuminati connection, UFO connection, or connection to Big Foot you want to bring up?

            “Tree rings probably only have this divergence problem now, because your side jacked with the temp history.”

            On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the
            tree-ring evidence and possible causes

            http://www.wsl.ch/info/mitarbeitende/cherubin/download/D_ArrigoetalGlobPlanCh2008.pdf

            There you go. Knock yourself out.. Kook.

          • planet8788

            Because 40 years ago, the experts said the Northern Hemisphere had been in a deep cooling trend. Now they’ve changed it and wonder why the trees don’t line up.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Liar Liar.. Pants on fire.

            The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

            Thomas C. Peterson

            American Meteorological Society

            Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why.

            An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming.

            A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

          • planet8788

            You have a serious reading comprehension problem. I didn’t say them predicting anything about global cooling… I did say they said that, the northern hemisphere HAD COOLED. And it had… and now it hasn’t.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Liar, Liar, Pants on fire…

            You said “40 years ago, the experts said the Northern Hemisphere had been in a deep cooling trend.”

          • planet8788

            You are a moron… It was in a cooling trend, and they did say it was cooling….
            There wasn’t overwhelming consensus that the cooling would continue…
            You have an IQ lower than a gnat and no understanding of the English language.

          • planet8788

            So go suck on your manboobs. Maybe you can increase your intelligence.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            You obviously have a thing for man boobs.

            When did you decide to become a homo?

          • TSZodiac

            Hey Planet, don’t concern yourself with him…just Google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL”, he’s actually a Candaian Janitor

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick Chart” –

            In an October 2004 Technology Review article, Berkeley Professor Richard Muller discussed blog postings by McIntyre and McKitrick alleging that Mann, Bradley and Hughes did not do proper principal component analysis (PCA). In the article, Richard Muller stated:

            “McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.”

            “Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called “Monte Carlo” analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!”

            “That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen?”

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Mann’s hockey stick chart has been vindicated by the other couple of dozen hockey stick charts that use different data and different methods and produce the same result.

            Your whining is not only ignorant, it is 20 years out of date.

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            BEST weights NASA, NCDC, NCAR, GHCN and GSN data the strongest – and then they “homogenize” the data. Yeah they sprinkle in Hadley data but they IGNORE satellite data. Why not satellite data?

          • VendicarDecarian0
          • Danceswithdachshunds

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1996/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1996/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1996/mean:12

            GISS is infected by Hansen’s “adjustments” . They along with NCDC are complicit in data manipulation and http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1996/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1996/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1996/mean:12 shows something majorly WRONG is going on when both satellites agree within ~0.10 degrees on average but gistemp is not only 0.35 warmer, it’s trend is also showing way more warming trend.

            GISS is the outlier compared not only to satellite data but to the Hadley data as well.

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            “Climate change is only detectable over 20 to 30 year minimum time frames.”

            Thus revealing your ignorance sweetheart, Dr. Ben Santer of Livermoore Labs said 17 years for a minimum to detect human component over the noise. Before that NASA said 15 years.

          • ALCHESON

            If that were true and it is only barely detectable over a 30 time frame, then tell me… How is it going to reach catastrophic warming levels by the yr 2100?? Only people lacking in logic skills can reconcile barely detectable warming with Catastrophic temperature rise.

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            You’re right. If 17 is the minimum per Santer and 20-30 is the minimum per the troll then – what’s wrong with 165 years? HadCRUT4 shows an OLS of 0.472 degrees per century which is easily within natural bounds by anyone’s estimation.

            Even more infuriating is – with nature obviously able to drive short term variation, (1 to 3 years), at 10X to 100X of that long term trend and they do not fully understand why or are able to model, that “noise” as they call it – they yet claim that nature cannot possibly explain much smaller trend rates over the longer periods? Pure sophistry!

          • VendicarDecarian0

            If Santer said that, he was being foolishly optimistic.

            IPCC uses a 30 year minimum, and that is a very reasonable number.

          • Jess_Axen

            The statement in my “source” refutes your ridiculously bogus claim that NASA and NOAA ‘consider surface data to be more reliable than satellite data’. They certainly don’t. The point had nothing to do with reference to a given decade, nor was it intended to trigger more of your parroted talking points. I was merely disproving another of your myriad lies.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            No where in your statement our your “source” is it stated that satellite records are more reliable than the surface network.

            Why did you feel a need to lie about such an easily checked point?

            Are you mentally ill?

          • Jess_Axen

            “Reliable” was my characterization, but NASA agrees, as they deemed satellite measurement “more accurate, and should be adopted as the standard way to monitor global temperature change”, as compared to the unreliability of surface thermometry.

            It still refutes your ridiculously bogus claim (lie).

          • VendicarDecarian0

            That would be quite impossible since satellites are incapable of measuring the earth’s surface temperature.

            So once again you are caught lying.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Apparently you’re a low-info, budget physicist and a liar because yup, they sure do and even left wing Wikipedia agrees.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AATSR
            You’ll note that AATSR is on a…wait for it…satellite.

            “AATSR can measure Earth’s surface temperature to a precision of 0.3 K (0.5 °F), for climate research”

            So where’s that physics degree from, University of Phoenix? Perhaps it was one of them Sally Struthers correspondence courses?

          • Jess_Axen

            Stop being so disingenuous. You know that they use indirect measurement
            of temperature of the lower troposphere using microwaves. Is that really the point on which to hang your credibility? Because it just fell off. You are simply
            being dishonest, as always. I have not been “caught lying” even once,
            as you have repeatedly been. And as usual, you deflect from the case of your original lie, which
            I pointed out, because NASA actually does consider satellite
            measurement more reliable, through its accuracy and broader coverage, than surface
            thermometry. Once again you have been revealed in your dishonesty and
            disingenuous rhetoric – your only tools.

            If you have a problem with NASA’s own language and word selection, take it up with them. Better yet, you should simply stay in your safe bubble of ignorance at SnuffleupticalSkiense, where you can do no more harm to truth than they already do.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            ….said the imbecile that spouted off that satellites CANT measure surface temperatures.

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            Neither UAH or RSS show any significant OLS warming trend from 1979 to about 1995.

          • MyOpinionPost

            Typical HCGW acolyte, when presented with an opposing statement, divert, and deny!

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Weren’t you trying to say that 2014 was warmer because an El-Nino had formed last year?

            if not then why comment on El-Nino when it is said that 2014 was the warmest year on record?

            Are you mentally ill?

          • Atilla Thehun

            And change the locations, with some of those being at the end of airport runways you can count on disparity. You can bet these same folks ran the thermometer under hot water in the bathroom to skip school

          • MyOpinionPost

            Ever wonder why air to air missiles are IR guided? Jet engines produce quite an IR plume.

          • D. Self

            Pure BS! your degree is in what?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            My formal training is in astrophysics and high energy physics.

          • Nanny Wolfe

            Sure it is.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            It sure is.

          • Nanny Wolfe

            I wonder what role Geoengineering is playing in these extremely unusual cold temps and record snow?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Alaska and the west coast of North America is having a spectacularly warm winter.

            They can thank the exceptionally and unusually warm pacific ocean for that.

            And you can thank the same warm ocean for the coooooold in the Central U.S.

            You do know enough to make those attributions, don’t you?

          • TSZodiac

            Don’t worry Nancy – Vendicar (aka Scotty the Canadian Janitor) like to make stuff up, like these: http://www.science-bbs.com/98-environment/3be0bc5873ee5133.htm Just google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” and you’ll see what I mean !

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            With a minor in communist propaganda.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            The universe has a nearly universal Liberal Bias.

            This is not a feature of the universe, but a result of the Republican disconnection from reality.

          • TSZodiac

            Actually, Vendicar (aka Scotty Douglas) is a Canadian Janitor – just google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” and you’ll get the idea. He’s not worth your time !

          • TSZodiac

            Hey Self – don’t concern yourself with VD, he’s actually Scotty Douglas the Canadian Janitor – google “VEndicar Decarian TROLL” and you’ll see what I mean !

          • upcountrywater

            Math performed by a, SUB-PARITY poster… lolzzzzzzzzzz

          • GrizzMann

            2+2=5

          • VendicarDecarian0

            That looks like Republican Borrow and spend math to me.

            Reagan started that traitorous nonsense back in the 1980’s..

          • GrizzMann

            It’s from a book written in 1948. Check it out. The NEWSPEAK will explain Democrat philosophy and their aversion to the truth.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            “It’s from a book written in 1948”

            Sorry, I thought it was from a grade 2 math test, taken by a failing student.

            Or the dishons Budget Projections made by David (cook the books) Stockman for the Reagan Administrations.

          • GrizzMann

            That would be Common core. If it were a ”test”.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            And a vast improvement over what Capitalists have done to American education.

          • GrizzMann

            Did you fail to notice Yhe Ted Hennedy , No Girl Left Behind. I mean Child. The DOEd, NEA, teachers unions, etc.? Of course there is Hamburger University was founded in 1961 .

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Do you think that spouting incoherent nonsense, as you have just done, makes you look like anything but a fool?

          • GrizzMann

            A Fool serves as comic relief, abating the dramatic tension with his witty insults and aphorisms.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Is that the roll you play herer? Clown?

          • GrizzMann

            Not just herer.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Is that the roll you play herer? Clown?

            Is that your Republican version of a complete sentence with good spelling and punctuation?

          • Iamnumber6

            Yeah. That is not what trick means at all.

            Here are a few commonly used definitions:

            a. An act or procedure intended to achieve an end by deceptive or fraudulent means.

            b. A mischievous action; a prank: likes to play tricks on the other students in the dorm.

            c. A stupid, disgraceful, or childish act: Don’t let the kids pull any tricks while we’re gone.

            d. A peculiar event with unexpected, often deceptive results.

            e. A deceptive or illusive appearance; an illusion: This painting plays tricks on the eyes.

            Nice try though.

          • Atilla Thehun

            Don’t you at least have some parting gifts for “buyitcheap”?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Tips and Tricks for calculus: Differentiation

            https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tips-and-Tricks-for-calculus-Differentiation/208997619135573

            Math tricks for fast calculation

            Fantastic Math tricks.

            http://www.angelfire.com/me/marmalade/mathtips.html

            Math tricks and shortcuts for competitive exams

            http://www.m4maths.com/maths-trick.php

            26 Easycal Tricks of faster Algebra

            http://www.glad2teach.co.uk/26_math_tricks_to_learn_algebra_fast.htm

            Tips and Tricks for Control Engineering

            http://www.controleng.com/events-and-awards/tips-and-tricks.html

            Tips and Tricks – Engineering Statics

            https://www.classle.net/videolink/tips-and-tricks-engineering-statics-solivng-problems

          • Nanny Wolfe

            liberalism is A mental disorder

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Is that why 94 percent of all scientists are Liberals?

          • tedlv

            And 95.3% of all statistics are made up.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Pew research poll. Only 6% of scientists identify themselves as Republicans.

          • GrizzMann

            The only way to get Government Grants, is not to identify as Republican.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Can you tell us where in the grant forms it is required to state one’s political affiliation?

            But you do have a point. Research grand money doesn’t flow much to incompetents, and hence avoids Republicans.

          • GrizzMann

            Forms? We got no forms. We don’t have to fill out your stinking forms.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            No forms? No wonder you don’t get any grants.

          • Brent Kline

            how do you even know how many scientists there actually are? are you including all scientists world wide, or just american scientists? for example, bill nye the science guy is a huge global warming advocate. however, bill nye is a mechanical engineer. simply because he is “the science guy,” does that give him credit to make global climate judgements? ive read a book about meteorology, can i go around blasting my own global climate change horn?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll

            A new study by the Pew Research Center finds that the GOP is alienating scientists to a startling degree.

            Only six percent of America’s scientists identify themselves as Republicans; fifty-five percent call themselves Democrats. By comparison, 23 percent of the overall public considers itself Republican, while 35 percent say they’re Democrats.

            http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

          • Crozetian

            Well, 99 percent of liberals are azzholes, but that doesn’t mean all scientists are.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            It is hard to say how many Liberals are assholes, but I can say that I have never encountered a Republican who wasn’t a congenital and perpetual liar.

          • George Washington

            Mechanical Engineering Grad here. The hard science professors at my University NEVER brought up politics or tried to push an agenda. The sociology, psychology, English etc. departments tried to spew their liberal propaganda whenever possible. But! I did learn in Sociology that you have a tendency to be socialize with those who live closest to you. It wasn’t a total waste! Libs….Scientists lol. You must mean mean like Sir Isaac Newton or Einstein? Those two dumba$$es believed in God. Did they not?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Newton was a believer, and his belief got him nowhere. Einstein was an agnostic who was smart enough to avoid religion.

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            Umm… it was called Mike’s nature trick – not math trick.

            It spliced instrumented data onto proxy data for the last twenty years that the proxy data didn’t advance the HOAX. Mann just erased the tree data that was going back DOWN and replaced it with instrument data going up.

            IT WAS A TOTAL LIE!!!!

          • VendicarDecarian0

            The tree data is a series of measurements of the width of tree growth rings.

            The rings tend to be larger during warm years and thinner during cold years.

            There is a known correlation between the thickness of the rings and temperature once rainfall has been factored in.

            It is also known that the correlation breaks down the closer you get to the present time as the rings become anomalously thick due to the CO2 fertilization effect.

            So the correlation between temperature and ring thickness breaks down.

            That is the decline that is being referred to.

            So Mann, correctly stops using the tree ring correlation at some point and begins to use another proxy.

            That is a perfectly valid way of proceeding.

            Continuing to use the tree ring data would have produced temperature estimates from the tree ring proxy data that were far higher than the real temperatures.

            Do you want the tree ring data to be put back and global average temperature estimates raised?

            Is that your goal?

          • GrizzMann

            Of three Siberian trees?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            You have the wrong end of the data set.

            Denialists regularly get their facts backwards.

          • GrizzMann

            5=2+2?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Republican borrow and spend math becomes you.

          • GrizzMann

            Still did not Google 2+2=5?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Republican borrow and spend math becomes you.

          • GrizzMann

            Well studied and implemented by Obama. $16,787,451,118,147 and raising for Obama. that is up $7,060,259,674,497 since he took office.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            You should thank Obama because the Republican alternative would have put 40 million Americans out onto the street, unemployed, and would have greatly magnified the extent and duration of the Economic Depression that George Bush and Failed Republican Economics created.

          • GrizzMann

            Still Obama has more Than 92 Million Americans Remain Out Of Labor Force.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            The labor force participation rate peaked during the Clinton Administration and fell all through the Bush administration.

            If you weren’t a clown I would explain to you why this is so.

          • GrizzMann

            That is FOOL. Don’t keep changing your terms.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            My goodness you are a moron.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Just not your level of moron, amirite!?
            Perhaps you should call him stupid, citing his capitalization and punctuation while making several errors of your own. That’s always good for pointing and laughing at you.

          • GrizzMann

            NEWSPEAK again?

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            So we’re supposed to thank Obama for continuing those policies and greatly magnifying the extent and duration?

            Of course, you pulled the 40 million outta your arse, but the reality is Obama mostly continued those policies and has made NOTHING better in 6 years.

            Record low labor participation, record high food stamps, a Baltic Dry Index that’s NEVER been lower, a “recovery” marked by bartender, waiter jobs and the forced spending on obamacare, a wealth gap that should make you idiots forever STFU about Reagan…

            http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-20/obamas-latest-speech-about-economic-recovery-results-mass-audience-exodus

            http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/the_obama_economic_record_is_even_worse_than_you_realize.html

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            What the Data Says

            Hansen’s predictions to the US Congress in 1988, compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites.

            Hansen’s climate model clearly exaggerated future temperature rises.

            In particular, his climate model predicted that if human CO2 emissions were cut back drastically starting in 1988, such that by year 2000 the CO2 level was not rising at all, we would get his scenario C. But in reality the temperature did not even rise this much, even though our CO2 emissions strongly increased — which suggests that the climate models greatly overestimate the effect of CO2 emissions.

            A more considered prediction by the climate models was made in 1990 in the IPCC’s First Assessment Report: It’s 20 years now, and the average rate of increase in reality is below the lowest trend in the range predicted by the IPCC.

            Ocean Temperatures

            The oceans hold the vast bulk of the heat in the climate system. We’ve only been measuring ocean temperature properly since mid-2003, when the Argo system became operational. In Argo, a buoy duck dives down to a depth of 2,000 meters, measures temperatures as it very slowly ascends, then radios the results back to headquarters via satellite. Over 3,000 Argo buoys constantly patrol all the oceans of the world.

            Climate model predictions of ocean temperature, versus the measurements by Argo. The unit of the vertical axis is 10^22 Joules (about 0.01°C).

            The ocean temperature has been basically flat since we started measuring it properly, and not warming as quickly as the climate models predict.

            Atmospheric Hotspot

            The climate models predict a particular pattern of atmospheric warming during periods of global warming; the most prominent change they predict is a warming in the tropics about 10 km up, the “hotspot.”

            The hotspot is the sign of the amplification in their theory. The theory says the hotspot is caused by extra evaporation, and by extra water vapor pushing the warmer, wetter lower troposphere up into volume previously occupied by cool dry air. The presence of a hotspot would indicate amplification is occurring, and vice versa.

            We have been measuring atmospheric temperatures with weather balloons since the 1960s. Millions of weather balloons have built up a good picture of atmospheric temperatures over the last few decades, including the warming period from the late 1970s to the late ’90s. This important and pivotal data was not released publicly by the climate establishment until 2006, and then in an obscure place.

            On the left is the data collected by millions of weather balloons. On the right is what the climate models say was happening. The theory (as per the climate models) is incompatible with the observations. In both diagrams the horizontal axis shows latitude, and the right vertical axis shows height in kilometers.

            In reality there was no hotspot, not even a small one. So in reality there is no amplification — the amplification does not exist.

            Outgoing Radiation

            The climate models predict that when the surface of the earth warms, less heat is radiated from the earth into space (on a weekly or monthly time scale). This is because, according to the theory, the warmer surface causes more evaporation and thus there is more heat-trapping water vapor. This is the heat-trapping mechanism that is responsible for the assumed amplification.

            Satellites have been measuring the radiation emitted from the earth for the last two decades. A major study has linked the changes in temperature on the earth’s surface with the changes in the outgoing radiation.

            Outgoing radiation from earth (vertical axis) against sea-surface temperature (horizontal), as measured by the ERBE satellites (upper-left graph) and as “predicted” by 11 climate models (the other graphs). Notice that the slopes of the graphs for the climate models are opposite to the slope of the graph for the observed data.

            This shows that in reality the earth gives off more heat when its surface is warmer. This is the opposite of what the climate models predict. This shows that the climate models trap heat too aggressively, and that their assumed amplification does not exist.

            Conclusions

            All the data here is impeccably sourced — satellites, Argo, and weather balloons.

            The air and ocean temperature data shows that the climate models overestimate temperature rises. The climate establishment suggest that cooling due to undetected aerosols might be responsible for the failure of the models to date, but this excuse is wearing thin — it continues not to warm as much as they said it would, or in the way they said it would. On the other hand, the rise in air temperature has been greater than the skeptics say could be due to CO2. The skeptic’s excuse is that the rise is mainly due to other forces — and they point out that the world has been in a fairly steady warming trend of 0.5°C per century since 1680 (with alternating ~30 year periods of warming and mild cooling) where as the vast bulk of all human CO2 emissions have been after 1945.

            We’ve checked all the main predictions of the climate models against the best data.

            The climate models get them all wrong. The missing hotspot and outgoing radiation data both, independently, prove that the amplification in the climate models is not present. Without the amplification, the climate model temperature predictions would be cut by at least two-thirds, which would explain why they overestimated the recent air and ocean temperature increases. Therefore,

            1. The climate models are fundamentally flawed. Their assumed threefold amplification by feedbacks does not in fact exist.

            2. The climate models overestimate temperature rises due to CO2 by at least a factor of three.

            The skeptical view is compatible with the data.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Hansen projected climatological changes in the surface temperature.

            Satellites don’t measure surface temperatures, and they measure weather not climate.

            You still can’t figure out the difference between climate and weather.

            My goodness you are stupid.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            …said the imbecile that repeats the lie that satellites cant measure surface temps.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AATSR

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            “correctly stops using the tree ring correlation at some point and begins to use another proxy. ……. That is a perfectly valid way of proceeding.”

            1. It was NOT “another proxy” – it was instrument recorded data

            2. Proxy or not, splicing from various data sets is NOT VALID even in kindergarten science!

            “Do you want the tree ring data to be put back and global average temperature estimates raised?”

            LIAR! The tree ring data showed COOLING! That’s the REASON he took it out! to … HIDE THE DECLINE.

          • OTObamaTruther

            Yes.

            Once the instrument data set was under the control of the correct set of political proponents, it was time to move away from tree rings as there are too many out there to control.

            If you own the data and can massage the results by removing stations from the record or by tweaking the actual data then you control the results both past, present and future.

            Satellite data was all the rage until it began showing a slow down in warming. Now it is vertboten and dismissed as a denial of real facts or true understanding of the scientific method.

          • MoFreeMoney

            Liberals made up the religion of global warming so they can PRETEND to be the savior of the planet.Just as they PRETEND to be the savior of the poor, the blacks, the gays, the feminists, the unions and dozens of other special interest groups too lazy, ignorant and weak minded to think beyond the media lies.

            Nice pic though, that Epi-lady is workin’

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Republicans live in a confused, and distorted land of ignorance where Dinosaurs never exited, the earth is 7,000 years old, Evolution is a fraud, Saddam had WMD, Global Warming is a scam, and where Bigfoot lives in the forest behind their outhouse.

          • Tariq_Toulhead_Al_Tabilcloth

            From the poster who spelled “clever” as “cleaver”.

            yawn……………

          • MyOpinionPost

            Spell checking, the last bastion of a liar. I do believe everyone read the word and the context and concluded that there was a typo. Except possibly for those believing in human caused global warming who used it to justify their lemming-like proclivities.

          • dubrennoc

            check spelling of Toulhead, tabilcloth – and don’t forget about glass houses.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Republicans live in a confused, and distorted land of ignorance where Dinosaurs never exited, the earth is 7,000 years old, Evolution is a fraud, Saddam had WMD, Global Warming is a scam, and where Bigfoot lives in the forest behind their outhouse.

          • SkyHunter

            Did you know that typo’s are not an indicator of IQ?

          • MyOpinionPost

            Again we see the non scientist approach to rhetoric, when you can’t argue the facts, just ridicule the poster. How Alinsky of you!

          • VendicarDecarian0

            You haven’t presented any facts to argue.

            Your arguments so far have been based on nonsense and emotion.

            Please get back to us if you actually find some facts while you are rooting for truffles.

          • MarineSarge

            Hey Bimbo, they gave you facts AND statements by two of your liberals stalwarts. You’re not only stupid, your REALLY stupid.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            MarineSarge’s whining is as limp and impotent as he is.

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            Awww….how precious! Thinking about a guy’s private parts! I hope you’re really the girl in your avatar, cuz if you’re a guy . . well . . . you know what ♪THAT means . . . ;- }

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Sarge’s problem is a real medical condition for which there are both surgical and chemical treatments.

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            Too bad ’bout you, though.

          • TroyGale

            And you would have 1000s of comparisons I’m certain. Oh, speaking of limp, is that your pic?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Sorry honey. You ain’t getting any.

          • TroyGale

            You couldn’t pay me enough…

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Good. Now you can stop hitting on me.

          • TSZodiac

            Google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” and expose this guy – he’s actually a Canadian Janitor !

          • TroyGale

            It’s just fine, I have nothing more to say to the idiot. But, at least he has a job.

          • TSZodiac

            Totally for the best, he doesn’thave anything new or substantive to say…all he does is puke out the same tired old Lib talking points and mixes that with insults – Total and complete waste of time.

          • TroyGale

            Everyone is good at something. Usually they don’t have to lower the bar, but they appear to have made an exception in this case. Not his finest hour for certain. LOL

          • Rascal69

            And as a good little liberal, you should be pressing for him to have medical assistance to repair his erection, paid for by taxpayers of course.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Obama care already covers it.

          • MyOpinionPost

            You are the clown trying to tell folks that ElNino and ElNina warm up and cool down the global temperatures. Is this national stupid day?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            It seems self evident that they must do so.

            You don’t seem to understand what averages are.

            You are operating at a level of innumeracy that most children leave behind when they are 10 years old.

            That is Mighty Republican of you.

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            So what do you think these record cold temperatures are going to do to the averages?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Nothing, as they are a displacement of cold air from the north, and a replacement of cold northern air with warmer air from the south.

            Alaska has had another remarkably warm winter.

          • Rascal69

            $30 Trillion dollars spent by Liberals to fight the War on Poverty…and they’re still losing.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            That’s because Republicans and American Corporations keep impoverishing Americans.

            Walmart doesn’t even pay a living wage.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            That’s because Republicans and American Corporations keep impoverishing Americans. Walmart doesn’t even pay a living wage.
            The imbecile will note that ‘the party of the small guy’/’the party of science’ democrats keep raising the minimum wage and science seems to show that costs low wage people their jobs. You know, it impoverishes people.
            I thought you were a phycisist!? And you cant even get that math right?!

          • Rascal69

            Liberals only have nonsense and emotion. That is the basis for anything they push.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Is that why 94% of all scientists are Liberals?

          • Rascal69

            You got me there. Yes, 94% of liberal scientists are liberals.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Only 6 percent of scientists identify themselves as Conservatives.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Only .3% of liberals don’t identify themselves as utter imbeciles.

          • TSZodiac

            Hey Malcolm – don’t worry about him. He’s actually a Canadian Janitor – just google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” and you’ll see what I mean

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            HAHAHAHA! Too cool. thanks much friend!

          • TSZodiac

            My pleasure – Semper Fi

          • TSZodiac

            Don’t worry Rascal – just more of Vendicar’s lies – like this: http://www.science-bbs.com/98-environment/3be0bc5873ee5133.htm – he’s just a Canadian Janitor who has nothing to add, and REALLY likes to make up stats (like above) – Just google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” and you’ll see what I mean !

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Don’t forget, 100% of imbeciles are liberals too.

          • http://batman-news.com Sean

            Really? Funny, I’m a Republican and I don’t subscribe to any of things you stated. In so far as Saddam and WMDs: pretty much the entire intelligence community believed it, both sides of the aisle believed it, even many of your liberal sacred cows (Hillary, Kerry, Gore) believed it. So go ahead and keep citing that as an exclusively Republican issue; which was how may years ago BTW? Save it for your hipster occupy crowd that blindly eat that rhetoric up.

          • JonBarleyCorn

            Exactly right. They ignore their two heroes whenever it is convenient…

            “…If left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
            “The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998

          • dubrennoc

            You are right Sean, the libs keep citing the same old dogma; Bush lied, Obama inherited the recession, Republicans want to take away Social Security, Obamacare (yea), Republicans won’t work with Obama because he is black, etc., etc. However, no amount of logic or facts is going to change their (minds?)

          • tedlv

            Regarding WMDs, the NYT had an article a few months back that stated that WMDs were found during the Iraq war. The information was not released, apparently, even though soldiers were injured by the nerve agent, because destroying the stuff “correctly” would be tremendously expensive.

          • MarineSarge

            They (Occupiers) don’t have time to think logically or accept verifiable facts because they are too busy planning on crapping on cop cars.

          • Crozetian

            That’s because Occupiers can’t afford an outhouse.

          • GrizzMann

            They just need that three letter word, J O B S.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Only to a republican brain does the word “JOBS” contain 3 letters.

          • GrizzMann

            Would Biden lie to us?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Possibly.

            But he isn’t a big enough liar to be employed by Fox news.

          • GrizzMann

            Well FOX did take Williams after he was dumped.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Who knows. I’ve never heard of the guy.

          • GrizzMann

            Juan Williams, my my?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Your your what?

          • GrizzMann

            My, my, my
            (My, my, my)
            Ooh, ooh, wee, ooh
            How we gonna make it work?
            What’s it gonna take to do it?

            My, my, my
            My, my, my

            My, my, my
            My, my, my

            My, my, my
            My, my, my
            My, my, my

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Your your what?

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Your your what?
            Is that your republican version of a complete sentence with good spelling and punctuation?

          • GrizzMann

            Would Uncle Joe Biden lie to me?

          • Rascal69

            That was Pierre Biden’s comment…where ya been? You know, Uncle Joe. The man I would never leave with a woman unattended and protected. The word “idiot” does display Joe’s picture in Webster’s as an example.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            You have been watching way too much faux news.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Yea, when he coulda been watching Brian Williams and Dan Rather. You tell him

          • TSZodiac

            Don’t forget to mention Vendicar’s (aka Scotty Douglas the Canadian Janitor) misogynistic avatar – guess its REALLY the ignorant Libs who are waging a war on women, huh?

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            You live in a world where lying is just another tool to advance your hoax. Belief in the Bible has nothing to do with politics.

            Evolution is just another piece of the puzzle that science is revealing how God created us – like any other scientific truth. Climate science is not science, it is a FRAUD.

            Saddam DID have WMD and the UN’s weapons inspection team found them but then believed Saddam’s account that they had been destroyed. THEY TURNED UP AND WERE USED ON OUR TROOPS. That and the Butler report proved that Bush did NOT lie with those 16 words.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            I find it interesting that America is no where to be found in the Bible.

            What does that tell you about God’s plan for the future of America?

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            What would anyone have called it back before the time of Martin Waldseemüller or Amerigo Vespucci?

          • JonBarleyCorn

            You are the one who is confused.

            The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons
            Annotated from the New York Times 10/14/14
            It was August 2008 near Taji, Iraq. They had just exploded a stack of old Iraqi artillery shells buried beside a murky lake. The blast, part of an effort to destroy munitions that could be used in makeshift bombs, uncovered more shells.
            A specialist swabbed a shell with chemical detection paper. It turned red — indicating sulfur mustard, the chemical warfare agent designed to burn a victim’s airway, skin and eyes.
            From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            All of those munitions had been found, stored, deactivated or found to be functionally useless by UNSCOM.

            You know UNSCOM, they were the team of international inspectors who were in Iraq finding and deactivating Saddam’s WMD program on the day that George Bush lied to the American people and told them that Saddam wouldn’t allow the inspectors in.

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            ” stored, deactivated or found to be functionally useless”

            So? They were there. Or are you blaming President George W. Bush for not having Second Sight and precognition?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            No I blame him for lying continually to the American people.

            And I blame fools like you for being so stupid that you fell for it.

            Suckers….

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            Yeah, he got us conditioned so we’d be ready for “If you like your medical insurance you can keep it.”

          • VendicarDecarian0

            You sound very upset that Obamacare is turning out to be a spectacular success here in the reality based community.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            You sound very upset that Obamacare is such an utter failure that you have to lie about it here in the reality based community.

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            High deductibles, high premiums, and high co-pays are not a success.

            Medicare Advantage plans are better than that.

          • Equality7-2521

            In 2003 I was on a disposal team outside of Tikrit (K2 pipeline) where there were PLENTY of WMDs.

            The BBC reported about an “Iraq nuclear operation” newsDOTbbcDOTcoDOTuk/2/hi/middle_east/3872201.stm

            But, hey, don’t let them get their propaganda in the way of facts…

          • jacknine

            The beauty of being a liberal is living in a world where everyone who disagrees with them can be dismissed through ridicule, alleviating the need to actually think about issues. As for specifics, I have never met a Republican who deny dinosaurs or believe the earth is 7,000 years, that is a religious belief, not a political view. Saddam actually had WMD, so says the NYT and man made global warming has been, and continues to be, exposed as either outright fraud or really bad science, see above article. As for evolution, there is no such thing, there is Darwinian evolutionary theory as well as punctuated equilibrium theory, both of which can be consistent with a belief that that a creator got the whole ball of wax going. As for Bigfoot, damn right he exists, I see him every time I go to the outhouse.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Today ridicule is used against the ridiculous global warming denialists.

            Tomorrow it will be public hangings.

          • GrizzMann

            You do know Copernicus was a denier, don’t you?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            And science celebrates Copernicus.

            Science is laughing at you.

            Note the difference.

          • GrizzMann

            I will be on the side of Pravda.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            That would be progress, because Pravda is vastly more honest than Fox News.

          • GrizzMann

            Still haven’t looked up 2+2=5?

          • Crozetian

            Of traitorous socialists.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Socialism is America’s future, if America is to have any future.

            The future of Republicans includes hanging by their necks from trees for the commission of acts of treason against man, nature, and country

          • Crozetian

            Wow, wouldn’t you feel more at home in Venezuela or North Korea? Nazi
            Germany and the Soviet Union, land of the failed socialists, would also
            be a good fit, but then, we demolished one of them. You are one scary
            dame. I’ll take the land of the free, thank you very much.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            You poor fool. You aren’t even smart enough to know that the NAZI’s were Conservatives like you.

            That is why to this day Neo-Nazi groups get their members from Conservatives in American Patriot groups, and other right wing extremist groups.

            My goodness you are ignorant.

          • Crozetian

            My goodness you are beyond ignorant, more so an ignoramus. You aren’t smart enough to know that there is no relationship between the right in Europe and the right in America. U.S. conservatives are for small, less-intrusive government, freedom, capitalism, personal liberty, personal responsibility, and we are fierce defenders of the Constitution and the principles and values that have made America the beacon to the world.

            Nazis were in fact socialists, albeit national socialists as opposed to communists, the international socialists. However, both are for all-controlling government, limited rights, and both in fact are thugs, fascists and totalitarians. And since you are all in for socialism, you’re the enemy of freedom — just like your comrades the communists and Nazis.

            If there are any Nazis in the U.S., they stand for totalitarian dictatorship, just like you socialists are striving toward. Marx believed that socialism is a step between capitalism and communism. Socialists, communists, progressives or Nazis, all are just peas in a pod, vile and despicable murderers and despots, or at least wannabes. We would call you wannabes “useful idiots.” Hey, that’s what Lenin called you, too.

          • Crozetian
          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message. Here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention.

            What the Government Climate Scientists Say

            The climate models. If the CO2 level doubles (as it is on course to do by about 2070 to 2100), the climate models estimate the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1°C x 3 = 3.3°C.

            The direct effect of CO2 is well-established physics, based on laboratory results, and known for over a century.

            Feedbacks are due to the ways the Earth reacts to the direct warming effect of the CO2. The threefold amplification by feedbacks is based on the assumption, or guess, made around 1980, that more warming due to CO2 will cause more evaporation from the oceans and that this extra water vapor will in turn lead to even more heat trapping because water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. And extra heat will cause even more evaporation, and so on. This amplification is built into all the climate models. The amount of amplification is estimated by assuming that nearly all the industrial-age warming is due to our CO2.

            The government climate scientists and the media often tell us about the direct effect of the CO2, but rarely admit that two-thirds of their projected temperature increases are due to amplification by feedbacks.

            What the Skeptics Say

            The skeptic’s view. If the CO2 level doubles, skeptics estimates that the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1°C × 0.5 ˜ 0.6°C.

            The serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The argument is entirely about the feedbacks.

            The feedbacks dampen or reduce the direct effect of the extra CO2, cutting it roughly in half. The main feedbacks involve evaporation, water vapor, and clouds. In particular, water vapor condenses into clouds, so extra water vapor due to the direct warming effect of extra CO2 will cause extra clouds, which reflect sunlight back out to space and cool the earth, thereby reducing the overall warming.

            There are literally thousands of feedbacks, each of which either reinforces or opposes the direct-warming effect of the extra CO2. Almost every long-lived system is governed by net feedback that dampens its response to a perturbation. If a system instead reacts to a perturbation by amplifying it, the system is likely to reach a tipping point and become unstable (like the electronic squeal that erupts when a microphone gets too close to its speakers). The earth’s climate is long-lived and stable — it has never gone into runaway greenhouse, unlike Venus — which strongly suggests that the feedbacks dampen temperature perturbations such as that from extra CO2.

            What the Data Says

            Hansen’s predictions to the US Congress in 1988, compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites.

            Hansen’s climate model clearly exaggerated future temperature rises.

            In particular, his climate model predicted that if human CO2 emissions were cut back drastically starting in 1988, such that by year 2000 the CO2 level was not rising at all, we would get his scenario C. But in reality the temperature did not even rise this much, even though our CO2 emissions strongly increased — which suggests that the climate models greatly overestimate the effect of CO2 emissions.

            A more considered prediction by the climate models was made in 1990 in the IPCC’s First Assessment Report: It’s 20 years now, and the average rate of increase in reality is below the lowest trend in the range predicted by the IPCC.

            Ocean Temperatures

            The oceans hold the vast bulk of the heat in the climate system. We’ve only been measuring ocean temperature properly since mid-2003, when the Argo system became operational. In Argo, a buoy duck dives down to a depth of 2,000 meters, measures temperatures as it very slowly ascends, then radios the results back to headquarters via satellite. Over 3,000 Argo buoys constantly patrol all the oceans of the world.

            Climate model predictions of ocean temperature, versus the measurements by Argo. The unit of the vertical axis is 10^22 Joules (about 0.01°C).

            The ocean temperature has been basically flat since we started measuring it properly, and not warming as quickly as the climate models predict.

            Atmospheric Hotspot

            The climate models predict a particular pattern of atmospheric warming during periods of global warming; the most prominent change they predict is a warming in the tropics about 10 km up, the “hotspot.”

            The hotspot is the sign of the amplification in their theory. The theory says the hotspot is caused by extra evaporation, and by extra water vapor pushing the warmer, wetter lower troposphere up into volume previously occupied by cool dry air. The presence of a hotspot would indicate amplification is occurring, and vice versa.

            We have been measuring atmospheric temperatures with weather balloons since the 1960s. Millions of weather balloons have built up a good picture of atmospheric temperatures over the last few decades, including the warming period from the late 1970s to the late ’90s. This important and pivotal data was not released publicly by the climate establishment until 2006, and then in an obscure place.

            On the left is the data collected by millions of weather balloons. On the right is what the climate models say was happening. The theory (as per the climate models) is incompatible with the observations. In both diagrams the horizontal axis shows latitude, and the right vertical axis shows height in kilometers.

            In reality there was no hotspot, not even a small one. So in reality there is no amplification — the amplification does not exist.

            Outgoing Radiation

            The climate models predict that when the surface of the earth warms, less heat is radiated from the earth into space (on a weekly or monthly time scale). This is because, according to the theory, the warmer surface causes more evaporation and thus there is more heat-trapping water vapor. This is the heat-trapping mechanism that is responsible for the assumed amplification.

            Satellites have been measuring the radiation emitted from the earth for the last two decades. A major study has linked the changes in temperature on the earth’s surface with the changes in the outgoing radiation.

            Outgoing radiation from earth (vertical axis) against sea-surface temperature (horizontal), as measured by the ERBE satellites (upper-left graph) and as “predicted” by 11 climate models (the other graphs). Notice that the slopes of the graphs for the climate models are opposite to the slope of the graph for the observed data.

            This shows that in reality the earth gives off more heat when its surface is warmer. This is the opposite of what the climate models predict. This shows that the climate models trap heat too aggressively, and that their assumed amplification does not exist.

            Conclusions

            All the data here is impeccably sourced — satellites, Argo, and weather balloons.

            The air and ocean temperature data shows that the climate models overestimate temperature rises. The climate establishment suggest that cooling due to undetected aerosols might be responsible for the failure of the models to date, but this excuse is wearing thin — it continues not to warm as much as they said it would, or in the way they said it would. On the other hand, the rise in air temperature has been greater than the skeptics say could be due to CO2. The skeptic’s excuse is that the rise is mainly due to other forces — and they point out that the world has been in a fairly steady warming trend of 0.5°C per century since 1680 (with alternating ~30 year periods of warming and mild cooling) where as the vast bulk of all human CO2 emissions have been after 1945.

            We’ve checked all the main predictions of the climate models against the best data.

            The climate models get them all wrong. The missing hotspot and outgoing radiation data both, independently, prove that the amplification in the climate models is not present. Without the amplification, the climate model temperature predictions would be cut by at least two-thirds, which would explain why they overestimated the recent air and ocean temperature increases. Therefore,

            1. The climate models are fundamentally flawed. Their assumed threefold amplification by feedbacks does not in fact exist.

            2. The climate models overestimate temperature rises due to CO2 by at least a factor of three.

            The skeptical view is compatible with the data.

            Some Political Points

            The data presented here is impeccably sourced, very relevant, publicly available, and from our best instruments. Yet it never appears in the mainstream media — have you ever seen anything like any of the figures here in the mainstream media? That alone tells you that the “debate” is about politics and power, and not about science or truth.

            This is an unusual political issue, because there is a right and a wrong answer, and everyone will know which it is eventually. People are going ahead and emitting CO2 anyway, so we are doing the experiment: either the world heats up by several degrees by 2050 or so, or it doesn’t.

            Notice that the skeptics agree with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2; they just disagree about the feedbacks. The climate debate is all about the feedbacks; everything else is merely a sideshow. Yet hardly anyone knows that. The government climate scientists and the mainstream media have framed the debate in terms of the direct effect of CO2 and sideshows such as arctic ice, bad weather, or psychology. They almost never mention the feedbacks. Why is that? Who has the power to make that happen?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            “We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data.” – CDW

            Why would you compare the computed climate from models to weather?

            Don’t you know the difference?

            My goodness you are stupid.

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            You are a hack with nothing but pejoratives and insults, a true bigot.

            1. The climate models are fundamentally flawed. Their assumed threefold amplification by feedbacks does not in fact exist.

            2. The climate models overestimate temperature rises due to CO2 by at least a factor of three.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            “I have never met a Republican who deny dinosaurs or believe the earth is 7,000 years, that is a religious belief, not a political view.” – Rediculous

            Christians against Dinosaurs is a grassroots activist movement with about 14,000 active members. Together, we fight the lies that the largely discredited field of paleontology tries to actively spread.

            https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/christians-against-dinosaurs

            A poll released today by the Pew Research Center reveals that acceptance of evolution among Republicans has plummeted in recent years, from 54 percent in 2009 to a jarring 43 percent today. The poll also found that a startling 48 percent of Republicans believe that all living things today have existed in their present form since the start of time.

            http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/

            Republican Congressman who sits on the House science committee calls evolution lie from ‘pit of hell’

            ATHENS, Ga. (AP) — Georgia Rep. Paul Broun said in videotaped remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are “lies straight from the pit of hell” meant to convince people that they do not need a savior.

            The Republican lawmaker made those comments during a speech Sept. 27 at a sportsman’s banquet at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell. Broun, a medical doctor, is running for re-election in November unopposed by Democrats.

          • TSZodiac

            Don’t waste your time with VD – he’s actually a Canadian Janitor, just google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” and you’ll get the idea…..

          • MarineSarge

            Were you born this stupid or have you bee working at it your entire life? Maybe both?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Do you still beat your wife, or do you only do it when she complains about you screwing your own daughter?

          • Cal_Grimalkin

            All generalizations have a credibility factor of nada, zip, nil, nothing, zero.

            The fact that you would make such an over the top generalization indicates that you have no idea what you are talking about.

            There are as many stupid, ignorant, uninformed statements coming out of all spouters of political, religious, and any other group you can name.

            Your statement is certainly one of them.

            Perhaps you would do well to get your information from someplace other than Saturday Night Live re-runs, or Jon Stewart.

            I know plenty of democrats who are brain damaged drug users, spouse abusers, lazy welfare asses, who never finished high school. Would I try to claim that all democrats are such idiots? Certainly not, but when I see the type of drivel you posted, I am not surprised that you are a democrat.

            Have a nice day, and try to get some real education, it will help you out in life a lot. 😉

          • VendicarDecarian0

            “All generalizations have a credibility factor of nada, zip, nil, nothing, zero.” – Cal Grimalkin

            Including the generalization in the above sentence.

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            So generalizations DO have value?

            Ethnic stereotypes are one kind of generalization. Tell us which ethnic stereotypes have value, pls, and why.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Please make up your mind.

            It is so small, it can’ be difficult.

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            I asked you first . . .

          • Crozetian

            And libs live in a distorted reality where they believe Obummer loves America and giving people handouts increases their self-worth and dignity.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Who wants to hire Americans when Mexicans are smarter and superior workers?

          • GrizzMann

            You are laboring under a misconception.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Not according to those employing Mexicans rather than Americans.

          • GrizzMann

            Hamburger University. More than 80,000 restaurant managers, mid-managers and owner/operators have graduated from this facility.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            And thanks to the reclassification of Burger flippers and submarine sandwich artists as “manufacturers”, by George Bush Jr., the U.S. manufacturing sector has never been in better shape.

          • GrizzMann

            Obama has more Than 92 Million Americans Remain Out Of Labor Force.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            The labor force participation rate peaked during the Clinton Administration and fell dramatically all through the 8 years that Bush was in power.

            If you weren’t such a clown I would explain to you why.

          • GrizzMann

            Had nothing to do with an attack, by folks, not to be confused with Islam?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            You can’t even figure out what page you are on.

            koooooooooooook.

          • GrizzMann

            Whether it is weather or whether it is politics, Weather is politics. Global Warming is a Political Hoax. Your title for me is FOOL. Do not use NEWSPEAK to change that title.

          • TSZodiac

            Google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL”

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            And thanks to Bill Clinton signing NAFTA, the Chinese manufacturing sector has never been better.

          • GrizzMann

            I know. they even deny that there are Islamic terrorist. Just a group of folks, from a religion not to be confused with Islam. Like the Amish or Quakers?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Didn’t Ronald Reagan say that Islamic terrorists who were fighting the Russians were the moral equivalent of America’s founding fathers?

            Or was he speaking of another group of terrorists?

          • GrizzMann

            July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret
            aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Were they murdering civilians as Reagan’s terrorists were?

          • GrizzMann

            The Russians?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            No, clown boy. The opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.

          • GrizzMann

            That is Fool. Don’t use NEWSPEAK and change the titles.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            You are growing increasingly incoherent.

            Are you drunk?

          • GrizzMann

            Natural Talent.

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            Ohhhhhh………..careful. Throwing out the broad-brush ad hominems by the bucketful is the sign of imminent failure on your part! It shows you have not one rational argument or bit of evidence left!

          • VendicarDecarian0

            I like the UFO you use for your Avatar.

            Have you lived in KookVille all your life?

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            No, it’s been a long and happy trip! How’s life in Crackpotstown?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            I have no idea, but it looks like the Republicans are continuing to try and destroy their country.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            How’s that work out in your pea brain since Democrats have been damned near in complete control of this country since the 1940s?
            Yea, you might wanna check that out imbecile.

          • http://batman-news.com cdw

            You display bigotry, assigning all Republicans to your list of pejoratives.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            I should also say that I have never encountered a Republican who wasn’t a congenital and perpetual liar.

          • Rascal69

            Most of your post is just BS, but I’ll take on that Saddam had WMD claim. If he didn’t, what the hell did 200,000 Kurds die from? Bad food at Shwarma-Bell?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            They couldn’t have died from chemical weapons exposure since Donald Rumsfeld was sent to the middle east by Ronald Reagan in 1983 to shake Saddam’s hand and tell the world that he didn’t use them.

            Here is a video of the event.

          • GrizzMann

            WMD lies by Democrats?

            “One way or the other, we are
            determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass
            destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom
            line.”
            President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

            “If
            Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
            We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of
            mass destruction program.”
            President Clinton,
            Feb. 17, 1998.

            “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what
            happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the
            leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological
            weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we
            face.”
            Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

            “He
            will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
            since 1983.”
            Sandy Berger, Clinton National
            Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

            “[W]e urge you, after
            consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution
            and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air
            and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
            the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass
            destruction programs.”
            Letter to President
            Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and
            others Oct. 9, 1998.

            “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in
            the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a
            threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the
            weapons inspection process.”
            Rep. Nancy Pelosi
            (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

            “Hussein has … chosen to spend
            his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his
            cronies.”
            Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary
            of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

            “There is no doubt that .
            Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports
            indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue
            apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
            continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the
            cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles
            that will threaten the United States and our allies.”

            Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,)
            and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

            “We begin with the common
            belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and
            stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United
            Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of
            delivering them.”
            Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI),
            Sept. 19, 2002.

            “We know that he has stored secret
            supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

            Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

            “Iraq’s
            search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter
            and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is
            in power.”
            Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

            “We
            have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing
            weapons of mass destruction.”
            Sen. Ted Kennedy
            (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

            “The last UN weapons inspectors
            left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein
            retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that
            he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and
            biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that
            he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
            Sen. Robert
            Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

            “I will be voting to give
            the President of the United States the authority to use force — if
            necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a
            deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
            and grave threat to our security.”
            Sen. John F.
            Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

            “There is unmistakable
            evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop
            nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next
            five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated
            the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass
            destruction.”
            Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV),
            Oct 10, 2002,

            “He has systematically violated, over the
            course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has
            demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological
            weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”

            Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

            “In
            the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
            that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
            weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear
            program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists,
            including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left
            unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to
            wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop
            nuclear weapons.”
            Sen. Hillary Clinton (D,
            NY), Oct 10, 2002

            “We are in possession of what I think
            to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a
            number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage
            of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to
            disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an
            oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat
            because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has
            continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
            destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
            destruction is real …
            Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA),
            Jan. 23. 2003.

            NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED,
            THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD’S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL
            BUDDIES??? Right!!!

          • JonBarleyCorn

            Right. Plus MORE control over every aspect of our lives. They LOVE the idea of some rich guy not being able to turn up the heat. Throw on a sweater rich guy! Well, except for Al Gore. Gotta keep those pools heated for the Rusty Trombone parties. God that guy is looking ILL.

          • shinobi1

            Spot on. Liberal liars lie liberally.

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            No… “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years”

            Mann SPLICED instrumented data onto proxy data from trees beginning where the tree data started going DOWN and the instrumented data was going up. That ain’t science – it’s nothing but lame sophistry.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            “the tree data started going DOWN”

            The tree data consists of the measured width of tree rings.

            In what way do you think that these widths were somehow “going down”?

            You seem to be very confused.

            What do you think the decline was, that they were commenting on?

            Temperature? Sorry Tardie Boy, but there was no decline in temperature to hide.

            So what do you think it was?

          • jacknine

            Definition of trick, noun: a cunning or skillful act or scheme intended to deceive or outwit someone.
            Definition of trick, verb: deceive or outwit (someone) by being cunning or skillful
            You see a difference there?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Tips and Tricks for calculus: Differentiation

            https://www.facebook.com/pages

            Math tricks for fast calculation

            Fantastic Math tricks.

            http://www.angelfire.com/me/ma

            Math tricks and shortcuts for competitive exams

            http://www.m4maths.com/maths-t

            26 Easycal Tricks of faster Algebra

            http://www.glad2teach.co.uk/26

            Tips and Tricks for Control Engineering

            http://www.controleng.com/even

            Tips and Tricks – Engineering Statics

            https://www.classle.net/videol

          • MarineSarge

            You CAN cut and paste from the Daily Kos I see. Good job Skippyette.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Too bad you actually couldn’t bring yourself to comment on the information provided to you.

            But as you illustrate, with Republicans, keeping themselves ignorant is job #1.

          • GrizzMann

            Did you check that 2+2=5 , yet?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            I avoid Republican math.

            It is moronic.

          • TSZodiac

            Hey Sarge – google “Vendicar Decarian TROLL” – he’s actually nothing but a Canadian Janitor who will only puke back the lib party line at you mixed with made up stats and Ad Hominem attacks – he’s not worth your time !

          • GrizzMann

            Isn’t a cleaver actually a meat axe?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            And a fine tool for dispatching denialists.

          • GrizzMann

            Sounds violent.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            It will be.

        • upcountrywater

          Yea, how about mentioning the warm records
          Question for the WARMERS what year is it actually going to get egg frying HOT on the sidewalk?……
          Better luck next year….

          Highest Recorded Temperatures
          Below is a table of the highest recorded temperatures for each continent.

          Place………………………………………………….- Date -…….Fahrenheit

          North America (Death Valley), ————- July 10, 1913—– 134.0 F
          Asia Tirat Tsvi, Israel———————- June 21, 1942 ——- 129.2 F
          Africa1 Kebili, Tunisia————————– July 7, 1931 —– 131.0 F
          Australia Oodnadatta, South Australia—– Jan. 2, 1960 —- 123.0 F
          Europe Athens, Greece———————- July 10, 1977 —- 118.4 F
          South America Rivadavia, Argentina—— Dec. 11, 1905— 120.0 F
          Oceania Tuguegarao, Philippines——— April 20, 1912 — 108.0 F
          Antarctica Vanda Station, Scott Coast—— Jan. 5, 1974 — 59.0 F

          http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/.

          • sirgareth

            That’s odd if the climate were warming we would expect to see Death valley get hotter than it was in 1913.

            That’s a data point we should ignore.

        • SkyHunter

          The trick was to plot the instrumental temperature with the reconstructed temperature. The methodology was published in Nature magazine, which is where the phrase; “Mike’s Nature trick” came from.

        • wboehmer

          Wrongdoing?
          Some of the global warming Nazi scientists have nothing but good intentions.
          But those are the dumbest ones.

        • TruthDetector

          Their favorite sport is hockey.

          Gotta make all the graphs look like a stick, dontchyaknow…

        • Rascal69

          That is exactly what Jonathan Gruber said. You’ve been tricked again, fool.

      • VendicarDecarian0

        The trick when you are reading those emails is to actually know what the word “trick” means when it is used in the context in which it is used.

        • Iamnumber6

          I know what the word “trick” means. “An act or procedure intended to achieve an end by deceptive or fraudulent means”. Seems to explain it perfectly.

        • Al gae

          Is means “Is”. Or not. Depending on venue. Nuance it 😀

          Come on, that’s as crackpot as any current methodology used to make things fit in a box. Given that the box is correct, and the methodology doesn’t fit in the box, you either revise the box to fit your methodology or you jigger your data to fit the box. Either way, you invalidate objectivity. In real science (that is before the era of regressive thought), objectivity produces the desired result. Dog wags tail, not tail wags dog. It is never subjectively changing the box to fit your premise nor claiming that your objectivity is immature and somehow fits the box regardless of observed effect.

          Outside of quantum mechanics which I dare say none of the established “climate researchers” nor yourself, who claim that global warming.. er change or whatever de nos jours is used, is real, know a lick of, the premise must be false and provably so.

          QED. I suggest getting a refund from the school that taught you otherwise.

        • twinstick1

          Well, it sure seems that they’ve “trick”ed you pretty good.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Given my background in science, I’m pretty hard to trick.

            Given your apparent ignorance you are very easily manipulated by your political managers.

          • twinstick1

            Political Managers? What are you talking about? Haven’t you learned the first rule of Science?
            Politics and Science don’t mix. When they do, Science is the first thing to go.
            You’ve also got to love how those Global Warming nutters portray hot and cold spells. We get a hot spell and it’s Global Warming. We get a cold spell and it’s just weather.
            And, in case you were wondering what a Global Warming nutter looks like, just look into your closest mirror…

          • VendicarDecarian0

            When 2% of the globe (the U.S.) gets a warm or cold spell, it’s regional weather.

            When the globe heats over time, it is Global Warming.

            Please try and keep up.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Then why do the imbeciles you bow your knee to keep using weather to indicate globull warming?
            Please try to keep up.

          • twinstick1

            I would try to keep up with all the spin in the AGW community, but, why bother. As soon as Govt. cheese got involved with the research, I knew the result was going to be pure bunk. What surprises me, though, is just how gullible those like yourself have been over the last 25 years or so. Unless you are one of the few that KNOW what you are serving up is pure BS and are just keeping up appearances to get that Govt. cheese…

      • Ordinary American 2014

        The democrats would say that they, “misspoke”, instead of lied.

        That makes corruption sound better, right?

    • kenpuck

      I heard Al Gore attempted suicide last week. Jumped off a roof 5 floors up, but a 10-foot snowbank broke his fall. He’s okay, but still depressed.

    • mytexas1

      “Adjustments”, is that what they call a lie nowadays?

    • Bill Frye, The Weather Guy

      You all can laugh at global warming, but a hallmark of a nation undergoing out of control global warming is temps running at all time record lows for decades at a time. It is not uncommon during global warming eras to have temps ranging from 10-20 degrees below normal temps(again for decades). Only to see temps rise 1 or 2 degrees,decades later…. say in the years 2090-2150 AD. So, I.E. brace for some bitterly cold weather for the remainder of our lives & childrens lives, thanks to our irresponsible use of fossil fuels now creating global warming(on a delay of course).

      • buyitcheap

        Well, wewere talking about global cooling in the 70s, it goes up and it goes down, which is why the religious element of the community changed the term to climate change….

      • deniertribemember

        Yup just when the sun, the real player on the field not fossil fuels becomes more active again.

    • SkyHunter

      Hey idiot, the adjustments have already been made. No one publishes raw data, that would be meaningless.

      • buyitcheap

        And by raw data you mean the results? Well sure, if the raw data, once analyzed, failed to support your initial bias. All thoughtful, intelligent responses, from the clearly angry global warmers.. you are gloriously validating…

        • SkyHunter

          Raw temperature data is the station data. When merging the station data, an algorithm compares the trend of each station to it’s surrounding stations looking for anomalies. This algorithm was developed to homogenize the historical data, where there was no consistency in calibration of instruments, time of day, UHI and site relocations.

          The scientific method is not biased. The overall result of homogenization is to cool the global land/sea temperature data. The algorithm doesn’t care whether or not the anomaly is warm or cool, if it falls outside of 2σ probability, it is likely wrong.

          • buyitcheap

            historical data, where there was no consistency in calibration of instruments, time of day, UHI and site relocations….thanks for making my point… and I didn’t mean to infer the method was biased, but you were.

          • SkyHunter

            Everyone is biased, that is why we need formal logic. Science.

    • grillbear

      Exactly. It’s bogus from the bogus. Total BS.

    • Maus

      Well on our way to another, “Hottest Year On Record®”!

    • SkyHunter

      You are obviously ignorant of how weather station data is merged and homogenized into the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST).

    • TexasTeaFinder

      Government “creates” crises all the time so that they can step in and “save the day”. There is actually a Latin phrase that illustrates (against) this principle – “NON FACIAS MALUM UT INDE FIAT BONUM” – translation, “Do not first do bad in order to then do good”. It is actually such a blatant tactic that I think most people just miss it – kind of like “The Purloined Letter”.

    • LutherWu

      Oh, but the US isn’t the globe. Oh, but this is just weather. We won’t have climate until next Summer. Next December, the government will tell us that this is the warmest year Ever. Again.
      I’ve been around too many “Oh, but…” people.

    • docdave88

      Actually it will turn out to be one of the warmest winters since the planet was formed.

    • buyitcheap
  • Gorgo

    I was in Cancun last week and it was in the lower 60’s, F’d up our vacation since we did not bring cold weather clothes.

    • Ho Jo

      why didn’t you buy some you cheap fuk

      • Gorgo

        We did indoor adventures, sure screwed up the water sports. Buying clothes for 5 people was out of the question.

    • DP

      THE GLOBE IS TURNING SIDE WAYS…..IF U ARE ON THE BOTTOM…YOU’LL FALL OFF…

  • Phil Bickel

    A local TV station noticed a consistent three degree variance between Port Columbus’s weather station and their owned sheltered station. The normal variance has been 1 degree plus or minus, but now CMH has been consistently 3 degrees warmer. The NWS blamed it on airport runway expansion, and adjustments to the internal sensors location. Hmm, wonder where else these adjustments have been made? This will be another warmest year on record, just like last year’s record cold winter.

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      Keep up with what is published in science. UHI has no effect on temperature trends and anomalies.

    • powers2be

      When the data refuses to comply with your hypothesis, no problem, Change the data.

  • http://SWAKIE.com/ M Aurelius

    The scientific consensus is settled: it’s cold as hell. Let’s call it….
    “Pre-Warming Climate Disruption” now.

    • greyhound16

      Throw Bush-Caused in there and it’s golden.

    • Jorge

      Premature Gore.

    • sirgareth

      “Climate Disruption”: The climatologist quack name for “weather”

  • Dracaerys

    The energy output of the sun is down. It’s getting colder on Earth. WHO KNEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Rolls Eyes)

    • DP

      jimmy carter era…shooting soot up in the atmosphere to keep the warmth here…..WE NEED MORE COW BELL….

    • billyjeff2

      Right. That’s why they are experiencing above average temps in the US Northeast.

  • truetime

    Call Al Gore to the rescue, he can create global warming, with the stroke of a pen.

  • Dutra

    Gore had better start flapping his gums, as that’s one sure source of hot air.

    • DP

      MADE A LOT OF DOE…HE IS VERY SMOOTH…

  • Sicilian Papa

    Why how can this be? If you have been listening to the climate kooks over the last two decades it should be around 50 degrees here in New England on Feb. 28th. Zero this morning with a high of 30 today. The whole winter has been like this. Coldest on record in this neck of the woods.

    • vb_guy

      They are lying, totalitarian filth. Anyone paying attention has known this for 15-20 years. Hockey sticks anyone?

      • Guest

        Keep your religion in the closet.

        • vb_guy

          what the hll does that mean? are you some kind of idiot?

    • billyjeff2

      “In this neck of the woods”–Thx for proving that you have no true understanding of AGW theory. People who believe that if it’s hotter/colder in their section of their country during one season of one year proves or disproves anything relevant to AGW theory (otherwise known as “ignoramuses”) are so, so entertaining.

      • sirgareth

        In the 1930s the US experienced droughts and heat waves that lasted a decade.

        Was this climate change or weather? Anyone? Anyone?

        • billyjeff2

          if it was limited to one area of one country, that would make it….weather. You’re welcome.

          • sirgareth

            Thanks for clearing that up. Can you give me an example of some “weather” that applies to the entire Earth?

          • billyjeff2

            Wow. You really have no basic understanding of this issue, do you? Do yourself a favor–use that device that you’re currently staring into and Google “climate”. Then you’ll be on your way. Cheers!

          • sirgareth

            I live in a temperate climate, others live in a tropical climate, still others in a subtropical or arctic climate. Not too many live in desert climates. Hey I get it.

            What confuses me is “world weather” ie “climate”

            You told me that a ten year drought that covered a huge area would turn weather into climate. Can you tell me in square miles how big the ten year drought has to be in order to change it from weather to climate or is it just some number someone pulls straight out of their asshole?

          • billyjeff2

            I did not say what you said I said. Re-read and then get back to us.

          • sirgareth

            This is what you said:

            “if it was limited to one area of one country, that would make it….weather.”

            And I asked if the drought covered more than just one “area” (how big???) what would it be called then?

            I assumed if it wasn’t “weather change” that you were implying that it would then be scientifically speaking of course “climate change”

            So if it isn’t weather change and it isn’t climate change what do you call a ten year drought that passes your “big enough” test.

            Does the world have a climate?

          • billyjeff2

            Nope. We’re talking globally. That’s why there’s a “G” in “AGW theory”. Global. Not local. You’re welcome.

          • sirgareth

            OK now were making progress,

            is the globe having a heat wave?

            Maybe its having drought or a flood or is it pretty much normal that way?

            Globes are actually spheres, the earth’s globe is over a 18 trillion cubic kilometers of iron and silicon, add that 1.4 billion cubic km of ocean and the wispy thin ethereal atmosphere add another 4.2 billion cubic kilometers. Heat flows between all these regions are amazingly complex.

            How much of all that is included in the “global climate”

          • billyjeff2

            oh my. you are beyond stupid. go waste someone else’s time. or better yet, do some research. get educated on this issue. then get back to us.

          • sirgareth

            You can say you are simply clueless as to the answer;being ignorant is not a crime.

            Were the Hitler Youth “educated” on the racial inferiority of the Jews?

            I believe the state mandated that all German youth receive a proper education in this from the state.

            Maybe this education stuff is a bit more complex than you think it is.

          • billyjeff2

            big fan of godwin, are we?

          • sirgareth

            Actually not at all, my theory is that Godwin was an ignorant socialist who decided he could baffle clueless youth with an alternative to studying socialism’s greatest achievement: 50 million souls slaughtered to prove the state really doesn’t know whats best for us.

          • billyjeff2

            “Does the world have a climate”? Seriously, dude? I beginning to think you’re wasting my time.

          • sirgareth

            Non responsive? Does the world have an “average” temperature?

            If so what is it?

          • billyjeff2

            An average global temperature is something than can be measured within an acceptable degree of accuracy. For example, in 2012 it was 58.3F . You can check on this yourself. Here’s a good place to start.
            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=80167

          • sirgareth

            If I look at what Hitler wrote about the Jews that wouldn’t make it right would it. After all he was only reporting peer reviewed science on Jews

            How could I prove what all the race science people said about the Jews was nonsense?

            How would I prove that your global average temperature is nonsense?

            I have another question for you:

            Isn’t AGW theory about heat trapping gasses?

            So why is temperature even relevant; shouldn’t we be monitoring the earth’s heat instead?

          • billyjeff2

            tell you what: get your self a rectal thermometer; stick it up your tush; that will tell you all you need to know on this subject. Cheers.

          • sirgareth

            The familiar pattern of socialist “scientism” reveals itself again.

            I might write my doctoral dissertation on the causes of this familiar pattern; I feel a theory coming on: I’m calling it Anthropogenic Socialist Dimming.

          • billyjeff2

            you? write a doctoral dissertation? oh, now that’s rich! maybe right after you discover a cure for cancer…

          • sirgareth

            Easy peasy, and I also know the average temperature of the Earth at 3:23 AM (GMT) on August 13, 1892.

            I’m telling you, man it was .0123 degrees hotter then than it is right now.

            I wrote this “fact” down so its now “data” – so prove me wrong.

          • billyjeff2

            looks like you took my advice and stuck that thermometer up your tush after all. good for you!

          • sirgareth

            Thanks for clearing that up. Can you give me an example of some “weather” that applies to the entire Earth?

  • vb_guy

    Progressive lies kill. In England, people have actually died in cold climes because of the increase in heating costs due to their policies. The reality is progressives want people dead. I was watching a documentary on Netflix which nearly caused me an aneurysm five minutes in when some academic declared that the population must be reduced to 2 billion. He didn’t propose a means.

    • PalmBeachVoter

      Limit population through abortion.

    • Story

      Muslims are doing their part.

  • Joe_E_in_the_IE

    Care to comment, former vice president and (must . . . not . . . smirk) climate activist Al Gore? Doesn’t the pla-YANN-et have a fa-HEE fer?

    Yes, I see and, no, you can’t f❋❋❋ me or the horse I rode in on. I don’t even own a horse.

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      Your fascination with Al Gore (and made-up nonsense claims) does exactly nothing to address the core physical basis for global warming, the simple fact that CO₂ traps radiant heat close to the planet’s surface, and more CO₂ means more trapped heat. The greenhouse effect was discovered in 1824, well over a century before Al Gore was even born. Do a little research sometime. It’s all a long con started by Fourier, picked up by Tyndall, then Arrhenius, now carried into modern day by all the PhD’s who work in the field according to your denier intellect.

      • Joe Bastardi

        So your argument is that the increase of 1 molecule of co2/10000 molecules of air over A ONE HUNDRED YEAR PERIOD is now the climate knob? Why now? We have had Ice ages at 7,000 parts per million, warmer times at 250 parts per million. When did the co2 fairy suddenly wave its magic wand. Was it at 360 ppm? 380ppm 400 ppm? Can you explain why the core argument in the EPA idea, the trapping hot spots over the tropics and the increase in the mixing ratios needed for that, HAVE GONE THE OPPOSITE WAY since the PDO flip around 2007.. and the result has been the lowering of the global ace index. SO IS THAT YOUR ANSWER that 1 molecule of co2 increase out of 10000 molecules of air OVER A 1 HUNDRED YEAR PERIOD.. in the face of the sun, oceans, stochastic events and the very design of the system is now the climate knob. And then you tell me how it has become that and when in the face of a geological record of co2 vs temp that shows no such linkage. So explain to us, given the factual history, why now?

        By the way humans exhale 100x more co2 than they inhale.. which says alot about what co2 is all about given what it means to plants. It is not a pollutant and its affect on the atmosphere is relative to the very tiny value given all around it.. not nothing at all, ( probably adds .4 to .7C to the needed 33c the GHGS account for to keep the planet warm enough for life) but a boxed in effect.

        As far as PHD’s let me ask you this. If this did not exist, what would they do? In other words I am speaking up because climatology is something that I found as a needed tool to make me a better forecaster. I have used it all my life, as my father, a degreed meteorologists, stressed the importance of understanding the past as a tool for the future. We were required to take climatology, by I took it much further, using past weather events as the foundation for our forecasts. By doing so I have an up on people that dont. But if the climate fight disappears tomorrow ( I wish it would, its distracting and a waste of our nations time and treasure except to those who profit off of it) I couldnt care less. But what of the person who’s whole life and notoriety is based on it. Climatologists are rock stars today.. no one knew boo about them years ago, except guys like me who realized how valuable it is. But how many of these climatologists have spent a year in forecasting where if you are wrong, you get fired as in the private sector? Where you have to come up with an answer that can be measured, not adjusted as it goes along, or when it goes the other way, just say oh, well its part of what we expect. So who is objective here and who isnt? My interest in this is the correct answer. And when someone says something that takes me 5 seconds to find an example to refute, like weather events ( none of these guys saying this year is so crazy have any idea about 1957-1958 winter with the same kind of set up, or last year which was close to 1917-1918) that we used before the fact to set up our forecasts, its very easy to refute.

        Only a man ignorant of the past is arrogant of the future in a way that he thinks he knows tomorrow

        • deniertribemember

          Leftwithrightbrain waiting?????

        • Leftwithrightbrain

          Thank you for sharing that you’re neither a scientist nor scientifically iterate but rather obnoxiously ignorant by choice apparently. Totally beyond me why anyone would be so proud of being completely scientifically illiterate. Most people would be embarrassed but not you deniers, you put it right out there for all to see. Why don’t you take a peek at what published science states about CO₂ radiative forcing as measured between 2000 and 2010 [doi: 10.1038/nature14240] for example among the plethora of articles on the topic.

          As to humans exhaling more C than they inhale is just so out of context it is laughable. In grade 3 you learned about the natural carbon cycle and why mammals are carbon neutral at worst and probably very slightly negative at best. CO₂ on its own is not a plant food but you probably don’t know that from your junk science sources.

          • deniertribemember

            Typical childish behavior Joe posts data and a warmist reverts to name calling. Why not answer his questions? What about that published science you speak of, where is the data?

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Sorry cupcake but this may come as a surprise to you but your denier buddy Joe has nothing but junk science and it is scary that you’re so uneducated that you’re suckered by it.

          • deniertribemember

            Well that denier is one of the best long range forecasters in the business and with climate being measured on day to day weather over a period of time. It is only logical to surmise that one should first be required to have a basic understanding of what causes day to day weather events and the ability to forecast them. Then have a understanding and knowledge of past weather and climate and then maybe one would have a reasonable ability to gauge and forecast our climate. If one has no ability to predict weather in real time they sure can’t predict it decades or more in the future and so far these climatologists have proven there inability to predict future climate.
            How is Joe bringing past data to the table and matching it to a pattern seen in the past to predict future weather junk science? How is a accurate forecast junk science. Joe predicted the pause in warming while climate scientists did not! How is that junk science. You seem to try and belittle everyone that dares deny the cult belief of global warming. Why can’t you answer Joe’s questions instead of deflect and avoid them?

  • Chris Sinclair

    It’s obvious that the earth got so warm that it looped around and became colder! Whoo hoo Global warming is fixed now we can go back to driving around with two humvee’s welded together pulling a trailer with a tire fire in it. Or even better a coal powered Prius!

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      Your argument about a colder than normal US winter being representative of global conditions is as facile as the buffoon who thinks a forest fire is over because the wind changed direction and it feels cooler because the hot air is no longer blowing in its face. You are just spouting denier canards that are MEANINGLESS, try science it may make you smarter.

      • Chris Sinclair

        I’ve seen the “unaltered” data with my own eyes. I’ve done my own research for years. I’m old enough to remember many years of winters and summers. You don’t need to be a scientist to know something is not right in river city. And I won’t even go to the climategate emails with proof of an active conspiracy to “fudge” the data. Believe what you want but the global warming jihadi’s will go down in history as modern day Piltdown man believers.

        • Leftwithrightbrain

          Science is definitely foreign to you as explicated by you in your evidence-free anecdotal comment of vacuity. Data are always fiddled/manipulated with as it’s an essential part of the measurement process; what do you think calibration means in science?

        • DP

          braile….

      • vb_guy

        try not being an idiot… the op’s post was obviously sarcasm, he is a follower of your progressive/totalitarian ideologies.

        For a smart guy, you really are stupid.

      • DP

        WATCHING TO MANY RERUNS OF BONANZA……HOSS….

    • DP

      ITS SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOT…I’M FREEZING TO DEATH…..

      • vb_guy

        Even in the face of embarrassingly inaccurate climate models over the last decade, these people cling to their global warming religion like grim death ….

        • Leftwithrightbrain

          Heres a challenge cupcake: there are over 150 climate models around the world most are open to the public. Which one do you find particularly inaccurate and why? Was it the sensitivity, forcings, feedbacks, etc. Published science makes you out to be an emotive opinionated fool and you may want read doi:10.1038/nclimate1763 that assesses the performance of the models first referenced by IPCC in the early 1990s or the most current assessment doi:10.1038/nature14117 and be a tad better informed.

    • DP

      THE PRIUS IS A COAL CAR …U THINK THAT STUFF COMIN OUT OF THE WALL IS BARRY DUST….

  • Duodecal

    This Global Warming scare is bringing about the destruction of Chicago – wait – the Democrats created both – hmmm
    I wonder what comes next???

    • DP

      HEAD SCARFS….MANDATORY…FOR WOMEN…..ANYONE FOR GENITAL MUTILATION…WOMEN ONLY…CLINTONS WAR ON WOMEN….BILLS….LITTLE WOMEN…FROM FANTASY ISLAND…IS NATALIE THEIR…………….

  • powers2be

    Marc you have broken a cardinal tenant of the Secular Progressive Religion, “Thou shall not question thy IPCC nor take their name in vain.” Under the Anthropogenic Global Warming Sacrament, regional temperature data can only be used when it supports the supposition that man is causing the globe to warm. When we have a dog day in Dayton that breaks the 150 year old record (of this 4.5 Billion year old planet) for warmest the New York Times must proclaim it a holy day and curse demon man for his evil ways. “hear ye, hear ye read all about it!” But when it is a bitter day in Birmingham, don’t you know, it is simply weather that should not be confused with the climate and our environment. You must be too stupid and unenlightened to understand the difference?

  • Allah=Devil

    blow me Al Gore.

    • DP

      GORELIONI…GETS DOE FROM THE SAUDI’S…SOLD TV STATION TO THEM…TRAITOR..

  • raffaro

    Yup, that harp machine works real good!

  • newtiffen

    New result shows CO2 has almost no effect on temperature.

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      Don’t know where you source your science but that is not found in the plethora of published scientific literature which states an opposite conclusion and the most current article is doi:10.1038/nature14240. Should you chose to read it you may make you a tad smarter about back irradiation forcing from CO₂. If the planet didn’t have this wonderful miscible, long residency GTG it would be a spinning snowball with surface temperatures about 33K lower than current so I’d say it has a marked effect on ST.

      • newtiffen

        Thanks. I have to leave now to help neighbors shovel even more snow.

  • DP

    it’s settle science…..sit down and shut up……gees, bite me al gorelioni………………….

  • newtiffen
  • YuriTahrded

    Global warming: It’s cold because it’s warm.

    • Jorge

      So when it’s cold we’ll have less snow?

      • DP

        TOO COLD TO SNOW…HEAVY FROST….

    • DP

      THAT IS WHAT THEY R TEACHING OUR KIDS…BABY BOOMERS SETTING UP THEIR RETIREMENT…..

  • Jorge

    Place this map over an ice age map of North America and see a pattern.
    Tell me where Al Gore is???

    • vb_guy

      Malibu. He is personally filling sandbags to protect his 10 million dollar home in his oceanfront community.

      AND STILL the left parades this guy out as some sort of expert. It’d be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

    • Al Gore

      I’m flying around the globe in my personal jet trying to warn everyone that Man Made Global Warming is real and it is going to kill us! If people would just pay to hear me speak, maybe I’ll figure out a way to stop this.

      • Jorge

        That is awesome because we need hot air here in the south, there is snow everwhere.

      • DP

        U SHOULD FLY NON STOP.(.LIKE THE B-52’S)IN THE NORTH EAST TO WARM THEM UP…EVEN BARRY AND KERRY WOULD SUPPORT THAT…

    • Gorgo

      Which ice age? There have been hundreds of them.

  • Sicilian Papa

    What we are witnessing is the normal fluctuation of temperatures over a 20 year period. This winter here in Connecticut is the coldest on record. We have had colder than normal winters, warmer than normal winters and near normal temperatures over the last 20 years.

    Global warming…..ah, global climate change….ah, global climate disruption is being exposed as a hoax but the left will cling to their religion. Wait…..when the next heat wave hits the climate kooks will be back.

    • Jorge

      Scientists all agree man is causing the changes on the planet. We control the weather dude.
      What was your point?

  • billyjeff2

    So wait: you folks think you know a bit more than the average joe about the issue of climate change, and likewise believe that below averages temps in one section of one country in one season of one year proves or disproves anything about AGW theory? My, what a bunch of ignoramuses we have around here.

    • Sicilian Papa

      Theory….yes, an educated guess or an uneducated guess.

      • billyjeff2

        Oh my. Someone is a bit ignorant of scientific terminology. Tch.

    • Jorge

      AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is a lie. Antarctica is melting in most spots due to geothermic heating. You do not know, nor do I. The science will change when?

      • billyjeff2

        geothermic heating? LOL! It’s melting due to abiotic oil production,. everyone knows that!

        • Jorge

          …geothermal heating. Abiotic oil is a theory, geothermic/geothermal heating is not.

          • billyjeff2

            if it’s not a theory, what is it then?

    • deniertribemember

      At the same time a warmist like yourself will attribute a drought or heat wave that happens in one season to global warming. At the same time claiming that what some call extreme weather is being caused by climate change when much worst events have happened and at more frequency in the past.

      • billyjeff2

        Nope. That would be ignorant. Evidence regarding the accuracy or inaccuracy of AGW theory is not gauged by temperatures in one section of the world during one season of one year. But you already knew that.

        • deniertribemember

          But it’s in the news every day including The Weather Channel who have tried to correlate specific weather events to global warming which makes most media outlets ignorant.

          • billyjeff2

            Could be, depending on exactly which “media” you’re referring to. But to be fair, they don’t normally say a particular weather event proves the accuracy of AGW theory; they say the event is consistent with what AGW theory predicts.

          • deniertribemember

            Neither do deniers claim some cold weather disproves global warming. The media I am referring to is ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN basically the main stream media. But why say a weather event is consistent with AGW theory when the AGW theory is not consistent itself and is often changed to fit what is happening? Example droughts are now said to be consistent with AGW, a tornado outbreak is consistent with AGW, Heavy rain events are consistent with AGW, new on the table is Arctic outbreaks consistent with AGW, Major snow storms are consistent with AGW. It gets ridiculous how much is attributed to AGW with any so called extreme event being attributed to AGW. Normal weather is often only an average of extremes whether that be temperatures or precipitation. The frequency of extreme weather has NOT increased. Take the time to look through this history which is for Iowa, some really crazy weather happened in the past. http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dmx/WxHistory.php One example had temps as cold as -40 only to raise into the 70’s in 1 day! That would have been called never seen before temperature extremes caused by or consistent with AGW today. Most deniers as a reaction to the onslaught of hype given to weather events attributed to AGW counter it with hype toward cooling when cold events happen. If AGW would tone it down, I bet the so called deniers would follow suit.

      • billyjeff2

        Not me. I am not ignorant of AGW theory. Any more questions, just ask me.

  • Sicilian Papa

    The climate kooks said storms like Katrina would become the norm because of warmer ocean temperatures caused by man made global warming. Hardly a hurricane since, 8 years!

    • Jorge

      No major hurricane since Katrina. A lot of wind though.

  • SoTxJoe

    That global warming thing?

    FIXED IT!
    .

  • Al Gore

    If it wasn’t for Man Made Global Warming, where would I be now? Thank God for the faithful that help finance my lifestyle.

  • Sicilian Papa

    After a series of warmer than normal winters here in New England around the turn of the century the climate kooks predicted snow would be a rare event here in the northeast. Ah….a good 4ft of the white stuff outside. We have had plenty of snow up here since the turn of the century. It snows when the temperatures are cold.

  • DP

    FRAUD SCAM,GRUBERED GORELIONED….

  • Sicilian Papa

    Record cold in the south, midwest, and northeast. The climate kooks like to say you can’t judge global warming by one season in one area of the country. The climate guessers in the science community are now back tracking because their hypothesis over the last 20 years are so far off. The true believers are now cooking the books to keep the hoax alive. Global warming was always about politics, money and government control

    • billyjeff2

      Actually, 2014 was the warmest year recorded to date. Your references to how cold it’s been in some areas of the US this winter prove your ignorance on this issue.

      • Sicilian Papa

        Record cold is concrete proof of man made global warming….LOL.

        • deniertribemember

          When the earth was warming the warmists said the suns fluctuations in radiant output had little effect on earths temperatures following a very strong solar max and overall solar output in the 80’s and 90’s. Then the sun becomes more quiet there is a pause or decline in global temps (though NOAA claims each year as warmer but at the same time indicated that there was a pause in warming?) then all of a sudden the warmist scientists said the reduced solar activity might be causing a temporary pause in the warming but that it will resume once the suns activity picks up again. So let me get this straight the sun can’t cause the earth to warm but can cause it to cool?? ya right

        • billyjeff2

          Oh my. You are more than just a bit ignorant, aren’t you. ?Hint: record cold in one section of one country during one season of one year neither proves nor disproves anything about AGW theory. You’re welcome.

      • deniertribemember

        Scroll down and ask Joe Bastardi how warm 2014 as he will back it up with data and you can then argue his numbers.

        • sirgareth

          Data data who’s got the data: can you refer me to the 1930 scientific data on the racial inferiority of Jews and Negroes?

        • billyjeff2

          Joe is a “mind’s made up” devotee of the denier crowd. Would not waste my time with the likes of him.

          • deniertribemember

            I have heard him give warmists there due a few times and he has always said he is open to a good debate so I wouldn’t say his mind is made up. Most on this thread is a made up minded devotee to there crowd either warmist or denier.

      • sirgareth

        No no wait, 2015 is now the hottest year on record, and 2016 will be so hot eggs will fry on an iceberg.

        Actually 2014 was the most sinful year on record and lying was the chief sin – so the “records” say

        • billyjeff2

          you have a hard time with facts. I can tell.

      • Rex

        LOL@RidiculousLiars
        Why do you hate science so much that you lie about it?

        • billyjeff2

          Oh, right. I forgot. The NOAA and NASA are staffed with science-hating, socialist, commies hell-bent on destroying everything you hold dear. Silly me.

  • Sicilian Papa

    I will leave you with this climate kooks. Keep predicting….you are bound to be right sometime. Thank you mother nature for exposing this hoax.

  • Typical Lying Liberal

    We need to give Al Gore more money.

  • Typical Lying Liberal

    The “Warmers” were right: the country is under water, it’s just in the form of snow instead of ocean.

  • Mike Raffone

    Our government leaders are almost as foolish as their constituents! LOL

  • YuriTahrded

    Hide the decline:

  • phil

    What more proof do you deniers need that global warming is real?

  • Fuldermox

    But….Global warming!

    • ZigZ

      They used to call it Global Cooling. In 1975 they predicted an ice age by 1980. Oops, it got warmer. The term Global Warming was invented in 1986. Oops it got cooler. Climate Change became the new name for the well established industry.

  • David Puddy

    “The Earth has a Fever” – Al Gore

  • oldoldtimer

    What the fail to tell you is the records only go back 125 years and thermmeters were not that accurate back then.

  • oldoldtimer

    Weather: 200 years. Climate: 2000 years. Need more?

    • Rex

      Weather and climate are synonyms….and that means they mean the same thing.
      Unless GOOGLE is lying about the definition of climate!

  • ZigZ

    Every chicken little climate warning over the past 40 years has been proven wrong by actual observance. Hard to believe anyone is dumb enough to buy their snake oil.

    Gore so believed his dire warnings about rising sea levels that he bought an $8.8 million oceanfront mansion in Montecito, CA with money he made giving speeches about rising seas.

  • Will Malven

    Guess that means NASA will be reporting “a record warm winter”

  • bittman

    But…can we believe NOAA on this? They’ve been caught lying about Global Warming/Climate Changing before.

  • agsb

    That’s a switch since they are constantly telling us how many warm temps have been broken!

    • Dano2

      Many more warm records broken. Why isn’t that mentioned here?

      Best,

      D

      • deniertribemember

        Missing last 5 years??

  • Liberal Conservative

    hey…it’s “just” weather.

  • Rex

    Since temperatures are rising (WARMING) all over the entire planet (GLOBAL), record cold temps are impossible, right libtards?
    Don’t democrats even know what GLOBAL and WARMING mean? Why do Democrats hate science AND vocabulary?

  • Rex

    The definition of Climate is THE WEATHER CONDITIONS…..and CLIMATE AND WEATHER ARE SYNONYMS……are democrats too stupid to know what a synonym is?

    Since when HASN’T the weather changed, demotards?

    https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGHP_enUS629&q=climate+definition&gws_rd=ssl

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      Rex cupcake when you were in grade 3 they started teaching you what the difference between climate and weather meant. Sure they’re synonyms, in the vein that urine and water are fluids. Just because you can’t grasp the scientific definitions doesn’t mean to say that most of the rest of the sane world doesn’t.

  • Antiobamunist

    Time for a new Hockey Stick. LOL

  • blackula

    little iceage!

  • Clete Torres

    AGW – Al Gore’s Wealthier.
    That’s all this bulldink is about: money and power. Control.

  • gio6666

    Wait, I thought it was getting warmer?? The science was settled but the planet is not coopperating

  • Andrew Arnold

    Every time I hear the phrase “The science is settled” I cringe. Any *true* scientist never considers any science settled- they always welcome challenges to accepted theory. Just remember- Science alters its beliefs based upon the facts, religion alters the facts based upon it’s beliefs… Ipso facto, AGW is a religion.

    • John Smith

      Well said.

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      That is true, science is dynamic and is never settled. Every scientist by nature is a skeptic, however, there is broad swaths of consensus among scientists. For example there is almost uniform consensus that smoking tobacco causes cardiovascular and respiratory diseases but the actual trigger/s in tobacco smoke that are responsible remains unknown to science. Likewise, for AGW theory there is a 100% consensus among climate scientists as evidenced by the lack of a competing theory or any published rebuttal by current practitioners worldwide. In everyday layman’s language I’d say that the two examples I gave could be described as settled.

      • Andrew Arnold

        And I say I don’t trust the science because they have a financial interest in the form of govt grants. Hence them altering data and their faulty models. It’s the Sun that’s the determining factor.

        • Leftwithrightbrain

          As you provide no evidence for your vacuity about models and data, I’ll ignore it as hearsay or b^llshit. Anyone who suggests climate scientists have been massively corrupted by federal funding and peer pressure does not consider the countervailing power of opposing financial interests that might lure scientists to question the scientific consensus such as the lucrative funding made available in the right-wing think-tank world and fossil fuel corporations. If it were only money why haven’t the scientists defected in droves? Because you discount the possibility that scientists would find the lure of eventually being proven correct to be a powerful reputational incentive, let alone that they would actually care enough about being right to disregard social and financial pressure. If you had any specific sense of how these social pressures survived the rigors of the scientific method and peer review, you don’t explicate them.

          • Andrew Arnold

            Wow, you sure use a lot of words to say very little. I have over 1,350 *PEER REVIEWED* papers supporting skepticism of AGW.

            http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

            Now please begin discrediting the source & all the papers, but FFS please use less words.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Full marks for ingenuity in your (unsuccessful) attempt to avoid the point I made in the post. Is that the message you want to get across? Why do you obfuscate and not explicate how scientists are supposedly lured by grants or provide any evidence? As to your segue off to the debunked website … I’ll make it easy for you …select a paper from your 1350, it must have a DOI reference to have been through peer review process, state date of publication, was the paper accepted or rejected or edited by comments, how many times has the paper been cited by others or cross-referenced. Once you have that all positive i.e. it is accepted within the industry … then tell us the subject … and give the page and line reference as to where AGW is discussed. I’m not to sure you know what a science skeptic is … all scientists are skeptics by nature … and in climate science this usually refers to those who accept AGW theory but don’t necessarily subscribe to certain subsets such as impact of CO₂ back irradiation forcing, etc.

          • Andrew Arnold

            Thank you for the full marks! As to your second question, I’m too lazy to do that. And given that I’m too lazy for the former point, I’m definitely too lazy for the latter.
            But it’s funny how every thing that refutes AGW is debunked by proponents of AGW. That’s like the defendant in a trial being able to declare the smoking gun inadmissible. Let’s assume every single word you say about AGW is true. America can spend itself into the poor house to stop AGW- and let’s say we achieve 0% greenhouse gas emissions. That won’t do a thing to stop AGW because of China & India & others who won’t stop their efforts because it is lifting so many of their people out of poverty. so unless you’re prepared to force the world at the point of a gun, all your words are moot.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Thanks for confirming that you were not able to find any peer-reviewed articles to support your vacuity. Never mind, there’s nothing anyone could possibly write to get you even close to understanding what nonsense and junk science you wrote. There really is no point arguing with you since you simply don’t want to get informed.

          • Andrew Arnold

            “not able” *too lazy.

            Now that you’ve dismissed me, this can end. But don’t delude yourself that you are in any way doing this to change hearts & minds over to your side because you’re not. I know it, you know it and everyone reading this knows it. You are doing this for the simple fact that you want to glorify your own ego and show everyone how “smart” you are.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Don’t end like this, with a playground pout.

  • John Smith

    Where’s global when we need it?

  • George Patton

    there’s no such thing as global warming you liberal D__heads!!! When the F are you morons going to wake up and see what they are doing. Retards!

  • Tom Antt

    The real 97%.

    In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

    Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming.

    Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      Until your alleged debunking is published it remains hearsay. Here’s another published science article that supports Cook et al http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full.pdf which basically says since 1993 75% of papers published actively agree with global warming, and 25% didn’t take a position on it, not because they didn’t necessarily believe it but because it wasn’t within the scope of the chemistry or geology or climatology that paper was examining.

      • Tom Antt

        How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2500 – that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position.

        To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered that they were mistaken – those 2500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently.

        The upshot? The punditry looked for and recently found an alternate number to tout – “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim.

        • Leftwithrightbrain

          How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change

          it is actually very simple. First, all researching climate scientists publish in the same journals and venues so that their work can be scrutinized and commented on by their peers i.e. it will pass or be modified or fail based on the data, analysis, and conclusions. Second, no one has published a rebuttal of AGW theory or provided an alternate.

          Your IPCC comments are evidence free as your want and thus constitute hearsay or b$llshit! I dare you to forgo the comforts of your quilting circle and publish your diatribe in science publications where it will get the treatment and contempt it rightly deserves.

    • Dano2

      Cook Totem!

      Drink!

      Best,

      D

  • Timothy Turnstone

    Global Warming is nothing more than Blowing Hot Air where the Sun Don’t Shine

  • Globaloney

    I got frostbite from Global Warming…

  • Lady Con

    Damn this global warming! It’s all Algore’s fault!

  • Globaloney

    “Whether the ice caps melt, or expand — whatever happens — the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology.” ~ Mathematical Physicist Dr. Frank Tipler, professor at Tulane University

    “The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.” ~ South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.

    “Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” ~ Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid

    “There is no credible evidence of the current exceptional global warming trumpeted by the UNIPCC…The UNIPCC is no longer behaving as an investigative scientific organization or pretending to be one…Their leaders betrayed the trust of the world community.” ~ Chemist Dr. Grant Miles, author of numerous peer reviewed scientific publications on atmospheric chemistry who was elected to a Fellowship of the Royal Institute of Chemistry, was a member of UK Atomic Energy Authority Chemical Separation Plant Committee

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      Is there some perversion in your simple mind that thinks evidence-free quotes by non-climate scientists somehow detracts from the the work of thousands of oceanographers, solar physicists, biologists, atmospheric scientists, geologists, and snow and ice researchers during the past 100 years is fundamentally flawed? That would rank as one of the greatest discoveries of the century and would almost certainly earn you a Nobel prize. Ask your scientists to publish their diatribe and allow their peers to decide the fate of their scientific rationale.

  • Lady Con

    CLIMATE is a measure of the average pattern of variation (i.e. CHANGE) in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time. DUH In other words – changes in the weather over time = CLIMATE

    • vb_guy

      The funny thing is …. the margin of error of the CLIMATE data they actually have is LARGE. Beyond the change they claim to have had occurred. Think about it, these idiot leftists, spouting “ITS CLIMATE CHANGE NOT WEATHER”, don’t even understand that. How “global temperature data” do these nitwits think exists?

  • Timothy Turnstone

    Liberalism is…

  • Dano2

    January was the second-warmest January on record.

    Best,

    D

  • D. Self

    Wow! these are significant and probably unprecedented but the STATE RUN MEDIA will ignore these facts.

  • Joseph

    Who cares. None of this record making means one damn thing. Nothing is wrong. God is still in charge.

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      Killed any disobedient children lately or ever?

  • Iamnumber6

    2185 cold records broken. Don’t worry though, after the NASA GISS adjustments, it will still be the warmest February ever.

  • KEITH

    The IPCC must be in panic mode at this point. They’re going to have to bring out the “master adjustment strategy file” to make those graphs look as steep as possible. If things get tough they’ll have to bring in James “Hockey Stick” Hansen to do his magic.

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      This post makes no sense. How does below colder than normal temperatures on less than 1% of the Earth’s surface have a greater impact than the more than 25% that is currently experiencing record highs or above average warmth?

      • KEITH

        You see, that’s just the point. There is no 25% experiencing “record highs”. The global warming community had better get their talking points together because half of you are saying that there is still rampant warming and the other half is saying we are going through a “pause like cooling period” which will end in about ten years. Which is it? Besides, how is it that this “warming” stays away from the United States? I have been alive for 56 years and I see absolutely no difference in weather, heat, cold, hurricanes, tornadoes, rain, snow or climate than when I was a child. Where are the vast, green pastures that have turned to desert.? Where are the coastal roads that have been permanently flooded away from rising seas? There is no doubt that nature can turn ugly at any time, however it will not be due to man made CO2.

        • Leftwithrightbrain

          Thank you for confirming that your’re neither a scientist nor scientifically literate or competent in math but rather ignorant by choice, apparently. BTW it is Mann et al who did the hockey stick and its fully accepted in climate science and the real world.

          • KEITH

            Well, where are my answers?? Where are the green, fertile pastures that turned to desert? Where are the coastline roads that have fallen victim to rising sea levels? I ask these questions for a reason. Readers Digest predicted that by the year 2000 Route A1A in Palm Beach, Florida was going to be under water due to rising sea levels. The road is still there. Admit it, all the AGW debate is based on flawed,nonlinear models that cannot predict the future based on not only influences of chaos built into the system, but also, an immense amount of complexity influenced by agents and sub agents on the system. Even low variable, complex systems are difficult to predict. Now throw in climate and you are dealing with hundreds of variables and agents that have both positive and negative loop effects on the nonlinear system. Science cannot even predict ant colony behavior, which is far simpler to predict than climate. A two variable system inside an ant colony cannot be predicted so how can you foresee climate 5 to 10 to 20 years down the road. This is why the last 5 IPCC reports have been an embarrassment to the organization. You and the whole AGW nuts are frauds.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Rather long screed to reaffirm that you’re ignorant about climate science.

          • KEITH

            Soooooo, you can’t tell me what green, fertile lands have gone to desert and what coastal roads are under water due to rising seas.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            When you have some science to discuss, return. Otherwise acquiesce and move on.

          • KEITH

            When you have real proof of global warming, return. Otherwise keep adjusting the real scientific data and move on.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            It is very sad that you have neither the education nor the ability to review the evidence. The scientific consensus has formed around the overwhelming evidence. When you disagree with the evidence, that is ignorance. When you agree with the evidence, that is knowledge.

          • KEITH

            Sooooo…You have no real evidence for global warming. Again, where are the green, fertile fields that have gone to desert. Where are the coastal roads under water from rising sea levels. Maybe this can help. I’m sick and tired, for the past 20 years, of hearing about tragedies that “will happen”. WHEN WILL THEY ACTUALLY HAPPEN?? The small, low level, islands in the Pacific Ocean were to have been under water 20 years ago and, yet, they are still there. Some of these islands have been given millions of dollars from the United Nations to relocate their citizens due to “pending” tragedies. The Islands are still there. You mentioned the word “evidence” four times in your last post. So, just show me the evidence. In short, I’m calling you out as a fraud.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            It’s obviously not your fault, but what you say does not make sense. You provide an alternative view to global warming, that simply does not hold up. Right now there’s simply no alternative model to the greenhouse effect. There’s no alternative hypothesis, that explains the temperature on this planet. There are multiple lines of evidence that show us how much the temperature will likely increase e.g. paleoclimatology. Climatology is a huge field and one doesn’t just understand it without an education in natural sciences. You’re just another ignoramus who assumes all stances are politically motivated and not based off of research and study. It’s abundantly clear that you have no relevant knowledge or insights to offer to this discussion. So I’ll kindly excuse myself from this discussion that wouldn’t pass for a second grade scientific debate and let you continue to ‘intellectually’ masturbate to your heart’s content.

  • michael s

    If climate change is bad, is the goal, climate stagnation?

    Or, is there a plan to roll back global temperatures to a predetermined level, requiring a significant reduction in carbon energy? And what accounting is there for non-man-made caused atmospheric intrusions? Volcanoes and the like.

    It seems to me, there are people that have a God complex and wish create some sort of global thermostat. That brings us to the serious question of, who controls the thermostat?

  • Jim H.

    Are these real climate data, or “fudged” to get more stories on the Drudge Report?

    • vb_guy

      what do your eyes and ears tell you? Have you heard about low temperatures lately? Have you also heard the dingbats in Washington claiming this is the hottest year ever?

      Which do you believe, your lying eyes/ears or the lying scum in the Obama admin?

      • Leftwithrightbrain

        Since when does 1% of the Earth’s surface represent what is happening globally where the current satellite data shows more than 60% of the planet at above normal temperatures.

        • vb_guy

          The funny thing is …. the margin of error of the CLIMATE data they
          actually have is LARGE. Beyond the change they claim to have had
          occurred. Think about it, these idiot leftists, spouting “ITS CLIMATE
          CHANGE NOT WEATHER”, don’t even understand that. How much “global
          temperature data” do these nitwits think exists within an acceptable level of accuracy?

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Please let everyone know when the English translation of your post becomes available.