Inconvenient Truths: 2014 Global Natural Disasters Down Massively! …No Trend In Tornado/Cyclones Since 1950!


By: - Climate DepotOctober 10, 2015 1:32 PM with 691 comments

(Also see: Feds declare no climate link to floods – 1000 year SC flood only a 10 year flood! U.S. Geological Survey: ‘No linkage between flooding & increase in GHGs‘)

#

Inconvenient Truths: 2014 Global Natural Disasters Down Massively! …No Trend In Tornado/Cyclones Since 1950!

By  on 10. October 2015

More people and more wealth, yet less losses. That’s what the latest 2014 disaster statistics tell us. Bad news for the doomsday worshippers and cheerleaders.

The Geneva-Switzerland based International Federation of the Red Cross recently released its 2014 Natural Disaster Report, according to the German online daily BILD here. If anything, the news is very good – with huge drops in losses.

Moreover US hurricane and tornado activity trends since 1950 have remained flat or are decreasing respectively.

A copy of the report’s results is here. The AON Executive Summary writes (my emphasis):

Down Again: 2014 Catastrophe Losses Below Average
Global natural disasters1 in 2014 combined to cause economic losses of USD 132 billion, 37 percent below the ten-year average of USD211 billion. The losses were attributed to 258 separate events, compared to the ten-year average of 260. The disasters caused insured losses of USD39 billion, 38 percent below the ten-year average of USD63 billion and was the lowest insured loss total since 2009. This was the second consecutive year with below normal catastrophe losses. Notable events during the year included major flooding in India, Pakistan, China, and Southeast Europe; billion-dollar convective thunderstorm events in the United States, France, and Germany; winter storms in Japan and the United States; and widespread drought in the United States and Brazil. The top three perils, flood, tropical cyclone, and severe weather, combined for 72 percent of all economic losses in 2014. Despite 75 percent of catastrophe losses occurring outside of the United States, it still accounted for 53 percent of global insured losses, driven by a higher insurance penetration.”

According to the Red Cross data, many of the deaths were due to cold, with 505 alone occurring in one country – Peru! Among the top disasters were brutal winters in the USA and japan – hardly what one would expect from “global warming”.

90% less deaths

A total of 8186 people died in 2014 because of natural disasters. Bild reports: “2014 the number of deaths from natural disasters was almost 90 percent under the 10-year average of 76 500 deaths.” That’s hugely good news, but you’d never know it hearing the media!

Lowest in 10 years

According to the IFRC, in 94 countries there were a total of 317 floods, earthquakes, forest fires, cyclones and a number of other nature events with deaths. “But that was the lowest number in 10 years.“, BILD reports.

But the IFRC report insists that the news is bad no matter what, and warns that the good news won’t last, citing more severe weather events in the future (no date given) because of global climate change.

No Cat 3 hurricane landfall in 9 years

But data show the opposite. For example when it comes to hurricanes, the AON report writes on page 12:

The 2014 Atlantic Hurricane Season marked the ninth consecutive year in which the U.S. did not sustain a major Category 3+ landfalling hurricane, which extends the alltime record by another year. It was also the quietest season in terms of named storms since 1997.”

It’s stunning that some are actually out there screaming things are worse than ever when the opposite is the truth.

One of least active since Doppler radar began

On U.S. tornado activity it’s more of the same, with the AON report stating on page 17:

For the third consecutive year, tornado season in the United States was one of the least active since Doppler radar began being deployed in the early 1990s.”

Here’s the chart of the last 10 years – no change:

AON_1

Also on page 18 the chart on acres burned by wildfire shows that 2014 was near a decade low:

The Appendix of the AON report also provides more charts on hurricane and tornado trends since 1950. What follows is a chart showing United States hurricane landfalls:

AON_2

No trends in hurricane landfalls. Source: NOAA IBTrACS historical tropical cyclone database.

Violent tornadoes on the decrease

On violent tornadoes, the AON report writes:

Since 1950, the overall trend of higher-end tornadoes rated at F3/EF3 and above has remained nearly flat and shows a slight annual decrease of 0.8 percent. A comparable 1.2 percent annual decrease is also found when looking at dependable data since the advent of Doppler radar in 1990. When breaking down data to just the last 10 years, there has been a similar nearly flat growth at 0.5 percent.”

Here’s the chart:

AON_3

Here we can see that violent tornadoes were considerably more frequent from 1950 – 1975 – back in the days of ice age warnings!

So the next time some hysterical alarmists insist weather extremes are getting worse, send the link to the AON report and tell them to look at the data for once.

Chart sources: AON Benfield

– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/10/10/inconvenient-truths-2014-global-natural-disasters-down-massively-no-trend-in-tornadocyclones-since-1950/#sthash.2y7HXCSU.dpuf


  • lysosome

    More bad news for the warmists. Good.

    • Flechette

      But, but, the computer models say the earth is warming!

      • 20670

        The old computer axiom “Garbage in, garbage out” explains that.

        • John (magnum)

          Same with the White House, garbage in, garbage and destruction out !

          • Jody Hylton

            my collaborator’s stride mother makes $97/hr on the web…….…..Last weekend I Bought A Brand new McLaren F1 after earning 18,512$,this was my last month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k last-month .No-doubt about it, this really is the most comfortable work I have ever had . I began this 8-months ago and pretty much immediately was bringing home at least $97, p/h….Learn More right Here.
            ny..
            ➤➤
            ➤➤➤➤ http://www.googlefeedbuzzmoneybestukmoney065.blogspot.com/ ❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦

          • truth teller

            This Amway bots MLM pitch is more believable than climate change scientists fantasy computer models

      • Leftwithrightbrain

        Your disdain and ineptitude for science are not virtues.

        • Clif

          Enlighten us. Bring it on. Chirp chirp go the crickets.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Head to your local library and take out a middle school science textbook. That is an excellent starting point for the ignorant and undereducated.

          • Eagle0542
          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Climate science won’t be found on denier sites. Get a middle school student to help you find science sites.

          • Eagle0542

            Your arguement is with the gentlemen with 6 math degrees who works in this field. He found methods use with the doomsday models, which seem never to reflect reality, is flawed. Tell him about your juvenile “middle school” comment. What you are implying is this guy must be wrong, you give no room for the chance it is “he” who is right. Your sole reliance on computer models that have proven flawed and manipulated is called “junk science”. Every day the doomsday predictions made decades ago simply have not come to pass. The false doomsday predictions are to many to list. But you still cling to every hope when there is a flood or a hurricane. You must popping Zanax with the facts outlined in this article. You must be praying at your AGW altar that tnere will be a real bad one before the hurricane season is over. . So don’t believe your lying eyes and real data, but believe models that may be based on faulty math. Now back to the basement to your Algore shrine and worship at the alter of AGW. I am sure that will make you feel better about yourself. The rest of us will be thankful the country was spared a catastrophic hurricane and less catastrophes yet again while you pout, whine and cry hoping it will be better for you cultists next year and we get a few Cat 5’s to hit land that will send you into orgasmic gyrations.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            I don’t care if he has 100 math degrees. Until he commits his research/thoughts to paper and submits it for peer review it is vacuous hearsay. I’m sorry you did not avail yourself of the excellent free education offered in one of the world’s best education systems and remain undereducated and grossly ignorant about climate science. Climate science does not rely solely on “computer” models … that must be the most ignorant statement today and indicative of your illiteracy. Climate science is nearly 200 years old and predates modelling using computers by 150 years.

          • Eagle0542

            Read much? Comprehend much? The “predictions” are based on models that may be flawed. Their predictions have been wrong on many occasions. All you have to do is research the predictions of doom and gloom that were supposed to be visited on mankind by now that were bogus. Why is that, Einstein? Using your warped logic you will probably claim they were wrong because they were right. Your “cut and paste” intelligence is just that, cut and paste. You are as transparent and obvious as Al Gore’s carbon foot print. So go find the nearest article that you can copy and then try to pass yourself off as intelligent. Not working pal!

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Read much? Comprehend much?
            ============================

            Obviously you don’t. If you did you’d provide substantiation for your vacuity from the scientific literature. 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.

            Your first gross error was “computer models” … only an ignorant person would write such an elementary error. Second was suggesting modelling predicts, you’d know that it doesn’t if you had the slightest knowledge about the topic .But let me give you a summary of what climate modelling does and hopefully you won’t be so ignorant going forward. Climate models have correctly projected that:

            • land, atmosphere and oceans would warm (2001-2010 was easily the hottest decade on record, whichever dataset is used, with 2014 the highest individual year and likely to be surpassed by 2015);
            • the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool;
            • nighttime average temperatures would increase more than daytime average temperatures;
            • winter average temperatures would increase more than summer average temperatures;
            • polar amplification would lead to greater temperature increases nearer the poles; and
            • the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.

            Modelling also showed:
            • the magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption;
            • the amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO;
            • the response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole;
            • the expansion of the Hadley cells;
            • the poleward movement of storm tracks;
            • the rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude;
            • the clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics;
            • the near constancy of relative humidity on global average;
            • the coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase;
            • the retrodiction for the Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures, which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and subsequent better paleo evidence showing that the models were right; and
            • strong warming is present in the upper troposphere, a phenomenon long predicted in global warming theories and climate models and subsequently verified with evidence from research.

          • Eagle0542

            Now you are not only are a master at cut and paste but you can add idiot to the list. Simply “Google” (that is a search engine you should be well aware of with the perpetual cutting and pasting you do) and type “computer modelling definition”. It will also direct you to the term model and give you a definition too. See how simple this is. You can read the definition yourself. I will only cut and paste a sentence using the word the Business dictionary provided.

            “NASA just used the Hubble telescope to obtain independent confirmation that there is a sub-surface ocean at the Jovian moon Ganymede, just like the model predicted.”

            Please note the phrase “as the model PREDICTED. You stated, like a m o r o n that models do not predict.

            So may I respectfully state you are so full of sh$ t it is coming out your ears. If you can’t comprehend the little things you sure can’t understand the articles, paragraphs and sentences you copy and try to pass off as your own thoughts.

            Good night. You do not have to thank me, making a fool of you was my pleasure.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Sorry cupcake there was no need to confirm your ignorance and illiteracy. If you wish to educate yourself go to science sites. Climate models project … theoretical models predict. This is like third grade science. Why do you struggle so much?

          • Eagle0542

            Your verbal gymnastics is quite entertaining but only reinforces your $tupidity. A projection is a prediction you dolt. I will resort to your tactic of cut and paste. Maybe that will help you understand. So please stop making a fool of yourself. You cannot even handle simple definitions let alone understand all you “borrowed intelligence”. LMAO!

            A great amount of confusion seem to have grown up in the use of words ‘forecast’, ‘prediction’ and
            ‘projection’. A prediction is an estimate based solely in past data of the series under investigation. It
            is purely mechanical extrapolation. A PROJECTION is a PREDICTION where the extrapolated values are
            subjects to a certain numerical assumptions. A forecast is an estimate which relates the series in
            which we are interested to external factors. Forecasts are made by estimating future values of the
            external factors by means of prediction, projection or forecast and from these values calculating the
            estimate of the dependent variable.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Your cut+paste source is not scientifically correct. I’m not surprised. What next? Scientific theory isn’t the best knowledge possessed by humanity?

          • Eagle0542

            Yeah, yeah, the Business Dictionary is wrong, the author of the paragraph is wrong. How about your God, Dr. Michael Mann. His newest book is entitled DIRE PREDICTIONS. l quess he is not “scientifically correct” too for not naming his doom and gloom book DIRE PROJECTIONS. Keep commenting dude, this is funny stuff. You would even insult one of your AGW messiahs in your effort to appear having any sense at all. You are not very good at this are you?

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Business Dictionary is wrong, the author of the paragraph is wrong.
            ========================

            Yes. Mann’s book is titled correctly. If you had the slightest hint of a middle school science education you’d know why you’re being an ignorant fool. Sadly you’re just not smart enough. So let me teach you the basics of prediction, forecast and projection in science. First the terms are not interchangeable. Second, they have specific definitions:

            A prediction is a probabilistic statement that something will happen in the future based on what is known today. e.g. a weather prediction indicating whether tomorrow will be clear or stormy is based on the state of the atmosphere today (and in the recent past) and not on unpredictable changes in boundary conditions such as how ocean temperatures may change between today and tomorrow.

            A forecast is a “best” prediction made by a particular person or with a particular technique or representation of current conditions. e.g. a statement by a weather forecaster that it will rain at 15:30 tomorrow – that is that individual’s best judgment, perhaps drawn from a prediction that there is a 70% chance of rain tomorrow afternoon.

            A projection is a probabilistic statement that something will happen in the future if certain conditions develop. The set of boundary conditions that is used in conjunction with making a projection is often called a scenario or simulation. Each scenario is based on assumptions about how the future will develop. e.g. the IPCC recently projected a range of possible temperature changes that would likely occur for a range of plausible emissions scenarios and a range of model-derived estimates of climate sensitivity (the temperature change that would result from a CO₂ doubling). This is clearly a projection of what could happen if certain assumed conditions prevailed in the future – it is neither a prediction nor a forecast of what will happen independent of future conditions.

          • Eagle0542

            So I guess when Dr. Mann stated in his own quote “faster than any climate model predicted” does not even have a middle school education. Man, please don’t stop. You just committed sacrilege against one the the Gods of AGW. You stated he did not have the slightest hint of a middle school education. That we agree on for but for different reasons. Bwhahahaha! What a maroon.

            http://climatenexus.org/learn/models-trends-and-variability/dr-mike-mann-climate-models

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Read the definitions given above and stop making a fool of yourself.

          • Eagle0542

            Nice try Einstein. You forgot to mention you copied this from an OPINION piece. You conveniently left out this very important sentence.

            “Here are my views of how we should be using the various terms:”

            These are HIS views. It may also be YOUR view. But it is not every scientists view as indicated by Dr. Mann’s quote. Like I said you are not very good at this. Not only are you a dolt, but a dishonest one. Someone’s “VIEW” is not considered a fact. God you take the cake.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            You can’t hide your false statements by hypocritical whining. Thank you for sharing that you’re neither a scientist nor scientifically nor English literate but rather obnoxiously ignorant about climate science 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.

          • Eagle0542

            So you got caught like a kid with his hand in a cookie jar and now you want to whine and cry like a baby. You present an opinion and try to sell it as fact. Why you think you are fooling anyone with a cut and paste intellect is totally beyond me. You think you are smart but you can’t even fool, as you stated, a person with not even a middle school education. What does that say about you? I grow weary of your faux intelligence and intellectual dishonesty you were just engaging in. Have a good life while your head is up a dark place where there is no oxygen. Like I said, making a fool of you was my pleasure.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Sorry cupcake but IPCC and New Oxford dictionary have decided what the definitions are. Not an ignoramus of your stupidity.

          • Eagle0542

            There go those pesky little middle schoolers writing papers for the cultists about “climate model predictions”.

            https://www.enseignement.polytechnique.fr/profs/mecanique/Thomas.Dubos/MEC580/2008/Nalet_Huntingford03.pdf

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            This must all be terribly confusing for you but that paper is a prediction as it used deterministic modelling. From IPCC: When a projection is branded “most likely” it becomes a forecast or prediction. A forecast is often obtained using deterministic models, possibly a set of these, outputs of which can enable some level of confidence to be attached to projections.

          • Eagle0542

            Listen to him
            Back peddle. The Oxford definition you cited is below. A little while ago you said a projection is not a forecast. You can’t even get your aguments straight. Now you say a projection can become a prediction. Before you said they are not interchangable. Which is it? Talk about confused!
            Projection-
            1An estimate or forecast of a future situation or trend based on a study of present ones:
            plans based on projections of slow but positive growth
            population projection is essential for planning
            Listen to him back peddle. Here is Oxford’s defi

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Cupcake, From IPCC: When a projection is branded “most likely” it becomes a forecast or prediction. A forecast is often obtained using deterministic models, possibly a set of these, outputs of which can enable some level of confidence to be attached to projections.

            I know this is hard for you to comprehend but projections are not predictions or forecasts for the subtleties given in the definitions above. However, when the confidence level of the projections tighten it can become a prediction.

          • Eagle0542

            This is priceless. You even forgot what you said. Here is your quote.Your first gross error was “computer models” … only an ignorant person would write such an elementary error. Second was suggesting modelling predicts, you’d know that it doesn’t if you had the slightest knowledge about the topic .But let me give you a summary of what climate modelling does and hopefully you won’t be so ignorant going forward. Climate models have correctly projected that:

            Now you say a projection can become a prediction when you said it couldn’t and I was “ignorant for suggesting such.

            What changes would you like to make now to
            Cover you a $ $?

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Why is reading and comprehension so difficult for you? First, there is no such science as “computer models” … you have not demonstrated that there is. Second. the subject is mathematical modelling which happens to be run on computers. Third, climate modelling produces projections. Fourth, projections become predictions when confidence increases. So take a long hard look at what modelling projected and what was discovered as a result.

          • Eagle0542

            Now you have entered the realm of delusion. Where did I say anything about computer modeling being a science unto itself? My only reference to computer modeling was regarding the use in climate change or whatever you call it today. Looking bad there Cupcake.

          • Eagle0542

            Like I said, you said modeling does not predict. Now you say it does when some level of confidence is met. Which is it. Modeling is used to
            Predict or not. Were you lying the first time
            or now? LMAO!

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Your original vacuity: Read much? Comprehend much? The “predictions” are based on models that may be flawed. Their predictions have been wrong on many occasions. Now that you have been educated on the difference between prediction and projection you may want to thank me for educating you as to why your statement was wrong.

            BTW: the modelling has been very representative of reality. Published science makes you out to be an emotive opinionated fool and you may want to 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.

          • Eagle0542

            Many predictions have been wrong cupcake. You have taught me nothing but you just arguing with yourself. You just have to read how stupid you sound. No such thing as computer modeling when every dictionary has a definition. I state many model predictions did not happen. You then tell me they do not predict. No qualifications at all. Then you say projections can bcome
            predictions if the
            Projection meets a certain level. You couldn’t reach a horse dying of thirst how to
            drink. You are totally incoherent, dishonest and quite frankly pretty stupid. So proceed in your world of delusion. You make Obama look like a piker when it comes to narcissism.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Well one thing I have taught you is that you are now writing correctly. Projections being wrong is not problematic for science it is a great indicator that will result in scientist finding the reality and why the projections missed . Obviously you like to shoot from the hip and remain ignorant. If you’d had read the two papers I referenced you’d see why the modelling is such a useful tool. And how accurate it has been from the early days not because of the quality of the models or data but because of the underlying physics … human induced CO₂ is the forcing overpowering all other forcings and feedbacks. Yet ignorami like you and your ilk still deny humans are changing the climate.

          • Eagle0542

            The only thing you did is frantically search the Internet in an attempt to sound coherent. You present some guys opinion piece and try to pawn it off as fact and got caught by this “middle schooler”. You then attributed
            comments to me I never made like saying I claims computer modeling was a science onto itself. You then start your stupid argument about projections and predictions when my use of the term is widely used
            by AGW cultists like Dr. Mann and even the IPPC in their 2007 (AR4) report stating what “predictions” they made
            based on models. You then go a verbal gymnastic game back peddling your comment that modeling does not predict. Then you twist your self into a pretzel in an attempt to redeem yourself from your total idiocy but saying a projection can be a prediction and a forecast. So keep deluding yourself into believing you taught anyone anything. I have read several other threads and people are eating your lunch and you sound just as stupid and delusional in those discussions as
            well.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Just stop. You are really bad at this. Talking out of your a$$ about a subject you are proudly ignorant of tells me that you consider your ignorance is just as good as my scientific knowledge. If you exist in a world not based on reality, you will eventually lose to reality. The question is how many other people will you hurt along the way?

          • Eagle0542

            I am not the one frantically surfing the web looking for relevance. I am not the one finding articles and misrepresenting what they say. I am not the one calling people ignorant for using the exact terms as your religious fellow cultists. I am not the one going to sites,
            cutting and pasting paragraphs then altering them to make it appear they are your thoughts and ideas. You are too stupid to realize how easy it is to catch and reveal a plagiarist like yourself. So knock off the sanctimonious BS. Most people now are seeing AGW as a scam and the cultists are in full blast defense mode. You sure don’t help the cultists’ cause with your dishonesty and stupidity.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Just stop. You are really bad at this. Opinion doesn’t matter, the only thing that matters are the FACTS and EVIDENCE. If you can’t even learn basic science or facts on an issue, then no one will or should care about your opinions on it. 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.

          • gofer1

            Are you a bot?

          • Eagle0542

            Have you bothered to check the dictionaries that contain a definition of “computer modeling” specifically. Or are the publishers of all these dictionaries “middle schoolers” too?

          • Eagle0542

            More of the silly scientists who think models predict things. But lefty knows better than any of them. LMAO!

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442(1996)009%3C0840:AOGMPU%3E2.0.CO;2

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Cupcake, scroll up and read the definitions. Meteorological modelling is predictive. Thanks for confirming that I gave you the correct definitions.

          • Eagle0542

            You really need to get your arguments straight. You said predictions, projections and forecasts are not interchangeable. Now you say if the models are about weather, the models are predictions. Climate change models are not predictions but only projections. Yet your source, Oxford, defines projections as forecasts as part of the definition. Aren’t weather models computer models? How to they put the models together, in a typewriter? You are starting to come unglued and incoherent. Funny stuff.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            That is true they are not interchangeable. But predictions can become forecasts as I showed in the definitions. Projections become predictions when the confidence increases to be representative of the best scenario. Climate modelling produces projections. Deterministic modelling such as weather forecasting produce predictions. Forecasts are predictions by a specific, group/person and/or model. It is not hard.While these nuances easily can get lost in public discussion, I think that it is nonetheless incumbent on all of us to make sure we use the terms precisely.Your undereducated status is been exploited endlessly by the denier echo chamber. And you can thank me for educating you.

          • Eagle0542

            Sorry “cupcake”, you clearly stateed how ignorant I was to suggest modeling predicted. You made no qualifications. Just an insult. So how many times do you want to change your story?

          • Story

            That’s some serious goal post moving if I’ve ever seen it!

          • Eagle0542

            Another quote from your scientifically “incorrect” God Dr. Mann.

            ” Dr. Mann: Yes- and not only has it not cooled, but warming hasn’t stopped. The last decade and last year are the warmest on record, and arctic sea ice is retreating far faster than any climate models PREDICTED (not projected dolt) . If anything it has accelerated over the last decade.”

            Still LMAO. You are priceless.

          • TempustFugit

            Clearly the scientist that authored the global warming and climate change report must have used and elementary science book. They missed it so badly, I would be ashamed if I were them.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            How sweet? Your raison d’être does not include science or being scientifically literate but rather to cast a shadow, breathe air and be chronically dumb.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Reading comprehension will be the biggest drawback for deniers.

        • TempustFugit

          Only when it’s junk science then it should be treated with GREAT disdain as the scientist that authored the drivel. What’s sad is they call them selves scientist!

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            So are you saying that 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.

          • TempustFugit

            Yup, the data does not correlate and the model can’t predict a temperature within three standard deviations. Your a science guy, what does a prediction that is three standard deviations away from actual results mean?? It means your shooting in the dark! All these scientist need a job. No climate change no job.

            The real reason for climate change is the sun ‘s activity and the clouds that cover the earth. Those two items highly correlate with climate change. Not co2. The earth was warmer before the industrial revolution, why? Why no continued increase in temperatures? “The Model” missed it…just part of those three standard deviations…….

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Every climate model in the world is identifiable by a code as is each simulation. Care to share those to back up your puerile vacuity? I can point you to a host of peer-reviewed papers that demonstrate you are FOS. Your second paragraph is just pure BS that no educated or scientifically literate person would write … the content is pure vacuity.

          • TempustFugit

            But the models can’t predict the temperature. So how valid are they? They are not. Yes I posted my links to back up position. Sadly, in your case, figures lie and liars figure in the global warming alarmist world. Climate change science suffers from a post hoc ergo propter hoc flaw.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Do you always segue off topic when you can’t answer? Until you can provide the model simulations you think you have some knowledge about your words are just puerile vacuity.

          • TempustFugit

            Watch the inconvenient about global warming. Then read the other scientist findings about global warming.

            http://climatechangereconsidered.org

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Climate science won’t be found on denier sites. Get a middle school student to help you find science sites.

          • jeffersonian_nc

            Actually 97% of all of those that perform that research come to no conclusion as to any of their work impacting the climate or that man has anything to do with it. So says the scientific portion of the UN report on the mater. The political portion of the report says all sorts of non scientific things.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Complete and utter nonsense. 100% of all current climate researchers have consensus about AGW theory. There is not one rebuttal or alternate model to describe the current unprecedented warming. Care to share if you have a DOI or two that contradict what I stated. I’m very current with published peer-reviewed climate science and know of no such publication/s.

          • jeffersonian_nc
          • Leftwithrightbrain

            If you want to discuss climate science you should link to climate science sites otherwise you will remain ignorant and be easily duped. Can you provide a DOI or do you prefer to obfuscate?

          • gofer1

            You are delusional.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            You had the opportunity to produce a rebuttal or the alternate model if it exists. But you didn’t and instead wrote vacuous piffle. I wonder why as you seem awfully confidant that your ignorance is water tight.

        • Lamar Hill

          You mindless belief is called being gullible.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            There is no belief in science. It does take an inordinate amount of belief in stupidity to deny reality.

          • Wiley Coyote

            Also, it’s referred to as allowing oneself to be totally sucked in.

        • Flechette

          “Science” is the act of making a hypothesis, testing it and comparing it to empirical evidence.

          The empirical evidence shows that the earth is not warming. Therefore, the hypothesis is wrong.

          Yet so-called “scientists” maintain that “global warming” is real.

          Who really has “disdain and ineptitude for science”?

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            The empirical evidence shows that the earth is not warming
            ============================================

            The unsupported opinions that you post have no value other than the comfort you derive from them. You act like there are no measurements of these things somehow. The fact is we pay people to measure this stuff and it is not like climate scientists are going to be blown away by some or other denialist point at this stage of the game.

          • Flechette

            NASA’s satellite temperature data shows no warming in 18 years.

            Even algore’s data shows a mere 0.7 degree warming in over a *century*,

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            That is absolute nonsense. UAH shows the steepest warming anomaly for delta t followed by RSS which in turn is followed by land based observations (the most accurate). UAH and RSS use the same raw data … why different results? Because they use different models which you deniers decry all the time as being inaccurate. Pro tip: Al Gore does not provide any data. Pro tip #2: 2015 has the highest delta t in the record of 0.22F … if that remains the mean we’ll warm by 22F in a century.

          • jeffersonian_nc

            NASA’s satellite data also shows no increase in water vapor which is a bigger greenhouse gas than CO2.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Just stop. You are really bad at this. It’s not difficult to determine the added heat from additional CO₂ in the atmosphere. The equation is 5.35 times the natural log of the new concentration divided by the old concentration. The units are W/m² of the earth’s surface. Now if you use 280 ppmv for the old concentration and 400 for the new concentration the result is 1.9 W/m² of energy for every square meter of the earth’s surface. Multiply that by the number of square meters of earth surface and you get the added heat from anthropogenic activity. The area of the earth’s surface is about 510 x 10¹² m².

          • jeffersonian_nc

            lol you really do not understand science. A little copy and paste.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            The above was not copy+paste but rather simple High School physics which you apparently avoided.

            Pro tip: Wattsupwiththat isn’t a science site. It’s a propaganda site trying to look like a science site, and failing more and more as it falls deeper and deeper into conspiracy theories and general crapola.

          • jeffersonian_nc

            duh, I know it is not a science site, simply a site reporting on the science

            The UN report is also not a science report, but a political report. Just think about it, the IPCC are stating an increase in their confidence in their models as their models have greater discrepancies between their predictions and real observations. Statically speaking, that should not even occur. So it is just political blabber. At the very least, the discrepancies show a greater standard deviation and so their confidence levels should decrease for the intervals of time that they are discussing. Or they should be using greater intervals of time in order maintain the same confidence level. Basic statistics.
            As Richard Lindzen has pointed out Those who don’t adopt the mainstream view that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to the onset of global warming have been “relentlessly attacked” by those “individuals and organizations highly vested in disaster scenarios,”

            While CO2 is a greenhouse gas, what makes those models predict doomsday is not the CO2, but also an increase in H20 vapor to magnify a feedback loop. But NASA has shown no increase in water vapor over the past 10 years of satellite data.

            There is also experimental support towards the increased importance of variations in solar radiation on the climate as well as other factors that are not in “the models”.
            But the biggest issue is that the left really will not debate the issue and attempts all sorts of attack methods to shut down honest discourse.
            The bottom line is this, the climate is vast and complex and we hardly have even scratched the surface of all of the variables that impact it, much less collected data to add to a computer model. While not climate, take the recent Hurricane off the east coast, 5 days before it had any impact upon the US coast line, all models but one had it making landfall somewhere along the coast. That one exception had it staying at sea making a sudden NE trajectory. The exception was correct. Models only provide statistical direction of current trends and are subject to the limitations of data and which variables are used. If not all variables are accounted for or if the data is corrupted in any form, the models will not work. And they have not worked.
            As to your insults from a separate post, yes I took HS physics. I also took 3 levels of Calculus in college for the heck of it. I only needed the first one for my particular BS degree. But I like math and so have a minor in it.
            We all know that a cause cannot follow an effect and the ice core samples (several studies now) confirm that CO2 increased after a warming period – not the other way around that prophet Gore states in his un-documentary. We also know that over the past 3,000 years we have had at least two periods of time warmer than today. We also know that during the Holocene Epoch (the period of time that we still reside in), that there was a 3,000 year period, known as the Holocene Climate Optimum where temperatures were much higher than today. (5,000-7,000 years ago)
            And while some people point to chunks of ice breaking off in the Antarctic, they ignore to say that they are from the fingers of the Antarctic that extend great distances from the core of the continent into warmer waters. They also just gloss over that Antarctica is recording colder temperatures and an overall buildup of ice. We cannot have selective data in order to build a complete model.
            So, is there global warming. Of course there is – 11,000 years of the Holocene Epoch. Is it man-made in just the last 100 years? Probably not, or at least our contribution (1 of the 100s of variables) is such a small part that if we erased ourselves, the conditions would not change. Any scientist that uses 100 years of data from an 11,000 year warming period to predict the future is predicting weather, not climate. And there is a high level of uncertainty in predicting the weather.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            So much vacuity. Let me highlight a few:

            The UN report is also not a science report, but a political report. Just think about it, the IPCC are stating an increase in their confidence in their models
            ===================================================

            IPCC is not a scientific organization, it is a review board not a political report. IPCC has no climate models. There are extensive lists of the reviewed science papers within the IPCC report. Within each paper are listed the authors and affiliations. Within each paper are the science, the methodology, the mathematics, the thought process, the conclusions. The data sets are usually public or can be had by request.

            we hardly have even scratched the surface of all of the variables that impact it, much less collected data to add to a computer model.
            ==================================================

            What variables have been left out? Be specific. What data has not been collected?

            We also know that over the past 3,000 years we have had at least two periods of time warmer than today.
            ===================================================================

            Care to give a citation to a global warming period warmer than today. DOI will be fine.

            Holocene Climate Optimum where temperatures were much higher than today. (5,000-7,000 years ago)
            ===================================================================

            Care to give a citation to a global warming period warmer than today. DOI will be fine.

            They also just gloss over that Antarctica is recording colder temperatures and an overall buildup of ice===================================================================

            Care to give a citation or DOI as Cryosat and Grace data which are public domain show loss. Cryosat 2 showed that for the period from 2010 to 2013, Antarctica was losing ice to the tune of 134 billion metric tons of ice per year.

          • jeffersonian_nc

            You really do not like to read anything except things the promote your belief. You sound like a religious zealot … its in the Bible and so it is true. Michael Crichton was correct.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            So is that code for you cannot substantiate any of the crapola you wrote? I have no belief but I am scientifically literate and a scientist with more than 45 years of actual science. I am extremely well read when it comes to published climate science. So please proceed and attempt to substantiate with authoritative citations outside the denier/right-wing echo chamber those gross errors and non factual statements which I highlighted for you.

          • jeffersonian_nc

            You are not a scientist. Well read does not mean you understood a thing. If you are a scientist, come out of the closet as to your current employer.

          • Jed

            Not only is this guy not a scientist, I doubt he is well read.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            I gave you a chance to provide evidence for your crapola. I took the time to highlight where you erred. Seems like that college education you alluded to was just delusions of grandeur afforded to you by the anonymity of the internet. There’s a $10,000 prize still waiting to be claimed if anyone could refute AGW … why is it still unclaimed when there are so many on this site claiming it is a hoax?

          • jeffersonian_nc

            Oh heck, I will award a $10,000 prize if anyone can prove AGW. It will never be claimed.

            Of course your original post was this “I gave you a chance to provide evidence for your crapola. i took the time to highlight where you erred. Seems like you that college education you alluded to
            was just delusions of grandeur afforded to you by the anonymity of the internet.”
            Of which I just absolutely love that you decide to attack me instead of providing your employer so that we can see what type of “scientist” you really are. It’s just an figment of imagination in your own mind.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            I’ll take that as you can’t provide any evidence for your vacuity. 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. You can complain about models all you want, but you ignore the other data by doing that. If you think that the predictions are solely based on models, you’re mistaken. 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. 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.

          • jeffersonian_nc

            Answer these questions:
            1) Since the Earth’s climate changes over 10’s of thousands of years and runs in cycles, when will the Holocene Epoch stop warming (assuming no influence from man)?
            2) What impact will man have on changing the underlying prediction of question #1?
            3) When will we enter a new ice age?
            4) Pertaining to Q #1, what will be the high reached at the top of the Holocene Epoch?
            5) In relation to Q #4. How much will it deviate due to man’s influence?
            6) What is Eden supposed to be like and how are we deviating from it?
            When you, the “great scientist”, can answer those questions, we can have a serious conversation.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Still waiting for you to provide evidence for your crapola. Do you always segue off topic and obfuscate when stumped?

          • jeffersonian_nc

            And you still have not answered scientist in what and where.

          • jeffersonian_nc

            Remember, there is no proof in science. Your own words.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            You seem confused between evidence and proof. There is no proof in science only an evaluation of the physical evidence. So when do you intend to provide the evidence for your gibberish?

          • Jed

            “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

          • gofer1

            Named #1 science site several years in a row.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            How easily duped you are.

          • Joanne Carpenter

            Left… I cannot compete with your intellect, and I say this with the utmost respect. I am a simple man who did not always comprehend physics. (yes.. I know this is posted under my dear wife’s name). I like to think I make up for it with a measure of common sense. As I posted earlier, there have been a number of record-breaking weather and disaster events in this country in the past 12 to 18 months. Here is another video I made that explains my thoughts on this issue… if you are interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc6cswG4S1I

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Unless it contains physics or atmospheric physics it won’t be something I will watch when it comes to climate science.

          • Jed

            You really don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Really? I await your scientific rebuttal instead of puerile vacuity. Please proceed …

          • Jed

            Rebuttal of what? You didn’t really say anything. You simply spouted a bunch of meaningless nonsense.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Picked up a HS physics textbook yet? You can get a good used one inexpensively on Amazon.

          • Jed

            Your comment had no more meaning than saying, “matter has mass.” If you actually wish to say something of value, start with a reasonable summary of a full global energy budget analysis over a reasonable period of time.

            If you wish further comments from me, unlock your profile.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            If you’re determined to show your ignorance, you can relax now. You’ve succeeded.

          • jeffersonian_nc


            This Nobel Laureate is not ignorant, but I bet you think he is since he does not agree with you.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Now you are desperate. Gaever, a highly accomplished physicist, admits he has done no climate research and bounces from one myth to the next. He has severely tarnished his reputation and standing and is rightly and deservedly criticized by other scientists. You fail to include that his fellow laureates admonished him publicly after that speech and issued a statement in full support of the IPCC and global warming. Amazing how you gravitate towards the lame discredited ducks. Must be a passion for like-minded numbskulls to unite.

          • gofer1

            He dared defy the church doctrine …..

          • Flechette

            Much, much bigger greenhouse gas.

          • Flechette

            Ok, so why do “Global Warming” supporters sue people that have contradictory opinions or even want the RICO Act to be used to prosecute them (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/09/some_scientists_want_to_prosecute_global_warming_skeptics_under_the_rico_act.html) ?

            If they are right, why do they want to silence debate?

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Why do you link to 404 pages? Embarrassment or stupidity?

          • Flechette

            Because it is a valid question.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Guess you’re just not smart enough to know what a 404 page is. Find a kid in grade 4 in your neighborhood … they should be able to help you out.

          • Flechette
          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Silly article for undereducated stupid gullible people who are easily duped. It obviously was remarkably successful in your case.

          • Flechette

            …and when are you going to address the NASA data I gave you? Or are you going to simply ignore it now that you have been proven wrong and instead call me names?

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Scroll up, cupcake. I addressed your false attribution about no warming according to NASA satellite data.

          • Flechette

            I scrolled up. I do not see you addressing the exact NASA quote of the earth warming a mere 0.7 degrees after you said it did not.

            Instead, I see you calling me names. Not that I care- nothing you say will hurt my feelings. But it does indicate how you have lost the argument.

            From my first post, “The empirical evidence shows that the earth is not warming. Therefore, the hypothesis is wrong.”

            The NASA evidence I provided proves that I am correct.

            Now I am going to bed. You can call me all the names that you want and I will sleep soundly. 🙂

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            That is fact. I have not disputed it. Why segue from your BS about NASA data?

          • PenelopeWillis

            You were owned in textbook fashion. Thanks for the entertainment.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            If you’re determined to show your ignorance, you can relax now. You’ve succeeded.

          • PenelopeWillis

            Like i said, textbook complete with the name calling after you’ve been bested.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Cupcake, I know this may be difficult for you but if there was no conversation how was I bested? Lay it out step by step … you’ve read it all so that should be a synch or just relax and wallow in your ignorance.

          • gofer1

            U are soooooo stoopid. The Rico letter backfired. Now there is an investigation of why he pays himself and wife 1.5 million for working 19 hours wk.

          • jeffersonian_nc

            Making up stuff again, I see. It was not a 404 page.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            It is. He provided another link to the crapola.

          • Flechette

            Yawn.

            From NASA’s own website: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

            “In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius”

            Yet you called this “absolute nonsense”.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Cupcake you claimed “NASA’s satellite temperature data shows no warming in 18 years” … that is pure nonsense. Second was you claimed Al Gore’s data, that too is nonsense.

          • Flechette

            If it is “nonsense” then explain the quote I provided you from NASA’s own website.

            Or do you just call people names when proven wrong?

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            There you go again seguing off topic. I answered your prior vacuity.

          • Flechette

            Wow. A complete ignoring of the facts. I am impressed.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Reading comprehension is never a hillbilly strong point. There are GED or ESL classes for you.

          • Flechette

            Still ignoring evidence? I said that the earth warmed a mere 0.7 degrees, you disputed it and I posted NASA evidence…and you now ignore it.

            Typical arrogant “Global Warming” believer.

          • Jed

            Now it’s “hillbilly strong point”? You are nothing but an insulting troll.

          • PenelopeWillis

            He’s fired all the arrows in his quiver and was proven wrong by his own sources. He has nothing left but to resort to infantile name calling.

            He believes he is smarter than everyone else but he’s incapable of recognizing a hoax when he sees one.

          • Jed

            “Cupcake”? You are no scientist.

          • You truly are grasping at straws as every one of your ridiculous assumptions has been riddled by factual evidence! Give it up Bozo, you’re a poor debater at best and a far worse scientist! Manmade global warming and the resultant deadly effects of it are pure nonsense! It’s called WEATHER and it is often cyclical, and in no way is the weather controlled or even marginally affected by miniscule mankind. When the Warmists found they had no traction they changed their god’s name to “Climate Change” so they can never be wrong about man ruining the weather and everything that is affected by the weather, how bloody arrogant! If there is a hurricane, it is because of man-made global warming, if the winter is particularly cold and harsh, it is because of global warming. You guys and your pseudo-science have become the stuff of late-night talk show hosts’ jokes!! “Climate Change” as a so called science is one of the biggest jokes of the Twentieth Century! And you, Sir, are a fool and a joker, and a nasty one, at that!

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            It is so very sad that one of the world’s best free educational systems produces such proud but ignorant idiots … we are exceptional at producing the world’s dumbest who are unrivalled anywhere on the planet.

            Warmists found they had no traction they changed their god’s name to “Climate Change”
            ====================================================================

            God, not this ancient trope again. It was Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster, who advocated calling it “climate change” because it seemed less threatening.

          • gofer1

            Lo, a pollster is now a climate scientist.

          • gofer1

            RSS shows no warming. Lieing is second nature to climate scientists.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            It clearly does. Now if it didn’t you’d have given your citation or link. I wonder why you left that out?

          • Wiley Coyote

            Well, yeah, they take careful measurements from weather stations located on setback roofs of buildings with their equipment located in back of air conditioners running in the summertime, and from weather stations located at the end of airport runways where the planes have to turn before cranking up their engines for takeoff. No bias in the experiment there! Not content with that, then they have Dr. James Hansen of NASA/GISS make little downward “adjustments”, to temperature records of bygone decades in order to give the temperature charts that nice little uptick and permitting them to say that “2015 was the hottest year on record.” Well, yeah, it’s the hottest year “on record” * if you have custody of the records and you cook the books on them.
            * by tiny little fractions of a degree well within the statistical margin for error.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Complete vacuity. Do you really believe scientists are incapable of adjusting data for any inherent problems? Don’t you think if we are skilled enough to change the third decimal digit for the atomic weights of 19 elements but we cannot weigh an atom that we’d not be able to adjust temperature data? Pro tip: it doesn’t matter what extraneous impacts are on the measuring device … it’s not the absolute values that are important … it’s the trends. Anyway your nonsense has been thoroughly researched and a good account is given by Richard Muller’s BEST project that was funded partly with Koch money that the current datasets are most accurate.

          • DaveGinOly

            “… it doesn’t matter what extraneous impacts are on the measuring device … it’s not the absolute values that are important … it’s the trends.”

            Complete rubbish! If the “extraneous impacts on the measuring device(s)” are biased in a single direction (as they would be in measuring stations that are overtaken over a period of years by a heat island effect), that would create an apparent trend that is completely dependent upon those “extraneous impacts.”

            You’re trying to sound like you know what you’re talking about, and failing miserably.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Which college did you graduate from again, the Bristol Palin Institute of Abstinence or the Duggar School of Hypocrisy?

            Absolute values are meaningless. Trends are what scientists use. If you care to read some science I can start you off at Wiki and work our way up. Alternately, care to explain how the heat island effect impacts data. You are corresponding with a climate scientist so I’d be most interested in how you answer this. Hint: all global data are recorded for delta t.

          • Ooooh, we are corresponding with a “climate scientist!” Let’s start on the basic premise that you’re an ahole, and work our data down from there.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Another idiot who graduated from the Bristol Palin Institute of Abstinence or the Duggar School of Hypocrisy. Or did you even graduate middle school and just another red state idiot running your mouth?

          • RLABruce

            No-brain is a troll and a fraud. I have asked him for his curricula vitae; let’s give him time to look up what that means so he can respond with another bunch of lies.

          • PenelopeWillis

            This is the level of discourse you are guaranteed to get with a leftist. When losing an argument, they resort to some infantile comment about a republican or Fox News. So entirely predictable. They can’t help themselves.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Science is apolitical. The unsupported opinions that you post have no value other than the comfort you derive from them.

          • PenelopeWillis

            Yeah, we heard that the first time. Come back with some facts. You can start by some that refute what NASA posted on its website. Or, maybe you would prefer to post the results of a climate model that has actually worked. we’ll wait…

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Reading comprehension is never a hillbilly strong point. I did not refute NASA’s delta t.

            Here’s some climate modelling: doi:10.1038/nclimate1763 and doi:10.1038/nature14117

          • PenelopeWillis

            Save your pet names for your mother. She’s probably the only one that listens to you. We can see that it bothers you. No one listens because You run away from facts that do not support your delusions.

            Maybe you should get out of the lab. You appear to be wound a little tight. Actually seeing that sea levels fluctuated naturally long before man made climate alarm may do you some good.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Cupcake your evidence free vacuity impresses only your puerile mind. Again, where did I refute NASA’s delta t? Nice segue off-topic about modelling results. It’s rather telling that you have no comment on how well modelling has performed when given presented with the evidence. Stating sea levels fluctuated naturally long before “man made climate” is as silly as saying arsonists can’t exist because there’s always been natural wildfires.

          • Doreen Gaydoon

            but modeling has not performed well at all. It has been a catastrophic failure.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            You haven’t a clue about modelling. Thanks for sharing your ignorance. Your ignorance and evidence free proclamations of denial don’t instill me with confidence.

          • Doreen Gaydoon

            I do not need clues, I can derive the models and confirm that indeed all lower confidence bounds have been taken out, and it is a fact that 100% of trained scientists recognize this as a failure condition of the models. Yet the politicized IPCC is still holding out. They are circling the bowl however, and will come on board – otherwise known as the plank, when this scam is flushed.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Eschew broadcasting that you’re neither a scientist nor scientifically literate but rather pugnaciously and obnoxiously nescient when it comes to climate science. Your grandchildren will despise you for being such an ignorant git.

          • Doreen Gaydoon

            Ok pillow biter. I’m just super impressed and all, but could you share just a bit as to why you find that task so very difficult. To get that many keystrokes in…. at all, suggests that your IQ may be out of the single digit range, but not by much.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Your grandchildren will despise you for being such an nescient git.

          • Doreen Gaydoon

            They worship and also fear me, else they get no cash.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Your grandchildren will despise you for being such an nescient git.

          • Doreen Gaydoon

            I doubt it given their college funds are now full.

          • RLABruce

            Don’t you know that NOT ONE climate model has been proven accurate?

          • 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 to 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.

          • 20670

            The simple fact that there are over 150 climate models says a lot. Why isn’t there just 1?

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Get through middle school science and find out why? It is a very stimulating and exciting path of discovery.

          • gofer1

            Shotgun approach…shoot and hope.

          • RLABruce

            NONE of the models are accurate because they do not both reflect actual measured temperature trends in times past AND predicted our current temperatures, including the LAST SEVENTEEN YEARS without warming!

            If there was even ONE computer model that could do that, you wouldn’t need 150 that don’t work. Show me a single model that accounts for our actual climate in the past as well as correctly predicting it for the future and I’ll shut up. Until then, it is YOU who should shut up!

            Still no list of your qualifications to even holding an opinion, I see. I’m done fooling with you, liar.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Complete vacuity. Please commit your thoughts to writing so that your descendants will know what an ignorant uneducated prick they had for an ancestor. Don’t forget to include a copy of your fake Mensa membership.

          • Modelling is ALL supposition, not an ounce of FACT!!

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Stupidity on steroids. Avoid all modern technology … it’s all modelled in one form of another.

          • Jed

            “Science is apolitical.” You really believe that scientists aren’t affected by politics and the money from government funding? Hilarious! Thanks for the best laugh of the day!

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Beyond hearsay and puerile vacuity do you have any evidence? It is obvious you have no clue how science works or scientists operate. If money was such an allure why haven’t scientists joined the fossil fuel propagandists who offer way better remuneration? Maybe they find the challenge to be far more stimulating and rewarding to be finding the answers.

          • Where is YOUR EVIDENCE that there is no God?

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

          • latinovet

            Good morning my Brother,
            leftie obviously ignorant about the fact that the medical journal the Lancet had to completely retract their false MMR vaccine/autism report because of exactly that!
            May you and yours have a Blessed Sunday my friend!

          • Jed

            Exactly, my friend and brother!
            A blessed Sunday to you and yours as well!

            “Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren’t worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It’s that simple.” ~ Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry

          • RLABruce

            SCIENCE is indeed apolitical. Cloaking a climate study in the guise of “science” that is financed by a huge political body, the federal government, is not science, and is definitely political. Grow up, little boy!

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Have any evidence or citations or is that just your misguided feelings?

          • RetiredMSgt

            Science is apolitical, and settled according to the leftists. However, “scientists” told us eggs and whole milk are bad for us (settled science). However, they have now CHANGED their minds and eggs and milk are not so bad. Yes, it is that simple. Especially when the earth has been WARMER.
            Tell us oh smarter then the rest of us, what is the optimal temperature of the earth? What would you have said when the glaciers (that were as far south as the Mason Dixon line) were melting? Are we better off with said glaciers gone or should we affect the temperatures enough to allow them to come back (because global warming is bad and all)?

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Complete puerile vacuity.

          • RetiredMSgt

            Wow, such a cogent argument!
            Can’t answer my questions I see. Here are a few more.
            If global warming is happening (I believe temperatures are warming, however it has gone up even higher in the past without man), at what temperature do those scientists believe we need to get to? When will they know that we’ve hit the optimal temperature? How will we be able to keep the temperature at that level?
            They’ve taken sample ice cores and found that there was MORE CO2 in the air centuries ago. How does that happen when man wasn’t around to spew CO2 into the air?

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            It was not an argument it was a statement of fact. Then you go on another diatribe of vacuity with:

            They’ve taken sample ice cores and found that there was MORE CO2 in the air centuries ago
            ===============================================================

            So here’s the challenge cupcake. Ice core data are freely available on the internet as are numerous peer reviewed scientific papers on the topic. Care to share one instance in the last 800kA i.e. 800 centuries when that was true. Please proceed …..

          • john

            Do you seriously believe that? I suggest you meditate deeply on ACC, CO2. the IPCC. And the call for redistribution of world wealth. Or do you believe that is all good?

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Absolutely. First, why don’t you ask a famous conservative and great climate scientist Dr. Keeling about your vacuity? Second, the rest of your post is pure unadulterated BS. If it weren’t you would have provided evidence.

          • john

            A specious argument that does not address my points. Your first reaction is vulgarity? Laughable, and intellectually dishonest on your part.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            I made no argument as there was nothing to argue. You posted BS … that stands without argument. BS is BS. All I did was highlight your vacuity and reinforce my acuity. If that hurts your feelings then stop posting BS and they won’t get hurt, cupcake.

          • john

            just laughing at your conceit even louder.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            I’ll take that as idiot laughs because he can’t find evidence to support his unadulterated crap about wealth redistribution.

          • gofer1

            Edenhoffer, of Germany, lead IPCC author, stated it was not about environmental policy but redistribution of worlds wealth. Look it up.

          • jeffersonian_nc

            Science is apolitical BUT scientists are not.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            That is true. But science outcomes are not determined by personal politics … evidence and the scientific analysis thereof determines the outcome. The odd conservative scientist produces work similar to that of the most politically liberal scientist. Please share any science that you may know about that has been published through the peer review process that has a political bias.

          • RLABruce

            Where do you get your funding for your work? What research have you done? Published any papers? What degrees did you earn, and in what fields? You claim to be a “climate scientist”, so document your curricula vitae! Or admit you are a liar and a fraud and STHU.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Desperation arises when you impugn the messenger. Care to show where the science I have stated is in error … please proceed we all make mistakes and revel in being shown where we have made an error. Please proceed ….

          • Jen

            I notice no response to what your degrees might be even though you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being uneducated.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            As you have no tertiary science education exactly how would my education influence your thinking? If you can’t grasp simple physics then my qualifications would be meaningless to you. Do you even understand basic physics?

          • Jen

            You are a riot. I have a graduate degree in statistics from Harvard so am quite capable of data interpretation as well as understanding all the ways it can be manipulated. I am also slightly embarrassed to be drawn into any kind of a discussion with you, so I will say goodnight now.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            I’ll take that as you don’t understand basic physics despite the delusions of grandeur the anonymity of the internet affords you about your education.

          • Because Wikipedia can not be considered areliable source, the use of Wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in writing a formal paper, and some educational institutions have banned it as a primary source while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources.
            Reliability of Wikipedia – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
            Wikipedia

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Revel in the anonymity of the internet that affords you delusions of grandeur about your education.

          • Doreen Gaydoon

            So, you are a pillow biter. Typical. One day you are saving a rain forest, the next you’re chugging c*ck.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            You’re projecting again, self-caricature is so passé. Do go on, though. It is very instructive for everyone to see what denier cultism looks like.

          • MadMikey

            DaveGinonly is corresponding with a climate scientist? I thought his post was addressed to YOU.

          • filetandrelease

            Oh god no wonder you are an idiot!!! LOL, you are a climate scientist. hahahahaha, what a buffoon!! You want some future truth? I will give you some future truth, your pay check will be getting smaller and smaller.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Do you have any science to contribute or do you just enjoy writing piffle that has no value other than the comfort you derive from it?

          • filetandrelease

            No, do you?

          • JeromefromLayton

            Those inconvenient East Anglia U. emails remind me of the term “dry lab” that described an “experiment” that was reported but never actually happened. Sounds like Fraud to me.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            East Anglia U. emails is by now a very old, tired joke. I’m sure you have neither the education nor experience to question the findings of UK government’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee or the UEA’s ICER. The former concluded that criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community“. The latter, chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh in consultation with the Royal Society (the world’s preeminent science body) assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit”.

          • Joanne Carpenter

            I am not a scientist… but I do have eyes and ears. To me, it isn’t the number of natural disasters, necessarily, but the severity of them these last 12 to 18 months. “Record-breaking” seems to have become the banner across the news screen. So many record-breaking events, I hope too many are not too quick to dismiss the possibility that God is trying to get our collective attention. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6ghAY8je_U

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Well there’s no god. If there was which one of the hundreds of thousands that humans have invented would be attracting our attention. You are correct in that it is not number but severity as Hurricane Sandy showed and as the recent events in the Pacific also show. It takes a while to analyze the data but there will always be an enhanced factor as there is more energy … it is just simple physics.

          • jeffersonian_nc

            Now you should know that no logical debate can conclude that there is or is not a God. You cannot prove a negative. However, religion is certainly man-made, as is this current doomsday theory being man-made.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

          • RLABruce

            Agreed. And since there is no evidence of global warming, it is dismissed by everyone with a functioning brain.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            There are over 30,000 published peer reviewed climate science papers that suggests you’re FOS. An assertion by a person who has reached their own limits of knowledge and comfort that anyone who has a greater understanding must be without a functioning brain is overly puerile. Morons know from simple physics that adding CO₂ into the atmosphere will cause warming … apparently you’re not smarter than a m0r0n.

          • joeysdad

            CO2 only absorbs infrared radiation at certain wavelengths, and the atmosphere is already opaque to those wavelengths. More CO2 isn’t going to make a spit of difference.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            That’s so funny but we can actually calculate and measure that you’re FOS. Go and find that mythical textbook that tells you weird physics and see where you went wrong. It’s not difficult to determine the added heat from additional CO₂ in the atmosphere.

          • jeffersonian_nc
          • joeysdad

            Really? Not that difficult? Please, explain.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Open that physics book that you pretend to have read. Little does he and other deniers know, that scientific research into the climate started almost two hundred years ago, and that climate science is so rooted in the basic of physics and chemistry, that all physics and chemistry textbooks would have to be torn up if global warming were wrong. So do some more reading and educate yourself before making a greater fool of yourself.

          • joeysdad

            I prefer to study modern science. They didn’t know much about radiation heat transfer with gases back then.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Cupcake you haven’t read a HS physics textbook in your life. If you did, you’ve retained nothing. 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.

          • joeysdad

            What discussion would you be referring to sunshine? You never said anything informative, and I didn’t want to be forced to debate your side of the argument too.

          • gofer1

            In addition to being wrong, warmers are jerks.

          • no1unohere

            All I see him offer up is unprovable ad hominem arguments. Do you concur?

          • joeysdad

            Yes, I agree.

          • Daniel C.

            i dont remember reading about Climate and Weather in Physics Class.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Maybe you should take one or stay awake.

          • MadMikey

            If you had the ability to do research instead of being someones parrot, you would know that n all prior climate warmings, the increase in CO2 came afterwards. This means the CO2 rise was an effect, not the cause.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Thanks for sharing you’re not a scientist and scientifically literate when it comes to climate science but rather grossly and obnoxiously ignorant. Simple CO₂ forcing physics amplifies natural temperature changes. We actually do know what the climate has been like, more or less, during the millennia during which modern humans and civilization developed. And right now, it’s heating up faster than any time during those millennia, heading for temperatures we’ve never experienced. In the past 800k years or so orbital forcing factors (mostly axial nutation) would create shifts in temperature which would be greatly amplified by CO₂ being sequestered (cooling) or released (warming). CO₂ was the feedback on top of nutation, so the both of them were the major forcing factor. And, strangely enough, atmospheric physicists, who know more atmospheric physics than you do, probably, know exactly why it’s warming up because of the mountain of consilient evidence, and a solid understanding of the underlying physics.

          • no1unohere

            I find it interesting that you get no up-votes. What does that say about you? Maybe it says you’re out of touch with reality. Yeah, I think I’ll go with that.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Don’t look for updates among the pervasively scientifically ignorant although there are numerous. Popularity doesn’t determine reality. I am proud of my family and want my grandchildren and hopefully their grandchildren to have an environment that will sustain them. So it behooves me to counter the junk science and gibberish that deniers push out. Delta t was 0.22F … if that doesn’t mean anything to you it puts you in the class of the grossly ignorant. If that continues, my grand children won’t have grand children. Maybe you’re OK with self destruction, I’m not.

          • Daniel C.

            agree, and the EPA says it pollutes.

          • RLABruce

            Really? 30,000 climate science papers? Can you cite a couple, with links? By the way, what climatology journals do you subscribe to? Still waiting for you to tell me about your degrees, experience, papers and research you have, since you have stated you are a “climate scientist.” And since you ARE such a big wheel in climatology, how is it you have so much time to answer all of the “denier” posts on this obscure article? Don’t you need to actually DO something at your work?

            As for me, I’m retired from four different careers and have all the time in the world to show that the climate Believers are liars. You have some questions to answer, Sparky!

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            doi:10.1038/35066553/DOI: 10.1038/nature14240/DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1763/doi: 10.3189/172756409787769744/doi.org/10.1890/14-1129.1/doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014036/DOI: 10.1002/qj.2297/DOI: 10.1038/nature13179/DOI: 10.1126/science.1228026/DOI: ac10.1038/ngeo1797

          • RLABruce

            LOL! Read your own stuff! Here’s just one of your citations to prove global warming. In one place is says climate has a “regional expression” meaning it may be cooler in one place and hotter somewhere else. Then it says all reconstructions show it was cooler overall! That by itself itself shows global warming is a lie. Then making these reconstructions from tree rings is also bogus, since using tree rings is still a contentious, unreliable indication of climate and do NOT accurately show the year-to-year weather. http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/tree-ring-records-spur-actual-climate-science-debate/

            Your other “proof” is equally suspect and misleading. They are actually more proof that global warming is a fraud. Thank you for proving my point!

            Still waiting to hear what your education, experience and contributions are in climatology, since you claim to be a “climate scientist.”

          • Doreen Gaydoon

            AGW claims are inaccurate, as evidenced by the data against their models. Most significantly, the contribution of human activity is badly overstated. It is tempting, and potentially the root cause of AGW focus in climate, to wage an unrelated, but acknowledged political campaign, advance of socialism, but AGW is not worth any further expenditure until the IPCC can explain the failure of its models to date.

          • RLABruce

            Agreed, except the political component is not unrelated or incidental; the concept of AGW is completely political since it was invented to promote the Lib political agenda by scaring people into doing whatever our government says to do to fix it. We may as well spend our money on saving leprechauns or else we’ll face a shortage of pots of gold at the ends of rainbows.

            If a crisis doesn’t exist for Libs to use as an excuse to control and regulate our behavior, they will make something up.

          • Julian Cox

            Your profile picture makes you look like a nice girl. Bit of a shame that you are trolling the internet being a complete and utter fucking cunt.

            If you are smart enough to put a few words together maybe you can understand some too: Which bit of a computer model being right or wrong makes you imagine that destabilising the atmosphere and acidifying the oceans is a good idea?

            Or for that matter that clearing out the corruption of vested interests that stands in the way of getting on and fixing that issue – for profit and investment gains no less – equates to a socialist plot? I am no socialist, far from it. I’m just not a complete idiot that imagines that sucking the cock of a dying coal, oil and gas industry is the only way to make a buck in this world.

          • Doreen Gaydoon

            I suggest you read the latest positions the IPCC has taken, and their substantiation. The leadership (former soft porn novelist and railroad engineer – the dot guy) has said that in fact, the perspectives they issue, are at the behest of the governments. “If we were given another direction to advocate tomorrow, we would indeed create research to support that” Does not really get any clearer than that. Personal attacks aside, it is clear that you are wrong, and we are in the last quarter of ecobabble, with literally just months lest b4 the house of cards implodes from the data.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Thank you for sharing you didn’t read one of the published papers. How can I tell? By your cut+paste denier crapola that bears no relation to any one of the papers I gave you to review. If you want to show that you’re smarter than a m0ron and have science literacy, read them, then return with your specific question after you have been through all published correspondence associated with the paper. If it is valid, I’ll help you get it published.

          • no1unohere

            Interesting. I don’t believe ARS Techinca has ever been associated with “climate change deniers” before. Thank you SO much for your esteemed enlightenment.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Perhaps, but it is not a science site used by scientists. Science comes from scientists not people writing about what they think science is finding … that is for lay people and often has superficial or dumbed down explanations that don’t reflect the complexities of reality.

          • Doreen Gaydoon

            And individually, or in summation, those citations make it clear that the climate model suite currently employed by the IPCC, needs a complete do over and retraction.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            IPCC has no models. You may want to find another distortion not so easily debunkable in your fossil fuel shill denier propaganda echo chamber.

          • Jen

            Why even respond to someone with “left” in their name.

          • RLABruce

            Hope springs eternal that I change an idiot’s mind, I guess. Still, the entire world can read this; I may change another mind I never heard of that happened to read this.

            Another way to think of it: The “silent majority” kept their silence as Lib idea after Lib idea has been implemented into law. That hasn’t worked out too well, has it? I’m tired of keeping quiet while the stupidest among us deliberately run our country into the ground.

          • You are an arrogant, pompous FOOL! As the Bible warns, “Only a fool says there is no God!” There is far more hard evidence for God and creation than there is for the THEORY of evolution! There is empirical evidence proving the facts of the Bible all over the earth! You continue to worship man-made science and I will follow the Creator of heaven ad earth and we’ll see how it ends. I KNOW what will happen to me when I die, and you and your scientists have no idea. Good luck with that!

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Ganesh and Thor asked me to pass on that you’re invited to the party for the unicorns next week … the theme is “why are simpletons easily duped”.

          • jeffersonian_nc

            Only 3% came to a conclusion. And they did not come to the same conclusion.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            The unsupported opinions that you post have no value other than the comfort you derive from them.

          • Doreen Gaydoon

            The 30,000 and growing published peer reviewed climate science papers suggest that they global warming thesis is getting long in the tooth, and is increasingly diverted from actual data. Leftwithrightbrain suggests with his ad hominem that he has run out of ideas, and certainly arguments. Simple physics tell us that the trace gas CO2 has a certain specific heat, but it is in fact many orders of magnitude too low in atmospheric concentration to move temperatures in a meaningful way, and significantly so for the tiny fraction that is added from human activity.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Simple physics tell us that the trace gas CO2 has a certain specific heat, but it is in fact many orders of magnitude too low in atmospheric concentration to move temperatures in a meaningful way

            ================================================================

            Most folk provide evidence especially when it is at odds with nearly 200 years of well established physics. You could become a Nobel Laureate if that diatribe was reality.Your screed is just a slightly more sophisticated revision of the farcical talking point that since CO₂ makes up such a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, clearly increasing it couldn’t possibly make any significant difference. That is, of course, akin to saying that the skin of …. genitalia makes up such a tiny fraction of your total body mass, removing it with a flensing knife couldn’t possibly cause any pain or debility.

            It’s not difficult to determine the added heat from additional CO₂ in the atmosphere. The equation is 5.35 times the natural log of the new concentration divided by the old concentration. The units are W/m² of the earth’s surface. Now if you use 280 ppmv for the old concentration and 400 for the new concentration the result is 1.9 W/m² of energy for every square meter of the earth’s surface. Multiply that by the number of square meters of earth surface and you get the added heat from anthropogenic activity. The area of the earth’s surface is about 510 x 10¹² m².

            Earth radiates energy into outer space. You can calculate the surface temperature of earth based on it’s black body spectrum, and the temperature is about -18°C. However the actual average temperature is around +15°C. Why is this? Could it be because of greenhouse gases like H₂O and CO₂? And could one actually measure the impact of these gases and others? It turns out that one can do this by solving the radiation transfer equations. Turns out that water vapor is responsible for about 70% of the GHG effect and CO₂ is responsible for about 25%. CH₄ makes up most of the difference.

            Having water vapor sustain its own greenhouse effect would be like trying to lift yourself off the ground by pulling on your shoelaces. Atmospheric humidity is a function of temperature (the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship) so without the non-condensing GHGs, water vapor would precipitate out of the atmosphere, which would diminish the greenhouse effect, which would in turn lower the temperature, which would lead to even more precipitation, and so on until there was virtually no water vapor left and global temperature would fall to -18°C (in fact lower because of the increased albedo of the snow- and ice-covered ground).

          • Doreen Gaydoon

            And that which you have shown, clearly demonstrates the very minor role of CO2 in the process. I agree with bill gate’s perspectives in the Atlantic…. we should run the 3 and 4 degree experiment and adapt….. if required.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            If you’re determined to show your ignorance, you can relax now. You’ve succeeded.

          • MadMikey

            There are millions of Christian publishings stating you are FOS about religion.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            First, The stories of Christianity are not even original. They are borrowed directly from earlier mythology from the Middle East. Genesis and Exodus, for example, are clearly based on earlier Babylonian myths such as The Epic of Gilgamesh, and the Jesus story itself is straight from the stories about Apollonius of Tyana, Horus and Dionysus (including virgin birth, the three wise men, the star in the East, birth at the Winter solstice, a baptism by another prophet, turning water into wine, crucifixion and rising from the dead).

            Second, we have no idea of who wrote the four Gospels, how credible or trustworthy they were, what ulterior motives they had (other than to promote their religion) or what they based their views on. We know that the traditional story of it being Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is almost certainly wrong. For example, the Gospel of Matthew includes a scene in which Jesus meets Matthew, recounted entirely in the third person!! Nevertheless, we are called upon to accept the most extraordinary claims by these unknown people, who wrote between 35 to 65 years after Christ died and do not even claim to have been witnesses. It is like taking the word of an unknown Branch Davidian about what happened to David Koresh at Waco – who wrote 35 years after the fact and wasn’t there.

            Third, Having withheld any evidence of his existence, this god will then punish those who doubt him with an eternity burning in hell. I don’t have to kill, I don’t have to steal, I don’t even have to litter. All I have to do is harbor an honest, reasonable and rational disbelieve in the Christian god and he will inflict a grotesque penalty on me a billion times worse than the death penalty – and he loves me. The above beliefs are based on nothing more than a collection of Bronze and Iron Age Middle Eastern mythology, much of it discredited, that was cobbled together into a book called the “Bible” by people we know virtually nothing about, before the Dark Ages.

            Fourth, if you are arguing that the bible is the basis for our morality, you are wrong. If you don’t know the difference between right and wrong before you pick up the “good book”, you are going to find nothing but endless celebrations of cruelty within the pages. The Christian god believes: you should stone a woman to death on her father’s doorstep if she is not a virgin on her wedding night, genocide is acceptable, ethnic cleansing is acceptable, religious cleansing is acceptable, and the occasional human sacrifice is just wonderful. Fortunately, most christians now completely ignore most of the “moral” lessons set out in the old testament. And the new testament is not much better. If there is one thing we are certain of, it is that slavery is wrong. Yet, both the old and the new testament strongly supports slavery; it is never rejected, not even by Jesus.

            Last, at its most fundamental level, Christianity requires a belief that an all-knowing, all-powerful, immortal being created the entire Universe and its billions of galaxies 13,720,000,000 years ago (the age of the Universe) sat back and waited 9,220,000,000 years for the Earth to form, then waited another 4,495,000,000 years for human beings to gradually evolve, then, at some point gave them eternal life and sent its son to Earth to talk about sheep and goats in the Middle East. While here, this divine visitor exhibits no knowledge of ANYTHING outside of the Iron Age Middle East, including the other continents, 99% of the human race, and the aforementioned galaxies. Either that, or it all started 6,000 years ago with one man, one woman and a talking snake. Either way “oh come on” just doesn’t quite capture it.

          • no1unohere

            Wow. Just wow. Such colossal ignorance posted in one place. Thank you. Thank you SO much for setting straight the historical record billions of people over the ages have been so wrong about. You’re just such a fantastic ray of sunshine…how the world ever got along without you before is a complete mystery. I can’t wait for your next nugget of “wisdom”. Snort.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            You have the internet. With internet searches a few seconds away there’s really no reason to be so snarkily ignorant these days.

          • gofer1

            30,000? You read them? Satellites show no warming, models were wrong, Arctic ice highest decade with a short melt season. Observations prove them wrong. Give it up. Catastrophe cancelled.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            The unsupported opinions that you post have no value other than the comfort you derive from them.

          • filetandrelease

            “Morons know from simple physics that adding CO₂ into the atmosphere will cause warming ” At least you admit you are a moron.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            And m0r0ns are somehow smarter than you … doesn’t say too much about you does it?

          • jeffersonian_nc

            Dismissal is not proving. You have failed at logic.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Science has no logic neither does reality. No evidence means it is dismissed as false.

          • jeffersonian_nc

            Science has no logic? Really? Go tell that to a real scientist.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Science has no logic. If you had taken a middle school science class and grasped the knowledge you’d understand why. You don’t have to believe me. You can rebut me by showing where logic is applied in science … yet you don’t. I wonder why?

          • no1unohere

            Really? No evidence means it is dismissed as false? Gee…talk to all those astronomers and scientists studying dark matter, black holes and any of a number of phenomenon that can’t be seen. There once was a consensus that the world was flat and that if you went far enough, you’d fall off the edge. I guess since there was no evidence to the contrary, sphereists views could be dismissable as false. At one time, there was a consensus that the sun revolved around the earth. I guess since there was no evidence to the contrary, contrary views could be dismissable as false. As time went by, we learned differently about commonly held assumptions (consensus) and our understanding of things changed. This AGW fad will also fade away as truth comes into the light of history and consensus changes once again.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Just because something can’t be seen it doesn’t mean it’s not there. We know dark matter exists as it has mass i.e. evidence. You can’t see gravity … does it exist? Hopefully you will start to understand by you’re an ignorant simpleton. The rest of your screed is just pure emotional vacuity. FYI: there was never consensus the world was flat. Since the smart folk in Greece figured out that it was a spheroid about 3,000 years ago … it has not been a problem for smart folk. It was the ignorant that formed a consensus it was flat (today’s climate change deniers) being misguided by the bronze-age book of illiterate goat herder superstitions and fables.

          • jaxbeachfl

            It was not a hurricane.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            It was Cat 1 when it came on shore. NOAA has the data for you to review at your leisure.

          • jaxbeachfl

            No. NOAA’s official name is Superstorm Sandy and when it hit it was “Post tropical cyclone” Sandy. Try harder.

          • Don’t tell obama that. He thinks that he’s one.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Peurile.

          • no1unohere

            Moronic response.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Puerility is one of your skill sets.

          • Doreen Gaydoon

            The reported dollar damage from Sandy was spiked with fraud. People building on beachfronts with no public access should not be compensated outside of what they can arrange through private insurance.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            The unsupported opinions that you post have no value other than the comfort you derive from them.

          • Doreen Gaydoon

            But my advocacy will in fact prevail.

          • Doreen Gaydoon

            And you will have to deal with your frustration of not having your way.

          • MadMikey

            The worst hurricane reported was at Galveston around 1910. Sandy doesn’t even compare. Also, the number of hurricanes annually has decreased.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Complete vacuity. The strongest hurricanes recorded have been in the Pacific. At least pretend to know that there is more to the world than your trailer Park and the USA.

          • gofer1

            Your gravy train is being derailed, suggest you get off. You ring of desperation with your ad homs. Einstein showed it only took one to prove the majority wrong.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Thanks for sharing that you know nothing about Einstein and even less about climate science.

          • MadMikey

            The vacuity is yours. I grew up on the west Pacific rim and experienced storms far worse than present storms, and that was back in the early 60’s. BTW, in the Pacific, they are Typhoons, not Hurricanes.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            More puerile vacuity. “Proof by personal incredulity” means less than nothing. Typhoons are hurricanes and cyclones. The names are interchangeable … same weather phenomenon and atmospheric physics. However, it is common to refer to hurricanes in the Atlantic, cyclones in the Indian and S. Pacific and typhoons in the NW Pacific.

          • MadMikey

            I see you failed to answer where I spent many years in the Orient and the Typhoons we experienced were far worse than those that are currently happening. The vacuity is yours. You are not going by experience, but what you have been told.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            “Proof by personal incredulity” means less than nothing.

          • MadMikey

            That is like saying: “I was there, and I saw everything!”, but you say: “I wasn’t there, but I have heard stuff, so what I have heard means more than your experience!”. You are truly a parrot.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            “Proof by personal incredulity” means less than nothing.

          • gofer1

            Sandy was tropical storm at landfall. Severe because of the highly developed area.

          • jeffersonian_nc

            And at high tide.

          • no1unohere

            Religion deals with supernatural events, events that can neither be proved or disproved by science because they are outside the scientific realm. Religion deals with faith…”Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” You know…like the religion of “man-made global cooling/warming/climate change”. I expect you’ll have a devastating come-back about what a moron I am for disagreeing with you…like the 17,000 (at least) scientists that disagree with you. Regardless, you can’t disagree that the AGW religion has changed it’s tune as the facts didn’t support its paradigm at the time. I was there when they told us back in the 60’s and 70’s we were all going to die from a new Ice Age. When that didn’t pan out, they started telling us we were all going to die burning to death from “global warming”. When that didn’t pan out, they had to come up with some sorr of one-term-fits-all panacea that everyone could agree on. Guess what? I agree the global climate changes. It always has, it always will. We are a miniscule, microscopic part of that picture. We are powerless to destroy this planet. Even if we fired off all our nukes (death by nucliear winter was the big fear in the 70’s), while we may all be gone (which the hard-core environmentalists would prefer), the earth would heal and go on. If the past extinction level events haven’t destroyed the planet, we certainly couldn’t accomplish it either. To think we can is the height of arrogance.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Puerile ignorant crapola.

          • jeffersonian_nc

            You do realize that we have only records for the past 100+ years or so. Where as the Holocene Epoch has now lasted 11,000 years. Thus, it is not a stretch of any imagination that we can break records.

          • Daniel C.

            agree d we don’t know what the temp was 1000 yrs ago or even 5000 yrs ago, The Calculation can’t be accurate in my opinion

          • gofer1

            Record breaking? Where?

          • Jen

            First, we don’t have more record-breaking in the last 18 months. Second, the bar is always changing. First global warming becomes climate change when the warming doesn’t pan out, and now it’s severity instead of frequency now that the numbers are down.

          • no1unohere

            Don’t forget it was “Global Cooling” before it was “Global Warming” before it was “Global Climate Change.” The terms have to keep changing to fit the current paradigm.

          • jeffersonian_nc

            I remember those predictions of the next ice age in the 1970s.

          • jeffersonian_nc

            It was hardly a joke.

          • Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance, typical of Progressives! What exactly makes the Royal Society “the world’s preeminent science body?” Your OPINION, there is factual data to PROVE your assertion! Members of their group lie, and to protect the so-called integrity of the group, the leaders swear by the lies! Science is by its very nature imperfect, look at the recent changes in long accepted “scientific facts” that have happened as better equipment, better educated and smarter scientists, review old beliefs. Another current trend is the increasing number of scientists who are becoming God believers!

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            First, there is no proof in science, that’s for distillers, mathematicians and lawyers. Second, the unsupported opinions that you post have no value other than the comfort you derive from them.

          • Wiley Coyote

            Yes. We’ve seen quite a number of whitewashes in recent years, haven’t we. The fact remains that the “Climategate” records released (by either a hacker or an insider with a conscience) on November 19, 2009 show unmistakable evidence of fraud, from emails suggesting ways to use a “trick” to “hide the decline” in the temperature record derived from tree ring data, which leveled out about 1960, and crappy FORTRAN computer programs used to process temperature data with a built in “fudge factor” (the term used by the programmer himself in a comment notation within the program itself) to elevate the temperature by a fraction of a degree throughout the decades.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Your ignorance and stupidity is limitless.

            use a “trick” to “hide the decline” in
            ==================================

            Hide the decline” doesn’t mean what you seem to think it does. 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. Alternatively if you don’t like thermometers there are 173 independent temperature-sensitive paleoclimate proxy records un-calibrated to instrument data that conclude that the planet has been in a warming trend since 1880 with data going back to 1730. The fastest warming period was the last 15 years of the data (1980-1995) which was significantly faster than the long-term trend of 1880-1995. The published science is freely available and you should be able to find it with a simple Google search.

          • Wiley Coyote

            Even the term “greenhouse gas” is a lie. Carbon dioxide has nothing to do with greenhouses. Greenhouses are kept warm by blocking convection currents, as with rolling up your car windows on a warm day. Why do you stupid trolls even bother to go on web sites like this? You know perfectly well you’re not going to change anybody’s mind about your stupid pseudoscience. Science is based on making observations, forming an hypothesis, making predictions, and then verifying your predictions for accuracy to confirm your hypothesis. The pseudoscience of what used to be called “Global Warming”, and then underwent a name change to “Climate Change” when the earth’s climate failed to cooperate by staying the same instead of warming up, has failed on every prediction it made. According to Al Gore, the Arctic Ice Cap was supposed to be completely gone by 2013. Instead, the icepack has increased; polar bears were supposed to suffer a horrible death by drowning or starving to death. Instead they’re thriving. There were supposed to be more tornadoes; instead, there are fewer. There were supposed to be more and fiercer hurricanes; only there are far fewer and they are diminishing in intensity. Go away with your stupid pseudoscience and your equally dumb predictions. You guys are only after the government and foundation grant money, and the government is only interested in levying a “carbon tax” on all consumption of fossil fuels, so that Al Gore and others can get rich exchanging “carbon credits” on the Chicago Commodities Mart. Except in Al Gore’s case (who, apparently unafraid of ocean levels rising bought luxury shore front property a few years ago and has one of the biggest “carbon footprints” in the world with his mansion and his jet planes) even richer.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Do you always segue off topic when schooled? You latest diatribe is a load of vacuous crapola. Well done, I’m sure your parents are every bit as stupid, ignorant, superstitious and uneducated as you are and, therefore, are proud of their little bundle of retard.

          • Wiley Coyote

            You didn’t deny or counter anything that I wrote. You lefties always cut in with the name calling whenever anybody who punctures your sacred cow “global warming” religion starts winning the argument.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Your knowledge of science is worse than pitiful. Did you even graduate middle school or are you just another red state idiot running your mouth? You think you’re some sort of genius by spouting this evidence-free denier’s rubbish – but you’re actually just very, very ignorant

          • Wiley Coyote

            We know for a fact that “global warming” is the worst form of pseudoscientific rubbish on account of the fact that if those theories had any merit whatever that it wouldn’t be necessary to continually lie about it. Like Barack Obama visiting a glacier in Alaska which has been receding for the last 100 years. Only, what they forgot to mention was that that same glacier had been receding for the past 200 years. It must have slipped their minds. Or the “peer reviewed” article cited in the U.N.’s report on climate change that the Himalayan glaciers were all going to melt by the year 2035. Only it wasn’t 2035, it was supposed to be 2350. And the article wasn’t “peer reviewed” and wasn’t even written by a “climate scientist”, not that that would have mattered. It would have still been rubbish even if it had been. It was written by some article writer for a travel magazine. Or the Antarctic sea ice which was supposed to be diminishing but that one of your stupid research ships got itself stuck in. How embarrassing! Or the Antarctic glacier which was supposed to be melting, which was, in fact, melting, on account of its being parked on top of an active volcano. Good science doesn’t rely on deliberate falsehoods, lies and deceptions. Meanwhile, the Great Lakes have frozen completely over in recent years which they hadn’t done in decades, and Boston has experienced record breaking snowfall. If the science was any good, it would stand on its own merits. If it’s pseudoscience you want, then why don’t all of you switch to the pseudoscience of phrenology and study the bumps on each others’ heads. I’m sure you would find plenty of them to keep yourselves occupied.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Just stop. You are really bad at this. Long vacuous screed with not a shred of evidence. It is pretty apparent you have decided you are smarter than all of the climate scientists in the world combined. I don’t say that as an insult, I say it as an observation. Your knowledge of science is worse than pitiful. Did you even graduate middle school or are you just another red state idiot running your mouth?

          • Wiley Coyote

            “All the climate scientists in the world combined” don’t share your opinion. There are plenty of climate scientists and meteorologists who either express the opinion that the jury on “global warming” is still out, or alternatively that it is complete and utter hogwash. A lot of the climate scientists who contributed to the U.N.’s report on climate change wanted out of the “credits” for it on account of the conclusions it reached didn’t agree with their considered scientific opinion, and the U.N. argued with them about it and wouldn’t delete their names on the basis that they had “contributed”. The earth’s climate warms up. Also, it cools down. Also, it stays the same, which it’s doing right now. There have been 4 ice ages in the last 450,000 years. They last about 100,000 years, and the last one ended roughly 10,000 years ago, which doesn’t leave much of a margin before the next one begins. You will be pleased to know that a), I do believe that there is a relationship according to the fossil record between carbon dioxide and the earth’s temperature; mainly, that when the earth’s temperature warms up, there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 800 years later, * and b) I believe the earth’s climate will gradually warm up over the course of the next 100 years or so before it takes a plunge back into a 5th ice age. But, it’s got nothing to do with carbon dioxide. It has to do with eccentricities in the tilt of the earth’s axis and perturbations in the earth’s orbit due to the gravitational influences of the outer planets.
            * It works the same way as a bottle of Coke. The carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans comes out of solution when the oceans warm up.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            ust stop. You are really bad at this. Long vacuous screed with not a shred of evidence. Your knowledge of science is worse than pitiful. Did you even graduate middle school or are you just another red state idiot running your mouth?

          • no1unohere

            “You are really bad at this.”

            I do not think it means what you think it means.

          • jeffersonian_nc

            lefty… has a habit of using the same phrases over and over again no mater who he/she/it is responding to. It is almost like a computer program that is stumped with what to say.
            Like the smart robo calls and they sound automated and so you ask “Are you a robot” and the response is “No, I am not a robot”. So then you ask “what color are your eyes” and it says “I am not a robot”.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            You just don’t think. Do you think a denier sprouting unsubstantiated gibberish is not pathetic? Get a clue, he and you are terrible at this.

          • lloydc1234

            Thanks, I think you have finally left us.

          • no1unohere

            Another inane waste of time. No one cares what you think. Post something relevant.

          • Daniel C.

            UN can’t be trusted at all m as corrupt as they are. i think we been here less then 1% of 4 billion years earth has existed. as many have said and know its a cycle the temp of the earth it fluctuates and there is not a damn thing we can do to change that fact. We have other things we can Actually solve and should be focused on not the climate.

          • Wiley Coyote

            However, the U.N. CAN be entirely trusted to lie like a rug in favor of advancing its true agenda, spelled out in U.N.’s own publication, “Agenda 21” (Agenda for the Twenty-first Century). They have a dual agenda leading to the same end. World Government. Convincing everybody about the danger of “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” in order for all the governments to pass a “carbon tax” to fund world government at the cost of $5 trillion per year, and confiscating all private ownership of firearms are simply two aspects of imposing world government. Most people wouldn’t stand for being herded into 2X4 apartments in the inner cities as long as they had the capability of shooting back. If you say goodbye to your guns, you might just as well say goodbye to your car at the same time. You won’t be going anywhere with it. No need to drive out shopping. All the shops will be downstairs from your teeny little apartment. They’ve already started building the apartments in the inner cities and burning down people’s houses who lived in the wilderness in the West. Yeah, the weather has been warming up and producing drought conditions in the Western states. On account of their controlling spraying chemtrails out of planes to disperse all the clouds that otherwise form, mainly. All transportation will be either by busways or by high speed rail. Google “U.N. Agenda 21” if you don’t believe me and see what you get. Go to Youtube and search for “Agenda 21”. Don’t go looking for any little teeny conspiracies like the Kennedy assassination or “9/11” when you’ve got a gigantic collusion between the government and the so-called “Main Stream” “news media” staring you in the face.

          • Daniel C.

            I am aware of Agenda 21. they have a hidden agenda for sure with the UN.

          • no1unohere

            My observation is you haven’t proved anything either, other than spouting off that you disagree with him and agree with the climate change frauds/fanatics. I see you’ve decided not to go with the “97% of scientists agree that man-made/caused ‘climate change’ is real”. That’s so easily disprovable, it would warrant placing you in a straight-jacket.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            There is no proof in science. The evidence comes from research which is published in peer reviewed scientific journals where it is scrutinized and commented on by peers world wide. No publication is accepted by the community until it withstands replication and testing. Science is dynamic and changes all the time as new evidence and explanations for natural phenomena come about through research. Your fellow denier above has provided nothing as in nada, zip, zilch evidence from published science for its gibberish. It could resolve that by providing the DOI. As to your 97% comment … it doesn’t matter what scientists agree it is more important what scientists in a specific field agree or reach consensus on. For example, all scientists agree that gravity exists. Physicists, who study and research gravity don’t know what it is with certainty and hence there are two dominant competing theories are almost equal weight and a host of lessor theories. When it comes to AGW there is only one theory and it is accepted by 100% of those in that field as there is neither a competing theory or model or even a rebuttal that has been accepted by the practitioners. You’d think by now with all the denier claptrap that they would have been able to develop and publish a valid competing model and theory. Sadly, for you there are absolutely none that have attracted any traction or even been accepted by the folk in the field. That’s very significant as science is dynamic and thrives on progress at getting better. There have been several attempts to prove AGW is incorrect and all have failed included a Koch funded study by Muller (Google BEST if you want more info) where a skeptic ended up confirming the current theory and conclusions, that the planet is in an unprecedented warming phase..

          • Daniel Haney

            Funny, following this thread for a while and all YOU do is name call and say “You’re wrong”.
            Meanwhile, Wiley keeps giving example after example.
            Your answer….JUST STOP??? LMAO!!!
            Sounds to me like you lose the arguement….

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Riley may be presenting examples to you … can you enlighten me which one of his evidence free examples is reality? I anticipate that you will, unlike Riley who has provided no substantiation, authoritative citations outside the denier/right-wing echo chamber. Please proceed ….

          • lloydc1234

            Again, too much nonsense to read.

          • no1unohere

            Again, you’re an idiot with nothing to add to the conversation. No one cares what you think.

          • gofer1

            More desperation….getting frustrated. About lose his phoney baloney job.

          • Jen

            I love how your response to everyone else’s facts is simply name calling.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Care to highlight any “fact” that is valid. It will need authoritative citations outside the denier/right-wing echo chamber. Please proceed ….

          • Jen

            dailymail.co.uk

            Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it

            By

            David Rose for The Mail on Sunday

            The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until
            August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global
            temperatures
            This means that the ‘pause’
            in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the
            previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996
            Published:
            16:42 EST, 13 October 2012

            |
            Updated:
            08:59 EST, 16

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            I don’t believe you are citing from a science source. Do you enjoy being duped? How is a tabloid able to dupe you? Lack of education? Ignorance? Simpleton? Or some combination of the aforementioned?

          • Jen

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arct...
            Daily MailNov 2, 2013 – The 17-year pause in global warming is likely to last into the 2030s and the … Recovery: A new study suggests global warming is at a halt and …

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            I don’t believe you are citing from a science source. Do you enjoy being duped? How is a tabloid able to dupe you? Lack of education? Ignorance? Simpleton? Or some combination of the aforementioned?

          • filetandrelease

            What a pompous ass you are.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Guess if understanding climate science is pompous in your puerile existence then that must be the limits of your worldly knowledge.

          • no1unohere

            And you prove his point yet again. Namecalling without any proof. Idiot.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Namecalling (sic) without any proof
            ===========================

            This is very easy. Can you support with authoritative citations outside the denier/right-wing echo chamber anything written about science in Wiley Coyote’s vacuous screed. if you remain silent or provide none it will mean my statement was correct. Please proceed ….

          • Gerry Persowich

            world’s 760m cars

            April 23, 2009 The Guardian
            has reported on new research showing that in one year, a single large
            container ship can emit cancer and asthma-causing pollutants equivalent
            to that of 50 million cars. The low grade bunker fuel used by the worlds
            90,000 cargo ships contains up to 2,000 times the amount of sulfur
            compared to diesel fuel used in automobiles. The recent boom in the
            global trade of manufactured goods has also resulted in a new breed of
            super sized container ship which consume fuel not by the gallons, but by
            tons per hour, and shipping now accounts for 90% of global trade by
            volume.

            The title of world’s largest container ship is actually held by eight identical ships owned by Danish shipping line Mærsk.
            All eight ships are 1300ft (397.7m) long and can carry 15,200 shipping
            containers around the globe at a steady 25.5 knots (47.2 km/h, 29.3 mph)
            . The only thing limiting the size of these ships is the Suezmax
            standard, which is the term used to define the the largest ships capable
            of transiting the Suez Canal fully loaded. These ships far surpass the
            Panamax standard (ships that can fit through the Panama Canal), which is
            limited to ships capable of carrying 5,000 shipping containers.

            Not only are shipbuilders resetting the world record
            for size on a regular basis but so are the diesel engines that propel
            them. One of the eight longest container ships in the world, the 1,300
            ft Emma Mærsk
            also has the world’s largest reciprocating engine. At five storeys tall
            and weighing 2300 tonnes, this 14 cylinder turbocharged two-stroke
            monster puts out 84.4 MW (114,800 hp) – up to 90MW when the motor’s
            waste heat recovery system is taken into account. These mammoth engines
            consume approx 16 tons of fuel per hour or 380 tons per day while at
            sea.

            Unregulated emissions

            In international waters ship emissions remains one of
            the least regulated parts of our global transportation system. The fuel
            used in ships is waste oil, basically what is left over after the crude
            oil refining process. It is the same as asphalt and is so thick that
            when cold it can be walked upon . It’s the cheapest and most polluting
            fuel available and the world’s 90,000 ships chew through an astonishing
            7.29 million barrels of it each day, or more than 84% of all exported
            oil production from Saudi Arabia, the worlds largest oil exporter.

            Shipping is by far the biggest transport polluter in
            the world. There are 760 million cars in the world today emitting approx
            78,599 tons of Sulphur Oxides (SOx) annually. The world’s 90,000
            vessels burn approx 370 million tons of fuel per year emitting 20
            million tons of Sulphur Oxides. That equates to 260 times more Sulphur
            Oxides being emitted by ships than the worlds entire car fleet. One
            large ship alone can generate approx 5,200 tonnes of sulphur oxide
            pollution in a year, meaning that 15 of the largest ships now emit as
            much SOx as the worlds 760 million cars.

            South Korea’s STX shipyard says it has designed a
            ship to carry 22,000 shipping containers that would be 450 meters long
            and there are already 3,693 new ship builds on the books for ocean going
            vessels over 150 meters in length due over the next three years. The
            amount of air pollution just these new ships will put out when launched
            is equal to having another 29 billion cars on the roads.

            The UN’s International Maritime Organisation (IMO)
            released a report in 2007 saying a 10% reduction in fuel burning was
            possible on existing ships and 30-40% possible for new ships but the
            technology is largely unused, as the regulations are largely voluntary.

          • lloydc1234

            First two sentences were enough for me. Get real. Bye.

          • no1unohere

            Moron, without carbon dioxide, there would be no life on the planet. I suppose they don’t teach things like this in schools these days, but plants, which creates the oxygen that every living thing needs to live, takes up the carbon dioxide in that very process. Without carbon dioxide, plants die. Without plants, everything else dies. Carbon dioxide is NOT a green-house gas. It’s a life-sustaining gas and we need MORE of it if we want plant life to thrive. You idiots really don’t look at the big picture, do you?

          • Daniel C.

            Agree we need C02 to even live on the planet, We exhale it and its classified and a Pollutant which make no sense what so ever. We both know unlike many other people that We can’t change the climate or weather at all. I see it as a natural Cycle of the Earth, even natural things Like Volcano’s Pollute with lots of Sulfur.

          • gofer1

            Then tree rings were unreliable if he had to graft temps onto them. Deceit.

          • JBTascam

            Hey, when you only have to throw away 1/3 of your data to “improve” your graph, that’s called “winning” by the warmists….

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Do you have a citation or a DOI or was that a thumb suck?

          • Gerry Persowich

            OK!!!15 of the world’s biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world’s 760m cars

            April 23, 2009 The Guardian
            has reported on new research showing that in one year, a single large
            container ship can emit cancer and asthma-causing pollutants equivalent
            to that of 50 million cars. The low grade bunker fuel used by the worlds
            90,000 cargo ships contains up to 2,000 times the amount of sulfur
            compared to diesel fuel used in automobiles. The recent boom in the
            global trade of manufactured goods has also resulted in a new breed of
            super sized container ship which consume fuel not by the gallons, but by
            tons per hour, and shipping now accounts for 90% of global trade by
            volume.

            The title of world’s largest container ship is actually held by eight identical ships owned by Danish shipping line Mærsk.
            All eight ships are 1300ft (397.7m) long and can carry 15,200 shipping
            containers around the globe at a steady 25.5 knots (47.2 km/h, 29.3 mph)
            . The only thing limiting the size of these ships is the Suezmax
            standard, which is the term used to define the the largest ships capable
            of transiting the Suez Canal fully loaded. These ships far surpass the
            Panamax standard (ships that can fit through the Panama Canal), which is
            limited to ships capable of carrying 5,000 shipping containers.

            Not only are shipbuilders resetting the world record
            for size on a regular basis but so are the diesel engines that propel
            them. One of the eight longest container ships in the world, the 1,300
            ft Emma Mærsk
            also has the world’s largest reciprocating engine. At five storeys tall
            and weighing 2300 tonnes, this 14 cylinder turbocharged two-stroke
            monster puts out 84.4 MW (114,800 hp) – up to 90MW when the motor’s
            waste heat recovery system is taken into account. These mammoth engines
            consume approx 16 tons of fuel per hour or 380 tons per day while at
            sea.

            Unregulated emissions

            In international waters ship emissions remains one of
            the least regulated parts of our global transportation system. The fuel
            used in ships is waste oil, basically what is left over after the crude
            oil refining process. It is the same as asphalt and is so thick that
            when cold it can be walked upon . It’s the cheapest and most polluting
            fuel available and the world’s 90,000 ships chew through an astonishing
            7.29 million barrels of it each day, or more than 84% of all exported
            oil production from Saudi Arabia, the worlds largest oil exporter.

            Shipping is by far the biggest transport polluter in
            the world. There are 760 million cars in the world today emitting approx
            78,599 tons of Sulphur Oxides (SOx) annually. The world’s 90,000
            vessels burn approx 370 million tons of fuel per year emitting 20
            million tons of Sulphur Oxides. That equates to 260 times more Sulphur
            Oxides being emitted by ships than the worlds entire car fleet. One
            large ship alone can generate approx 5,200 tonnes of sulphur oxide
            pollution in a year, meaning that 15 of the largest ships now emit as
            much SOx as the worlds 760 million cars.

          • Harry

            Are you serious? That is like having the wolf investigate the fox for stealing chickens from the hen house. All of those investigative units are linked at the wallet. If they found Jones, and also Phil Mann at Penn State to be guilty, all the taxpayer funds would dry up. Your comment “Professor Jones’ actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community” is very true. They all are frauds and liars and you just confirmed it.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Thanks for sharing that you’re an ignorant twat who revels in being easily duped.

          • no1unohere

            And so the ad hominem arguments begin from leftists with no argument. Progressives ignore inconvenient facts and start belittling their opponents when they have no argument left. It usually takes only about 30 seconds for that to occur.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Do you have reading comprehension at hillbilly levels? Care to share where your knowledge exceeds that of the eminent professionals mentioned in my factual post. please proceed ….

          • Harry

            The only part of your screen name that is truthful is the left part. The ending part, brain is a void. Given your vernacular, I can only assume you are British. That would indicate you revel in a 4th rate power that has never recovered from the histrionics Neville Chamberlin. He was also a left wing coward revered by John Kerry.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Thanks for sharing that you’re an ignorant twat who revels in being easily duped.

          • gofer1

            Jones was part of the fraud.

          • James McAllister

            It is a sad state of affairs when so few citizens and almost no ‘journalist’ today understands science or scientific study, let alone the scale of the Earth and of time.
            ‘Revising’ or ‘adjusting’ already recorded data is a BIG no-no. It totally invalidates EVERY conclusion that relies on it. The scientific wahy to proceed is to record your data the exact same way the historical data was recorded, OR to start from today recording your own data WITHOUT including the past data that was recorded differently.
            Instead, those seeking power and/or more grant money to ‘study’ (read, ‘how to make a living with no expectations of actually producing anything’) fly all over the world. How much ‘carbon’ has BHO’s vacations produced? IF ‘Global Warming’ was really such a problem, would he have flown to Oregon to repeat what he said on TV the day before? Would ‘Climate Scientists’ fly to meeting all over the world when video/teleconferencing would accomplish the same thing? Would AlGore buy an oceanfront multi-million dollar home the day after he warned of rapidly rising sea levels in 10 years?
            These folks have no interest in ‘saving the planet.’ They’re after money and power. For themselves.
            And the media is only interested in selling ads, so anything sensational gets repeated.
            Just sayin’

          • Daniel C.

            I think of in terms of how long we have been on the Earth compared to how long it has existed. We have been burning Fuels for like 150 years or so. We have been here so little time that I think the effect we have is very minimal. When the EPA classifies C02 What we exhale and trees take in to produce oxygen, seems to me there is some flawed thinking there. And look at India and China its way more polluted then we are in the West. I am all for diff kinds of energy and clean as well, but have to be realistic about it, and think of the economic impact take these Radical Actions the UN or EPA want to go forward with. Some call me crazy for even Questioning so called Climate Change, I question everything at first then do my research and try to confirm how things really are.

          • mbee1

            When we used statistics to recover about a hundred million dollars for my agency the idea was to get the known data and project. We did not change that known data as that would make the projections bogus. Even projections have problems as you cannot know if the past predicts the future for any complex real world problem, it is a fallacy to pretend it is gods word as you might have a big error. Projection in very simple models like air flow, material properties, nuclear reactions and such are much easier to solve so the solution works in the real world even if you have to use a super computer and a long run time to solve the problem to the precision you want. The longer the data and the more things you measure the projections do trend to be more accurate. The global climate models are simply not working http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~ksteinha/papers/CLIMDYN14.pdf We project a lot as it is a nice way to pretend we have a tea leave for the future but it really is a big guess. The world may be heating but that is the sun http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/BackTo68.html

          • The trend is that the Earth is entering its Last Days, that Judgment is about to be brought to bear, AND those on the narrow path are marked for Paradise, you and your ilk are marked for an eternity of torment. Yes, there is a small chance that I am wrong, in which case, it matters not, there is a greater chance that I am right, in which case, your science will not save you from that eternity in torment. GOD IS NOT DEAD AND HELL IS THE REAL DEAL!

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Change your supplier. Whatever you smoking is making you bat$hit crazy.

          • Wiley Coyote

            So, in other words, you don’t deny that they deliberately site “weather stations” in conditions where they are bound to record higher temperatures than the surrounding environment, and that Dr. James Hansen of NASA/GISS makes “adjustments” to weather records from the 1880’s, 1890’s, 1900’s, 19 teens, 1920’s, 1930’s, 1940’s, 1950’s, 1960’s, 1970’s, 1980’s, 1990’s, 2000’s, and 20 teens, in order to give them that nice upward trend so favored by the “warmist” hoaxers? You guys are losing this propaganda battle no matter how much Rothschild money you sink into it. Why don’t you go to “Yahoo” and key in “global warming”? The first selection you’re greeted with it “global warming hoax”.
            http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            It is so sad when what you link to defeats your argument. Now if you had a grasp of simple middle school science you would notice that warming trends are evident irrespective of the placement of the recording equipment, why? BTW, the scientists who have made the correct adjustments have published what they have done and why. It’s in the public domain and has been peer reviewed … I bet you’ve never read what they have written. Come back when you have. Your local community college can explain it to you if you fail to grasp what they explain.

          • gofer1

            So what if it warms 2/100 degree. You expect sane people to panic or believe that is accurate. Global avg temp is totally meaningless.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            So you should put your big boy pants on and don’t comment on the evidence and known science about which you have little to no comprehension or understanding. The sad thing is that you’re not smart enough to recognize that you won’t solve human-induced climate change using vacuous, opinionated, emotive comments. Scientists will do that and we recognize that the magnitude of the problem is greater than most can comprehend. So your ilk resort to denial and obfuscation by politicizing the topic which is apolitical and stands on the evidence for those who understand it.

          • Doreen Gaydoon

            And the trends are not favorable to the warming thesis. I can see by your political references (Koch reference) that you are a “useful idiot”, and not someone who can think through this topic rationally.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Complete vacuity. If you had an ounce of science in your pathetic existence you’d be interested to see what the Koch funded research produced.

          • gofer1

            So, they can go back to 1923 and erase warming periods and turn them into cooling or make up temps for 50% of globe that has no data?

            Its all now 100% lies. Arctic ice highest in 10 years, so it isn’t talked about. The report shows nothing to talk about and it AGW will be dead in 5 yrs. Hard to maintain fraud.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Arctic ice highest in 10 years
            =======================

            Crapola. Currently 4th lowest in the record. A lie makes you look weak, desperate, and disreputable. Why do you bother to write a lie so easy to google and verify? A more competent liar will make a fabrication that’s harder to debunk.

          • mbee1

            You can adjust all you want to on anything. When you adjust the adjusted numbers should match reality. If you have other data that did match and now does not, something is wrong. When you adjust data a 100 years old and pretend you can do that to increase accuracy something is wrong. When you ignore the past temperatures in order to claim your adjusted temperatures are correct than something is wrong. http://euanmearns.com/the-diverging-surface-thermometer-and-satellite-temperature-records-again/

            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/

            http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6111/20130923/alaska-glacier-thaws-astonishing-ancient-forest-revealed.htm

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/08/receding-swiss-glaciers-incoveniently-reveal-4000-year-old-forests-and-make-it-clear-that-glacier-retreat-is-nothing-new/

            http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            None of you links comment on adjusted data, why? Interestingly, the only two science sites you link to (links #2 and #5) demonstrate AGW and it’s effects on the planet. So what’s you point other than to confirm global warming is human induce and extant is in real serious jeopardy?

            BTW, 173 independent temperature-sensitive paleoclimate proxy records un-calibrated to instrument data conclude that the planet has been in a warming trend since 1880 with data going back to 1730. The fastest warming period was the last 15 years of the data (1980-1995) which was significantly faster than the long-term trend of 1880-1995. The published science is freely available and you should be able to find it with a simple Google search.

          • lloydc1234

            You are dead wrong, Wiley.

          • Gerry Persowich

            YIKES!15 of the world’s biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world’s 760m cars

            April 23, 2009 The Guardian
            has reported on new research showing that in one year, a single large
            container ship can emit cancer and asthma-causing pollutants equivalent
            to that of 50 million cars. The low grade bunker fuel used by the worlds
            90,000 cargo ships contains up to 2,000 times the amount of sulfur
            compared to diesel fuel used in automobiles. The recent boom in the
            global trade of manufactured goods has also resulted in a new breed of
            super sized container ship which consume fuel not by the gallons, but by
            tons per hour, and shipping now accounts for 90% of global trade by
            volume.

            The title of world’s largest container ship is actually held by eight identical ships owned by Danish shipping line Mærsk.
            All eight ships are 1300ft (397.7m) long and can carry 15,200 shipping
            containers around the globe at a steady 25.5 knots (47.2 km/h, 29.3 mph)
            . The only thing limiting the size of these ships is the Suezmax
            standard, which is the term used to define the the largest ships capable
            of transiting the Suez Canal fully loaded. These ships far surpass the
            Panamax standard (ships that can fit through the Panama Canal), which is
            limited to ships capable of carrying 5,000 shipping containers.

            Not only are shipbuilders resetting the world record
            for size on a regular basis but so are the diesel engines that propel
            them. One of the eight longest container ships in the world, the 1,300
            ft Emma Mærsk
            also has the world’s largest reciprocating engine. At five storeys tall
            and weighing 2300 tonnes, this 14 cylinder turbocharged two-stroke
            monster puts out 84.4 MW (114,800 hp) – up to 90MW when the motor’s
            waste heat recovery system is taken into account. These mammoth engines
            consume approx 16 tons of fuel per hour or 380 tons per day while at
            sea.

            Unregulated emissions

            In international waters ship emissions remains one of
            the least regulated parts of our global transportation system. The fuel
            used in ships is waste oil, basically what is left over after the crude
            oil refining process. It is the same as asphalt and is so thick that
            when cold it can be walked upon . It’s the cheapest and most polluting
            fuel available and the world’s 90,000 ships chew through an astonishing
            7.29 million barrels of it each day, or more than 84% of all exported
            oil production from Saudi Arabia, the worlds largest oil exporter.

            Shipping is by far the biggest transport polluter in
            the world. There are 760 million cars in the world today emitting approx
            78,599 tons of Sulphur Oxides (SOx) annually. The world’s 90,000
            vessels burn approx 370 million tons of fuel per year emitting 20
            million tons of Sulphur Oxides. That equates to 260 times more Sulphur
            Oxides being emitted by ships than the worlds entire car fleet. One
            large ship alone can generate approx 5,200 tonnes of sulphur oxide
            pollution in a year, meaning that 15 of the largest ships now emit as
            much SOx as the worlds 760 million cars.

          • mbee1

            http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html, maybe the sulfur from these ships is not so bad in comparsion to the volcano sufur.

          • mbee1

            Actually it was 2014 which was a lie as the NOAA paper everybody is pointing to says unlikely. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-1

          • DaveGinOly

            There are credible claims that the slight warming during the 20th Century was illusory (some would say fraudulently manufactured). If these claims aren’t credible, why is there now an ongoing major review of the data?

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            The telegraph is not a source for science. Care to share any? Data are always reviewed … that is the very essence of science, so I don’t understand you point?

          • RLABruce

            It’s been proven so-called “climatologists” have destroyed their original data, left out data, lied about data and recently have actually CHANGED their raw data, all in an effort to prove there is global warming. And despite these blatant attempts to skew their results, they still are forced to admit there hasn’t been any increase in global warming for at least SEVENTEEN YEARS!
            So, since “climatology” has obviously been co-opted by politics and is certainly not a science, why are you still a Believer?
            And, for the sake of argument, let us say there is global warming; what ideal temperature range is the “correct” one? How much more of the earth do you want to freeze over each winter, which would cut the length of the growing season and the land area available for farming and thus cut the amount of food available to the human race?
            Your own “climatologists” admit that nothing we can do will drop the earth’s temperature by any appreciable amount, yet they still insist that we make drastic changes in our society to lower “CO2 emissions” in order to “help” global warming! If it doesn’t help, how does it help?!!!

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Nothing in this evidence-free post bears any resemblance to reality. It is pure denialist vacuity.

            Provide the citations, preferably DOIs and I’ll be happy to read.

          • RLABruce

            http://www.dailytech.com/Climategate+Stunning+Deception+and+Misconduct+at+UK+Warming+Research+Center+Revealed/article16889.htm
            http://www.dailytech.com/Climatologists+Trade+Tips+on+Destroying+Evidence+Evangelizing+Warming/article23368.htm
            http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Global-warming-climate-change-Christopher-Monckton/2014/09/09/id/593471/

            Of course, you will ridicule and denigrate these sources without addressing the facts in them. I’m sorry I can’t give you statements from climatology sites, but they are the ones who are lying and won’t admit it on their own web sites.

            PS – STILL waiting for you to post your degrees, papers and CV that shows you are indeed a “climate scientist” as you claim. If you don’t post them you will have shown the world that, like all “climate scientists”, you are a liar just making it up.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Just stop. You are really bad at this. I don’t think you know what a scientific citation or DOI is. Talking out of your a$$ about a subject you are proudly ignorant of tells me that you consider your ignorance is just as good as my scientific knowledge. If you exist in a world not based on reality, you will eventually lose to reality. Posts like yours do nothing but advertise your ignorance. Edit: they also demonstrate the effectiveness of the fossil fuel funded PR campaign in certain less educated pockets of our population. When you select where your “facts” come from you will never grow nor expand your mind. Try science.

          • jeffersonian_nc


            Richard Muller, with a PhD in physics, and a believer in global warming, shows the lie of Michael Mann’s hockey stick. Thus Mann, Bradley and Hughes lied. So much for honest global warming scientists.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            If that’s the case, why did Rich Muller’s BEST project, which was partly funded by the Kochs and driven by Muller’s deep suspicion of the whole thing, come up with complete confirmation of the overall trend? Maybe you should look at what is published. Go look up “pages2k” for the latest of many versions of the hockey stick.

          • jeffersonian_nc

            I know that Muller believes in warming, but yet he proves Mann a con.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Cae to provide the DOI where he has published that?r

          • weneedrubio

            What are you talking about? There are measurements and they say that the AGW alarmists are dead wrong. YOU are the one, along with them, that deny science.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Care to provide the DOIs or is that just BS?

          • James McAllister

            “Global Warming” is such a dire threat that every Socialist politician and scientist is willing to fly private jets all over the world to speak about it! Oh, and don’t mention their globe-trotting vacations. LOL
            Hey, if you belive in ‘Global Warming’, I have a bridge from Brooklyn to Manhattan you can buy real cheap!

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Logical fallacy of puerile vacuity.

          • Doreen Gaydoon

            They are not going to be of course “blown away” as you assert, but they are going to be concerned. 100% of their models have failed through the lower (colder) confidence bound. The mean of those 90 odd models is endangered, and will need to be altered. The climate does indeed change, and the IPCC has not kept up with the change, executing a fatal mistake of preferring funding to truth. History does repeat itself, and the actual “climate refugees” will be politicians who, once again, leaned too far forward and are now simply wrong.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            100% of their models have failed through the lower (colder) confidence bound
            ======================================================

            I guess you don’t have the DOIs for that made up crapola otherwise you would have attached them to give your statement credibility. The rest of your screed is puerile emotive vacuous opinion.

          • LudicrousSextus

            And despite your 18 thousand posts to the contrary, not a single pillar of the climate angst crowd has held up to scrutiny.

          • 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? So are you saying that 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.

          • Jen

            The temperature has been declining for 10 years. Facts are facts.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            What temperature … do you have a link of a DOI? You act like there are no measurements of these things somehow. The fact is we pay people to measure this stuff and it is not like climate scientists are going to be blown away by some or other denialist point at this stage of the game. None of them anywhere in the world report declining temperatures. That’s not surprising as that would be suggesting that nearly 200 years of established physics had failed and would be worthy of a Nobel Prize. Are you ready to submit your work for review or was that just a load of crapola you dreamed up?

          • Jim Sweet

            Climate scientists who worship their models are about as valuable as phrenologists.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Believing in reality is not a religion. Denying reality needs faith to support a belief or opinion when the evidence doesn’t support those positions. Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences.

          • GTyrebiter

            Global warming / climate change is real to the people who depend upon it for their livelihood. As soon as gov’t & private funding dries up for this HOAX these people will all have to find real jobs to support themselves. As always, just follow the money . . .

          • joeysdad

            There is also the investment component. If they can convince enough people that the world is warming and that the western world is responsible, let the reparations begin! Who would not want to be in charge of distributing huge sums of money? Think of the bribes! And every two bit dictator would direct their “scientists” to alter the data to show that they have been harmed and deserve money for their injured citizens. Only, the money would be siphoned off by friends and family before it ever got down to the people. Can you say feeding frenzy?

        • GTyrebiter

          Alleged science . . .

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            No such thing. Care to try English?

          • GTyrebiter

            Insult noted. You now have ZERO credibility. Speaking English to you is a waste of time. I’ll waste no further time with you.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Your disdain and ineptitude for you mother tongue are not virtues. Hint: we are not talking.

        • RLABruce

          It isn’t science when you change raw data, leave out data, and lie about data in order to prove your preconceived conclusions, as the so-called “scientists” have done in the case of global warming.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Science always changes raw data and leaves out spurious data. You’d know that if you’d paid attention from Grade 3 onwards it is the very essence of science to get the best quality data. Changing data with the sole intention to support claims is a myth, at least in scientific discussions. This quote is from the prestigious journal Nature: “Researchers revised the NOAA data set to correct for known biases in sea-surface-temperature records and to incorporate data from new land-based monitoring stations that extend into the Arctic — an area where observations are sparse. The updated NOAA data set also includes observations from 2013 and 2014; the latter ranked as the warmest year on record.” I think we should be happy that scientists do correct previous shortcomings and look again at data. This is how science works. One learns new things, goes back and correct previous mistakes and report the findings. When people publish peer-reviewed articles, at least 3 other scientists in the field read through the manuscript and criticize it before it is published (if accepted). Other scientists also have the chance to debunk the new findings and methods by writing commentaries in journals and tell why they disagree with the publication’s findings. The risk of people going back to change data just to support claims and then getting those published by describing exactly what they have done is almost zero. Yes, people have falsified data and got them published. However, nobody gets articles published by describing how the data was modified with the sole purpose of supporting claims and without any scientific basis. If you have knowledge of any such publication, please do share with us.

          • RLABruce

            Liar. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/
            Scientists do NOT go back and DESTROY their original data! You publish your original data, describe the methodology you used to make the changes you have made and explain WHY those changes were made. East Anglia and NOAA have both changed and destroyed data and have tried to cover up both the changes and the reasons for doing so.
            You are indeed a true Believer in your religion the Climate Change myth, so I won’t bother replying to you further. Far be it from me to destroy a person’s faith with the facts.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Forbes is not a source for climate science. I gave you the authoritative source. Rebutt that if you can as your hypocritical denier whining is silly, desperate, and disreputable.

          • RLABruce

            NOAA isn’t a source for climate science either:
            http://www.naturalnews.com/045695_global_warming_fabricated_data_scientific_fraud.html#

            Since you have ignored my requests for your bona fides for the “climate scientist” that you claim to be, I can only conclude that you have no qualification whatsoever in the field of climatology. You are probably still in high school struggling with pimples and puberty. In any event you are a liar, and there is no point to a discussion with a liar. Dismissed!

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Cupcake how will my qualifications change anything? You are so undereducated and scientifically illiterate that it wouldn’t mean a damn thing to you. It is not going to make you suddenly understand why you’re gullible and easily duped by the link you have provided. Thanks for sharing that you’re neither a scientist nor scientifically literate but purposefully obnoxiously ignorant fundamentalist with a hard on for world destruction. You amorally put your children’s children in harm’s way, so you can have a political position, I can’t think of anything more stupid and amoral.

          • RLABruce

            Wrong! I’m in Mensa, have published several books and hold three patents. I was in pre-med in college and passed M-CAT before deciding I didn’t enjoy the lifestyle of being a doctor, so I know the scientific method very well–and “climatology” is NOT science since it doesn’t follow the scientific method.

            For example, there isn’t even an agreed-upon standard for placement of weather stations, nor for compiling the results. In event of a station failure, or where a station does not exist, the HIGHEST recorded temperature in that region is used to fill in the gaps! Your raw data is faked, Sparky!

            So you don’t have any qualifications for your assertions, which makes you ignorant and uneducated as well as a liar. Thank you for giving us that information!

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Revel in the anonymity of the internet that affords you delusions of grandeur.

          • gofer1

            Projection.

          • gofer1

            Changing the same data over and over and erasing periods of warming and cooling that don’t comply, going back decades. You all are frauds and its criminal.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Vacuous hearsay piffle. I’m sure if you had any evidence you would have produced it. Thanks for sharing your vacuity. Other than making you feel good it is meaningless.

        • Rally Ann

          Ummm, I like the red color kool-aid, how ’bout you?

        • RLABruce

          My respect for science calls me to hold the “global warming” myth in contempt and disdain. Look up “Lysenkoism”. That is what science has become as financed by government.

        • Perhaps not, but your disdain for Almighty God cements your place in eternity where there is no debating how hot it is!

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            A belief that an all-knowing, all-powerful, immortal being created the entire Universe and its billions of galaxies 13,720,000,000 years ago (the age of the Universe) sat back and waited 9,220,000,000 years for the Earth to form, then waited another 4,495,000,000 years for human beings to gradually evolve, then, at some point gave them eternal life and sent its son to Earth to talk about sheep and goats in the Middle East. While here, this divine visitor exhibits no knowledge of ANYTHING outside of the Iron Age Middle East, including the other continents, 99% of the human race, and the aforementioned galaxies. Either that, or it all started 6,000 years ago with one man, one woman and a talking snake. Either way “oh come on” just doesn’t quite capture it. Sorry you were abused as a child and grew up into a deluded adult.

        • Terry Adney

          Leftwithnobrain is just another liberal conveniently confusing what passes for education with intelligence. An educated idiot cannot be debated for he/she has all the answers and none of the understanding.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Puerile vacuity. Sad to read you disdain and have ineptitude for education too. Science is not a debate cupcake … it is only evidence.

          • Terry Adney

            See what I’m saying? What an ignorant douche.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            If you’re determined to show your ignorance, you can relax now. You’ve succeeded.

          • Terry Adney

            Like global warming? Cupcake? Are you like 90?

        • TeeJohn the Junkyard Dog

          Be sure to attack the inividual and not the idea. Wouldn’t want to be politically incorrect would we?

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            It was most appropriate as it made a vacuous and inane statement on a topic about which it is clearly illiterate and ignorant.

        • Jim Sweet

          Not one of the GCM models predict at all accurately. Worshiping them is akin to reading cast bones in the dirt. Sad, you seem to think that’s science.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Here’s 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. Could you even name the model (they’re all identifiable by codes) and a scenario or two? Please proceed and tell us which one has failed and why? I’ll expect the DOI or link to authoritative citations outside the denier/right-wing echo chamber. If you’re stumped I can give you several peer reviewed publications that shows you’re FOS.

          • Jim Sweet

            Why would I even care? You’re the dogmatic one, you fill em up.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Thank you for sharing that you are clueless on the topic. You have just confirmed why you deniers are such losers.

          • Jim Sweet

            Clueless. No. Bored with agit-prop from the clueless, yes.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Confirmation of being ignorant & totally clueless was unnecessary as that was self evident from your previous posts.

          • Jim Sweet

            Why would I even care? You’re the dogmatic one, you fill em up.

      • Lamar Hill

        Garbage in the idiots believe.

      • tomroberts

        The computer models are all wrong. The obscene idiots never correctly calculated the uptake of C02 by plants. You know the type, blabbering women who spend half their days ranting inanities and the other half walking over to other scientists desks demanding that their spreadsheets be repaired, as if they were such obscene idiots that they couldn’t even calculate one simple spreadsheet cell on their own!

      • James McAllister

        How long before Tornado and Hurricane historical data is ‘adjusted’? LOL

        • olee1947

          they will re- defy what a Hurricane is .. “Rain and 20mph wind”

      • SurfDaddyO

        Be careful of what you say. This article discusses Natural Disasters, not warming temperatures. There is no “more bad news for warmists”. In fact it’s just the opposite.

        On page 10 of the report the article is based on, the Aon Benfield 2014 Annual Global Climate and Catastrophe Report, you’ll discover that according to the data 2014 is the 38th straight year of higher temperatures and the warmest on record.

        • Bob Roberts

          You’re full of crap.

          • SurfDaddyO

            On the contrary douchebag – on page 10 the AON report states…

            “2014 was the 38th consecutive year of above average global temperatures. Using official data provided by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), combined land and ocean temperatures for the earth in 2014 averaged 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the long-term mean, making 2014 the warmest year ever recorded since official data on global temperatures began being kept back in 1880. This breaks the previous record of 0.66°C (1.19°F) that was set in 2010. The anomaly data is used in conjunction with NCDC’s 20th century average (1901-2000). The last below-average year for the globe occurred in 1976, when global temperatures registered 0.08°C (0.14°F) under the long-term average.

          • mbee1

            https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-1 per NOAA it was unlikely to be warmest. The report is a lie.

          • mbee1

            Here is the actual NOAA report on the subject. 2014 was unlikely to be the warmest.https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-1

        • Flechette

          I very much question the data advertised.

          From NASA’s website: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

          “In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius”

          So we have risen a whole 0.7 degrees in over a century. Whoop. De. Do.

          • SurfDaddyO

            Regardless of whether you believe the data or not…

            0.7 C degree temperature change in a century is nothing to you and me. As you say, no “Whoop. De. Do.” However it’s MASSIVE if the trend continues over 50,000 years, which in geologic time is relatively short. Just ask the dinosaurs.

            Per the article you reference…

            “When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster.”

            FWIW – I am not a warmest or alarmist. I fully believe we should continue to use the most economic methods to produce energy and food. When alternative methods of producing power become just as efficient as fossil fuels they will be implemented, not by government decree but by successful business practice.

          • scott15

            That 0.7C degree if accurate is like saying, I lost weight last week. when, you lost 0.2 lbs. Yes, techincally it is true, but is it significant? And it is not in scientific terms

          • SurfDaddyO

            Significance is relative…

            I like my ice cream frozen. Ice cream freezes at 31.5° F. At 33.3°, only 1.3° (0.7° C) warmer it will never freeze.

          • scott15

            nice try, apples to oranges man:
            For one, your example of the ice cream is stating a KNOWN Scientific fact, what the left is trying to shove down everyone’s throat is a bunch of lies to push their agenda. How you (not you personally, but anyone) know what is going to happen in the future? We can’t? So, it is not reproducable, if you cannot reproduce it, it is not a Scientific fact.
            Do you HONESTLY think humans have the ability to make the Earth warmer, or colder?

          • SurfDaddyO

            I absolutely believe we can decide what will happen in the future if the decision is based on accurate research and a correct model.

            I don’t believe the ‘Alarmists’ research is 100% accurate nor the models correct. Time magazine covers best show it. Which is it, the next Ice Age or or global flooding…

          • Gerry Persowich

            We are moving closer to the sun all the time just a tiny amount but its enough to affect our weather!Plus our centre of gravity is shifting!Treehuggers never mention this.carbon buying selling trading has proven to be the biggest organized fraud on the planet and doesnt help prevent climate change at all ,what a joke!!

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            We are moving closer to the sun all the time just a tiny amount but its enough to affect our weather!

            =============================================

            That is not what science says. The current position of the Earth’s precision means the Northern Hemisphere experiences its summer in aphelion. Concurrently, Earth’s orbit is very close to it’s lowest phase of eccentricity (almost circular) and roughly in the middle of its obliquity cycle and decreasing. This means our planet is in a natural cooling orbital phase. Yet the planet is warming at unprecedented rates due to human induced CO₂ into the atmosphere.

          • Gerry Persowich

            OK,Check out my comments about container ships
            polluting more than all the cars in the world. I cant afford heating and
            electricity prices now,i live in canada where winter is a major concern so sorry
            we have to heat our houses in winter,big indusrty doesn t give a crap about
            paying more the citizens suffer unless you are rich and can pollute the entire
            world by buying carbon credits? what a scam!S Taking more of our money for
            carbon tax is a well known scam which does not change anything’The UN wants us
            in the NWO by using the great carbon tax to keep us in control and make
            i

          • Gerry Persowich

            make it countries sucked into it.big bankers bilderberg groups rule the world,we are insects to them

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Do you always segue off-topic when you were thoroughly schooled? Could you attempt to answer the simple question posed?

          • Gerry Persowich

            What question is that mook oh great purveyor of segues?? How you talk out of your ass and mouth at the same time,… cupcake?

          • mbee1

            http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/BackTo68.html is the warming cycle not a cooling cycle.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Crapola. We know exactly where we are in the cycle. Maybe if you got a science education and went to science sites you wouldn’t be so easily duped.

          • mbee1

            So your response to a model you do not like is to deny the whole idea. You are welcome to google the theory and the various papers on its past and present effects, they all say the same thing, solar gain changes are the driver of climate change absent a big rock or giant volcanic eruptions.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            It is not a model I don’t like, it was BS. You know we actually know where we are in the various natural cycles, this is not a mystery. We are currently in a 40 year solar minimum, aphelion, and a natural declining cooling cycle … yet the planet persistently warms … why?

          • mbee1

            that is very simple, Hansen and his disciples are busy warming the planet on paper by getting rid of all the lower temperatures and plugging with higher temperatures, Barrow Alaska ,for example , up 1.5 degrees from actual. All that is done without a shred of evidence the measured temperature is wrong as measured. Somehow God must be on Hansen’s side as all the plugs are higher than actual so the incorrect measurements are all low.

            We both know that in any system, such a claim is bias, pure bias and distorts the data even if a parade of PHd’s claims all is well in Oz. http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2015/04/two-new-reviews-of-homogenization-methods.html Alll that back to 1750 is pure hogwash, pure propaganda, even Hansen says that any measurement prior to 1951 is unreliable. . The number of measurements back than was to limited to make any claim about global temperatures. As to proxies, the plankton shell proxies are indicative that the world was colder in the little ice age and warmer towards the present, They do not tell us why. When you compare the surface against the satellite the difference keeps getting bigger http://euanmearns.com/the-diverging-surface-thermometer-and-satellite-temperature-records-again/ If you look the antarctic sea ice, record high, arctic sea ice same as 40 years ago, Greenlands ice is going back up, hardly any sea rise, snow and ice cover last year, no warming per the IPCC in for about two decades http://canadianawareness.org/2013/02/ipcc-head-rajendra-pachauri-acknowledges-17-year-stall-in-global-warming/ the world may be colder from a natural cooling cycle regardless of the warming effect from earths tilt and orbit changes which you ignor.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Is there a reason that you don’t link to actual science sites? None of you links or your current diatribe support your evidence free statements. Why segue off topic into more denier nonsense? FYI: all your links to spurious non-science show warming even though the Earth is in a natural cooling phase … why?

          • mbee1

            You are pretty dense, the antarctic data is from NoAA as is the arctic data found in the 2nd IPCC report which you are free to google if you do not like the shortcut, the 2014 global temperature paper and Greenland are from NOAA as noted. The Hansen comment comes from his paper on the 2010 revision of Giss http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/paper/gistemp2010_draft0803.pdf. Apparently you are so fixed on cooling you simply ignore http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/link-suggestion/wpcd_2008-09_augmented/wp/m/Milankovitch_cycles.htm which puts you in good company with Hansen and his disciples.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Cupcake you are lost. Your link to Milankovich cycles confirms the Earth is in a cooling phase. What does Antarctica sea ice being at records mean to you? To those of us who study and research this it shows global warming … do you need me to walk you through the physics?

          • mbee1

            Back to insults again, you really are a loser. You know very well the current state of the cycle is warming for the next 25000 years and the only reason we have some cooling is a drop off in solar gain is offsetting the cycle. Never the less we are slightly warmer than the depths of the little ice age.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Read what you link to: “Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.” However, we are at warming globally at unprecedented rates for the last 15 million years due to anthropogenic warming despite solar isolation declines and the long term cooling cycle. We are at the highest global temperatures for the whole of modern human evolution when we split from our common ape ancestor.

          • Flechette

            Well you cannot blame humanity for global warming over 50,000 years. The Industrial Age is barely 200 years old.

            In any case, I am glad that you are not a global warming alarmist. While people have the right to believe what they want it really bothers me that there are so many people that believe in “global warming” and then fully enjoy the fruits of modern industry.

            I have met people who vehemently believe “global warming”, criticize hunters, espouse veganism, attack “big business” while owning a $50k BMW with leather seats.

            Complete hypocrites.

          • Gerry Persowich

            WOW NO MORE BOATS!15 of the world’s biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world’s 760m cars

            April 23, 2009 The Guardian
            has reported on new research showing that in one year, a single large
            container ship can emit cancer and asthma-causing pollutants equivalent
            to that of 50 million cars. The low grade bunker fuel used by the worlds
            90,000 cargo ships contains up to 2,000 times the amount of sulfur
            compared to diesel fuel used in automobiles. The recent boom in the
            global trade of manufactured goods has also resulted in a new breed of
            super sized container ship which consume fuel not by the gallons, but by
            tons per hour, and shipping now accounts for 90% of global trade by
            volume.

            The title of world’s largest container ship is actually held by eight identical ships owned by Danish shipping line Mærsk.
            All eight ships are 1300ft (397.7m) long and can carry 15,200 shipping
            containers around the globe at a steady 25.5 knots (47.2 km/h, 29.3 mph)
            . The only thing limiting the size of these ships is the Suezmax
            standard, which is the term used to define the the largest ships capable
            of transiting the Suez Canal fully loaded. These ships far surpass the
            Panamax standard (ships that can fit through the Panama Canal), which is
            limited to ships capable of carrying 5,000 shipping containers.

            Not only are shipbuilders resetting the world record
            for size on a regular basis but so are the diesel engines that propel
            them. One of the eight longest container ships in the world, the 1,300
            ft Emma Mærsk
            also has the world’s largest reciprocating engine. At five storeys tall
            and weighing 2300 tonnes, this 14 cylinder turbocharged two-stroke
            monster puts out 84.4 MW (114,800 hp) – up to 90MW when the motor’s
            waste heat recovery system is taken into account. These mammoth engines
            consume approx 16 tons of fuel per hour or 380 tons per day while at
            sea.

            Unregulated emissions

            In international waters ship emissions remains one of
            the least regulated parts of our global transportation system. The fuel
            used in ships is waste oil, basically what is left over after the crude
            oil refining process. It is the same as asphalt and is so thick that
            when cold it can be walked upon . It’s the cheapest and most polluting
            fuel available and the world’s 90,000 ships chew through an astonishing
            7.29 million barrels of it each day, or more than 84% of all exported
            oil production from Saudi Arabia, the worlds largest oil exporter.

            Shipping is by far the biggest transport polluter in
            the world. There are 760 million cars in the world today emitting approx
            78,599 tons of Sulphur Oxides (SOx) annually. The world’s 90,000
            vessels burn approx 370 million tons of fuel per year emitting 20
            million tons of Sulphur Oxides. That equates to 260 times more Sulphur
            Oxides being emitted by ships than the worlds entire car fleet. One
            large ship alone can generate approx 5,200 tonnes of sulphur oxide
            pollution in a year, meaning that 15 of the largest ships now emit as
            much SOx as the worlds 760 million cars.

          • BunE22

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/21/2014-among-the-3-percent-coldest-years-in-10000-years/

            “If” the trend continues over 50,000 years isn’t science though.

          • mbee1
          • SurfDaddyO

            I don’t see how your reply is pertinent to any of my posts. I didn’t say I agree or disagree with the Aon report, which this article in Climate Depot is based on.

            My points…

            – One shouldn’t make an argument against global warming using an article on natural disasters. Global warming was not discussed in the article.

            – Take the time to research reports/science used by opinion pieces before accepting the opinion. The Aon Report, research used by the article to support the downward trend in natural disasters, states that the earth has been warming for 30+ years and 2014 was the warmest on record — not a good endorsement for those that question warming.

            One more thing. The Aon Report is used by insurance companies to set rates/premiums. Insurance companies are in the business to make money, not argue for or against warming/climate change. I think they would trust Aon before Al Gore.

          • mbee1

            Why are you going on about the Aon report. The graft I was pointing to came from NOAA. As far as the insurance companies are concerned the last Yahoo article on the interinsurance market had the weather related claims down not up. Your 30 plus years of warming must have been on some other planet as even the IPCC does not say that in the fifth report which I suggest you read. I found the report section on Himalayan glaciers interesting, most were stable which is not a warming world. Per this news article it was not warming for at least 17 plus years, http://canadianawareness.org/2013/02/ipcc-head-rajendra-pachauri-acknowledges-17-year-stall-in-global-warming/. Nobody is claiming the global climate is not changing, it simply has not changed for around 19 years just like it did not from 1940-1985. As to the 2014 claim the Aon report or you are blowing smoke as the NOAA study on it says that is unlikely https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-1 it is even less likely if one considers the temperature data is not independent and all the math depends on independence of the data. It is not independent since Giss has been rather extensively changed in the homogenization project from the actual measured temperatures. As to the claim the Northern latitudes are under measured than so is the middle of the pacific ocean, the Atlantic ocean and whole lot of other places. You claim to know science yet totally disregard what happens to data when you begin to change it without a shred of evidence it was wrong. That invalidates any statistical finding from that data.

          • SurfDaddyO

            You mistake me as someone who believes the Aon report. I have no opinion on it nor do I have opinions or care about the analysis you’re purporting. Just saying…

            To those that trumpet this article on Natural Disasters as support against warming — the research behind the article (The Aon Report) states 2014 as warmest ever of the 30+ successive years of warming.

          • mbee1

            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/extent/sea-ice/N/11 you might look at this and consider a trend is evident, it is not the trend line by NOAA. you can see a rise from 1980 for a few years than a down trend to 2010 and an upward trend from 2011, that is a cycle, If you look at the data NOAA leaves out that was in the 2nd IPCC report of sea ice prior to 1980 you have a cycle trend in the data since 1972, not a downward trend which NOAA pretends is happening by preferential use of the data.

          • mbee1
        • Gerry Persowich

          Walmart! Dont buy!15 of the world’s biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world’s 760m cars

          April 23, 2009 The Guardian
          has reported on new research showing that in one year, a single large
          container ship can emit cancer and asthma-causing pollutants equivalent
          to that of 50 million cars. The low grade bunker fuel used by the worlds
          90,000 cargo ships contains up to 2,000 times the amount of sulfur
          compared to diesel fuel used in automobiles. The recent boom in the
          global trade of manufactured goods has also resulted in a new breed of
          super sized container ship which consume fuel not by the gallons, but by
          tons per hour, and shipping now accounts for 90% of global trade by
          volume.

          The title of world’s largest container ship is actually held by eight identical ships owned by Danish shipping line Mærsk.
          All eight ships are 1300ft (397.7m) long and can carry 15,200 shipping
          containers around the globe at a steady 25.5 knots (47.2 km/h, 29.3 mph)
          . The only thing limiting the size of these ships is the Suezmax
          standard, which is the term used to define the the largest ships capable
          of transiting the Suez Canal fully loaded. These ships far surpass the
          Panamax standard (ships that can fit through the Panama Canal), which is
          limited to ships capable of carrying 5,000 shipping containers.

          Not only are shipbuilders resetting the world record
          for size on a regular basis but so are the diesel engines that propel
          them. One of the eight longest container ships in the world, the 1,300
          ft Emma Mærsk
          also has the world’s largest reciprocating engine. At five storeys tall
          and weighing 2300 tonnes, this 14 cylinder turbocharged two-stroke
          monster puts out 84.4 MW (114,800 hp) – up to 90MW when the motor’s
          waste heat recovery system is taken into account. These mammoth engines
          consume approx 16 tons of fuel per hour or 380 tons per day while at
          sea.

          Unregulated emissions

          In international waters ship emissions remains one of
          the least regulated parts of our global transportation system. The fuel
          used in ships is waste oil, basically what is left over after the crude
          oil refining process. It is the same as asphalt and is so thick that
          when cold it can be walked upon . It’s the cheapest and most polluting
          fuel available and the world’s 90,000 ships chew through an astonishing
          7.29 million barrels of it each day, or more than 84% of all exported
          oil production from Saudi Arabia, the worlds largest oil exporter.

          Shipping is by far the biggest transport polluter in
          the world. There are 760 million cars in the world today emitting approx
          78,599 tons of Sulphur Oxides (SOx) annually. The world’s 90,000
          vessels burn approx 370 million tons of fuel per year emitting 20
          million tons of Sulphur Oxides. That equates to 260 times more Sulphur
          Oxides being emitted by ships than the worlds entire car fleet. One
          large ship alone can generate approx 5,200 tonnes of sulphur oxide
          pollution in a year, meaning that 15 of the largest ships now emit as
          much SOx as the worlds 760 million cars.

    • Amy Baron

      my collaborator’s stride mother makes $97/hr on the web…….…..Last weekend I Bought A Brand new McLaren F1 after earning 18,512$,this was my last month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k last-month .No-doubt about it, this really is the most comfortable work I have ever had . I began this 8-months ago and pretty much immediately was bringing home at least $97, p/h…..Learn More right Here.
      ls.
      ➤➤
      ➤➤➤➤ http://www.googlefeedbuzzmoneyvnuanec169.blogspot.com/ ❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦

    • Keith Cooper

      Funny! The article is based on changing trends of weather we haven’t experienced “since the 1950’s” and yet, here you are denying that “changes” have occurred. guess we better not speak of global temps..better stick to trends that support our Politics..you huckleberry hounds tickle me to no end…keep em coming, you’re a bucket o laughs!

    • nvrtalk

      Follow the buried links, read the report “Combined land and ocean temperatures for the earth in 2014 averaged
      0.68°C (1.22°F) above the long-term mean, making 2014 the warmest year ever recorded since official data on
      global temperatures began being kept back in 1880.”

    • lloydc1234

      It’s warming. Get real.

  • Rachel Pancake Corrie

    Obamas work is done …he has koshered the biggest terror state in the world , iran ….there is nothing more for him to do now that he has assisted in destroying judaism

    • hatori10

      hey Left.. how much they payin ya to do this?

  • Nick

    Hurricanes down in the Atlantic. But, in the Pacific….not so much. At one point, there were three cat 4 storms churning simultaneously (never happened before).
    The lower than average global disasters are due to no major earthquakes this year (at least, the large earthquakes were under the sea floor). Earthquakes claim tens to hundreds of thousands when they hit in urban areas. And earthquakes normally don’t have much to do with climate or weather.
    We have a slow moving disaster occurring in the west (drought and fires), and floods in SC that are unmatched for that state in known history. Both of these exceed hundred-year status by quite a margin.
    Other slow moving disasters are unrelentingly rising sea levels, unabated land ice melts on a massive scale, unprecedented warming of the oceans (along with acidification of same).
    The news isn’t good, despite the glee among the denialists that this article precipitates.

    • Clif

      But your hero Al Gore told us all we’d be flooded out of our homes by now, with bigger more powerful storms. See the problem is, when you make exact predictions and they don’t come true, then everyone thinks your completely full of crap. Al Gore single handedly set back the world’s belief in man made global warming by at least twenty years. Thanks Al Gore, for preventing hysterical leftists from taking away the few freedoms we still have.

      • Nick

        Al Gore my hero? What you been smokin’?

      • Leftwithrightbrain

        Your fascination with Al Gore (and made-up nonsense claims about being flooded out of our homes by now) 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.

    • cirby

      “At one point, there were three cat 4 storms churning simultaneously (never happened before). ”

      …in the forty years or so of satellite coverage. We think.

      And followed, just a few weeks later, by absolutely zero tropical storms in the Pacific, which got no coverage whatsoever. Not to mention almost a month of zero storms in mid-June to mid-July, not even a tropical depression.

      • Leftwithrightbrain

        in the forty years or so of satellite coverage. We think.
        ==============================

        You seem to forget that maritime merchant shipping has recorded storms for about 400 years.

        • cirby

          Not really.

          Merchant shipping, up until about 1850 or so, only “recorded” category 4 and 5 storms by being lost at sea. For the ships that survived, the Beaufort wind scale (almost nobody had anemometers on ships) only measured up to about 72 MPH.

          …and that’s only the Atlantic. There wasn’t that much merchant shipping across the Pacific until at least the late 1800s, when modern steam power made it possible to reliably sail across the Pacific Ocean. Even then, cross-Pacific trips were rare. Note, for example, the Perry Expedition to Japan in 1852-53, which took the eastern route instead.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Maritime history logs are available … go read them instead of making up puerile vacuity.

          • cirby

            As I just pointed out – and as you obviously didn’t understand – “maritime history logs” only covered a small portion of the ocean at any particular time, and tended to go down with the ship whenever a pre-steam ship encountered anything like a hurricane. At best, the surviving accounts would read something like “saw a bunch of scary clouds on the horizon, turned around and sailed the other direction.” The old Beaufort scale of wind velocity stopped at about 72 MPH, because it was based on “tore all of the sails off the ship, we’re screwed.” In other words, a minimal Cat 1 was the highest they could even quantify.

            The only time they have records of anything past a Category 1 storm would be when it made landfall near an area occupied by someone who kept a record (that survived the storm), and those are mostly of the “knocked down all of the buildings, hope we survive this” type.

            People who ACTUALLY studied those “maritime history logs” note that major storms are underreported to a large degree, even AFTER the age of steam allowed most ships to have a moderate chance of surviving a hurricane. For an example of what happens to an unpowered ship in a Cat 4, note that we haven’t even FOUND the modern steel ship that lost power and sank a couple of weeks back – just debris.

      • Nick

        there’s been plenty of activity in the Pacific all season – including a cat 5 storm near Taiwan

        • cirby

          …and yet, with “plenty” of activity in the Pacific, the Atlantic has been a pretty weak season. Overall, the Pacific has been really busy (it might rank second in overall power in the last five decades), but worldwide, it hasn’t been that bad.

          • Nick

            The Pacific takes up half of the oceanic area on this planet, as well as constituting one third of the earth’s surface. The very active cyclonic activity throughout the Pacific is very significant. Quite consistent with the notion of a warming ocean and planet.

          • cirby

            …except, of course, that the overall hurricane trend is flat to declining, which is the opposite of the “notion” of a warming ocean and planet.

            As you mention, the Pacific is LARGE, which means that having four big hurricanes at once is just a matter of chance, not any sort of indication of a trend. Since we’re having a lot of hurricanes in the Pacific this year, combined with a dramatic LACK of them in the Atlantic, it’s obviously not a global phenomenon, just the law of large numbers.

          • Nick

            there is no decline in hurricane energy; there may be fewer hurricanes, but they tend to be stronger; again, this year’s Pacific hurricane activity supports that; the key is energy, as hurricanes are a way to release energy from the oceans to the atmosphere; and please remember that it has never been known to history that four large hurricanes occurred simultaneously in the Pacific – until this year

          • cirby

            There’s no huge decline in hurricane energy (like I said, flat to declining), but, according to the theory of AGW, there was supposed to be a huge GAIN. Which hasn’t happened. Which invalidates their predictions from the 1990s – there were supposed to be more AND stronger hurricanes.

            …and, once again, “in history” effectively only goes back to the late 1970s, which was the whole point of this part of the thread.

          • Nick

            I don’t think you have the facts straight. Cyclone numbers are not increasing, but energy per is.

          • cirby

            Part of the physics of cyclonic storms makes that happen – fewer storms means the sea surface is churned up less, so when a storm crosses that ocean, it has more energy to feed on.

            Fewer storms generally means higher average storm energy, but overall, there is no real trend of increase in total storm energy.

            …which, once again, is the opposite of what the AGW doomsayers were predicting.

          • Nick

            show me

          • cirby

            If you knew what you were talking about, I wouldn’t have to.

            But look up the phrase “accumulated cyclone energy.” You can find a lot of information about it, but the big takeaway is that there just isn’t a trend, overall – especially if you look back on the long term (as far as the 1890s).

            Some people have tried statistical gymnastics to try and find an upwards trend, but it’s just not there – again, in opposition to the AGW predictions starting in the 1990s.

          • Nick

            I’m trying to find out if YOU know what you’re talking about. Based on your snide comment, I’m doubting seriously. I’ve never read anything that indicates that cyclonic storms are becoming less intense (or even less frequent globally). Perhaps you can enlighten me with actual sources, and not just your own notions.

          • cirby

            You either didn’t bother with looking up “accumulated cyclone energy,” or you read it and are in denial.

            That’s it, you’re done.

          • Nick

            Beyond this, I’ll refrain from further comments until you have something to show.

          • cirby

            If you knew what you were talking about, I wouldn’t have to.

            But look up the phrase “accumulated cyclone energy.” You can find a lot of information about it, but the big takeaway is that there just isn’t a trend, overall – especially if you look back on the long term (as far as the 1890s).

            Some people have tried statistical gymnastics to try and find an upwards trend, but it’s just not there – again, in opposition to the AGW predictions starting in the 1990s.

  • Rachel Pancake Corrie

    Ferret can said at the million complainers march that natural disasters are way up

  • Richard Right

    The information is of little value if mass media doesn’t spread the info.

  • 20670

    But, but. What? That wasn’t supposed to happen.

  • JJ

    Call it the calm before the storm I guess.

  • sktuc

    Definetly Climate Change is responsible because its responsible for everything.

  • joeysdad

    The world should be paying us money for calming the climate with our CO2 emissions. The AGW news must be bad since the climate “scientists” have pulled out all the stops and falsified … er I mean adjusted … the temperature record. If nothing happens during the Obama administration, the data will become so outlandish that they will not be able to explain the discrepancy between the reported temperatures and the satellite data.

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      Picked up a physics textbook yet? You can get a good used one inexpensively on Amazon.

      • joeysdad

        Yes! I read one almost every day. And it says CO2 is not a significant factor in our climate.

        • Leftwithrightbrain

          A lie makes you look weak, desperate, and disreputable. Now if it weren’t a lie you’d be proud to say, I read on p xyz published by …., authors …. published in 20?? that ….

          It’ll definitely have the Earth’s radiative energy balance in there. Why don’t you regurgitate what it says?

  • Hawkdriver1961

    Caused by global warming…

  • Eagle0542

    But, but, but Algore and The Bamster said………oh, were they lying……..again?

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tom-blumer/2015/10/07/press-ignoring-news-global-warming-true-believers-will-find

  • TempustFugit

    The definitive proof there is no global warming or climate change that will affect man and the earth is proven. Genesis 8:22KJV While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. Once Jesus come back, man will live on the earth for another 1,000 years. All this climate models would show we are cooked and long gone.

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      How come your bronze-age book of illiterate goat herder fables and superstitions got the creation of the Earth dramatically wrong? Your mythical jesus was not smart enough to know that bacteria existed or the Australia existed yet his paw was supposedly the creator of everything. Bible school is not a good place to learn about science.

      • TempustFugit

        Roman 1:22 KJV 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Not my words, but God’s words.

        • Leftwithrightbrain

          Thor and Ganesh told me to tell you that you’re a dumb ignorant SOB who is FOS.

  • Samurai

    CAGW alarmists like Obama keep saying global severe weather incidence and severity trends are increasing “at unprecedented rates”, and yet the empirical evidence shows the complete opposite to be true.

    There also hasn’t been a global warming trend for almost 19 years, despite 30% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being made over just the last 19 years, however, Obama says global temps are increasing at “unprecedented rates”….

    If the CAGW hypothesis is such a slam dunk with supposedly “97%” of all scientists believing it to be true, then what’s with all the lies?

    The Pacific entered its 30-yr cool cycle in 2008 and the Atlantic will enter its 30-yr cool cycle around 2020, which will cause global temps to fall for at least another 20 years.

    Moreover, the sun may enter a Grand Solar Minimum from 2030, which may lead to falling global temps for another 80 years…

    That’s why it’s so important for leftists to tell CAGW lies prior to the Paris CAGW summit to get as many CO2 policies implemented before the hypothesis becomes even more untenable..

    Under the rules of the Scientific Method, CAGW has already been disconfirmed.

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      How sweet? Your raison d’être does not include science or being scientifically literate but rather to cast a shadow and breathe air.

      • TempustFugit

        Roman 1:22 KJV 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

        • Leftwithrightbrain

          Bible school is not a good place to learn about science.

          • TempustFugit

            That depends on your perspective. It explains a lot that science can’t. Science has proven many of the world events in the Bible. It tells me For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. It tells me where I am headed when I die. It tells me who created the universe the earth and everything on it. There are hundreds of prophecies contained in the old testament written thousands of years before they came true. What are the odds? Staggering beyond coincidence! You like science, here’s a place to see mind blowing accuracy/correlation for a bunch of goat herder fables. Don’t let your intellect blind you to the truth. Prove the book wrong.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Complete crapola. Science has shown the bible is fiction. I notice how you avoid providing any substantiation for your rhetoric.

            Prove the book wrong.
            ==========================

            Gen 2 Man is made before the Earth. Gen 1 gets all of creation wrong for example flowering plants appear first on the fourth day. Stars stop, animals speak Hebrew, people float, matter transmutes, people walk through doors or teleport, insects have four legs, gets the value of Pi wrong, there’s a solid roof over the world, the moon is a light, stars are smaller than the Earth, the Earth formed before the sun, the sun revolves around the Earth and so on. There are no scientific facts from the bronze-age that are relevant to day. It’s obvious that we do not need god to explain things; religion becomes obsolete as an explanation when it becomes optional or one among many different beliefs.

          • TempustFugit

            Yep dismiss all the prophecy cause you can’t prove that away. It is clear your puerile vacuity is on display once again. It has blinded you to reality. If you think that God is bound by the laws of science that we created you are sadly mistaken. To create what has been created transcend the laws of our feeble science as man knows it. Clearly you haven’t spent anytime reading the best selling book because your statements about Genesis above are wrong. One day you will admit that God exists and Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Sadly, that day is quickly approaching. Unfortunately, for you and anyone else who doesn’t believe what Jesus did on the cross for all of us and have a relationship with God, you are doomed to an eternity in the lake of fire.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            your statements about Genesis above are wrong

            ======================================

            Cupcake you clearly haven’t read the bronze age work of fiction … if you had you’d have shown where my statements were wrong … yet you don’t … why? I gave you two classics to defend … one each from Gen 1 and 2. Please proceed …

            Next care to provide any prophecy that came to pass … facts only not your comic book rendition.

          • TempustFugit

            1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Was it by design that you wanted to embarrass yourself. How was the sun, moon and stars created after heaven and earth on the fourth day? 1:11 is wrong because the first plants to appear on the Earth were not the flowering plants, which includes all true grasses and all plants that bear fruit which contains seeds. On the contrary, the first angiosperms appear in the fossil record much later on, only 140 million years ago, during the time of the dinosaurs. For hundreds of millions of years before that, the Earth was dominated by other kinds of plants not mentioned in the Genesis account: mosses, ferns, and a different kind of plants, the gymnosperms, which do not bear seed-containing fruit and are represented today mainly by conifers and cycads.

          • TempustFugit

            Your mind is to narrow and closed to understand. But you will understand one day. I promise…..don’t worry.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            So with your broad mind are you sticking with the stars, moon, and sun being created after the earth and heaven on the fourth day and the crapola about flowering plants … I’m highly educated and knowledgeable about these matters so if I have a narrow mind please tell me how complete vacuity will become truth … one day?

      • Samurai

        My conclusions on the efficacy of CAGW are entirely based on the empirical evidence, which conclusively shows CAGW is a disconfirmed hypothesis.

        I studied bio-chem at university, so I’m very familiar with how the Scientific Method works. Unfortunately, CAGW grant-grubbing alarmists are more concerned with keeping their research grants and jobs than they are about disseminating the truth.

        Regardless, CAGW hypothetical projections vs. reality already exceed 2 standard deviations and in 5 years, it’ll be 3+ SDs.

        CAGW is dead. Get used to it.

        • Leftwithrightbrain

          CAGW does not appear in climate science. Your whole screed is puerile vacuous piffle.

          • Samurai

            Most skeptics understand that doubling CO2 to 560ppm will increase global temps by 0.4~1.0C by 2100, plus or MINUS whatever the sun decides to do over the next 85 years. Such a tiny amount of warming is actually a net benefit. Moreover, doubling CO2 will increase crop yields and forest growth by 50% from the CO2 fertilization effect..

            CAGW alarmists believe doubling CO2 will cause catastrophic 3.0~5C of global warming by 2100, regardless of solar flux, and that catastrophic flooding, catastrophic ocean acidification, catastrophic Antarctic melting, catastrophic increase in severe weather intensity and incidence will occur– hence the distinction of CAGW from AGW…

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Again you derive your gibberish from non-scientific sources. You don’t know the meaning of the word skeptic in science. All scientists are skeptics by nature as science is a consensus based on the best explanation for natural phenomena. I won’t even attempt to point out why your junk science is vacuity as it is abundantly clear from your writing that you’re scientifically illiterate and obnoxiously ignorant when it comes to climate science. Take a middle school course in science and start to educate yourself in the basic principles before wandering into a domain that is as foreign to you as a manuscript in sanskrit.

          • Samurai

            No, Lefty, science is NOT based on “consensus”, it’s ONLY based on whether hypothetical projections match reality In accordance to the Scientific Method.

            Consensus is a completely meaningless concept in science…

            CAGW’s hypothetical projections have failed completely to match reality, therefore, it doesn’t matter if there is a “consensus” on the efficacy of CAGW, it has already been disconfirmed by the empirical evidence.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Cupcake science is by consensus. Take a class and find out why. We have consensus that gravity exists but we don’t know what it is and have two main competing theories and several minor ones. However, there is only one AGW theory because we understand it better than gravity and there are no competing theories as the physics is really very simple and basic and have been known for more than 150 years.

          • Samurai

            Lefty, I studied 3 years of bio-chem at university, so I’m very familiar with how the Scientific Method works, and “consensus” has absolutely, positively NOTHING to do with confirming or disconfirming a hypothesis…

            A hypothesis is confirmed when it’s hypothetical projections match reality in a statistically significant manner for a statistically significant duration….

            CAGW has failed miserably in this regard… CAGW has become a hilarious joke.

            In just 5~7 years, it’ll be laughed and eye-rolled into obscurity….

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Cupcake you haven’t spent one day in a science class. Here’s the challenge … give the DOI or link to peer reviewed science where the term CAGW is used. Please proceed ….

            AGW theory has been confirmed by empirical observation. Now if you know the theory … tell me what hasn’t been observed or vice versa.

          • Samurai

            CAGW hasn’t even come CLOSE to meeting the criteria to be a confirmed hypothesis! LOL!

            As I’ve mentioned many times, CAGW’s hypothetical projects are already off by 2 standard deviations from reality and they’ll be off by 3+ SDs in about 5~7 years, which is the point when this silly CAGW hypothesis is tossed in the wood chipper….

            Poor Lefty…. What are you going to do next when the CAGW hypothesis crashes and burns……. I hear the CAGW grant-grubbers may try to resistitate the CAGC (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global COOOOOOLING) hypothesis again….

            That should be fun for you…

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            I’ll take that as you’re clueless as to what AGW theory is or how it has been observed as you have segued off topic yet again to obfuscate answering simple physics.

  • Lamar Hill

    It must be global warming.

  • Mark Huch

    Dang, I was hoping the world was over, Harry, Nancy, Hillary, Obummer would inflict mortal damage and life could go on. This new news is disturbing to that idea. Next….

  • Thanks to God for protecting us now, but soon will come the Time of Trouble not seen since there was a nation.

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      Thor and Ganesh say that you’re FOS and a superstitious git who was unfortunately probably abused as a child.

      • Your attempt at humor to show disrespect for your Maker is sad.

        • Leftwithrightbrain

          Sorry cupcake your imaginary friend is a figment of your imagination and years of indoctrination and brainwashing. It is just as likely that unicorns, vampires, and dragons exist, as it is that your god exists (there is equal evidence of these things being real, as in none). You chose to believe in one of these mythological things but not the others. How did that decision process go?

          Now science tells us who our makers were and why they died so we could be created. Reality is way more interesting and exciting than garbage.

  • McBob79

    Good news!

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      About as good as those millions that Nigerian Banker is sending you.

  • Brian washere

    NO! NO! Climate change is REAL! (Arms flailing)

  • Amy Baron

    my collaborator’s stride mother makes $97/hr on the web…….…..Last weekend I Bought A Brand new McLaren F1 after earning 18,512$,this was my last month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k last-month .No-doubt about it, this really is the most comfortable work I have ever had . I began this 8-months ago and pretty much immediately was bringing home at least $97, p/h…..Learn More right Here.
    ls..
    ➤➤
    ➤➤➤➤ http://www.googlefeedbuzzmoneyvnuanec169.blogspot.com/ ❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦

  • ahab the arab

    ALGORE needs to make a sequel to his first movie, since NOT ONE THING in that movie has come to pass, nor will it.

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      Either you didn’t see the first movie or you’re ignorant or both.

  • squawneye

    Oh NO! The Earth needs those violent storms and assorted natural disasters but because of climate change the Earth isn’t getting them. This will most likely result in massive depopulation around the globe or maybe massive population increases around the globe or possibly not that much population change. Either way none of this is good news and we need to make large pneumatic cannons to fire stacks of American money at the atmosphere to restore balance. Oh yeah and we should all insist that Obama be given a third term or at least vote for Biden. I think that about sums it all up.

  • John John

    Its all because of GLOBAL WARMING!!!!

    lol.

  • Reader11722

    Fake global warming, yet another violation of our rights. The gov’t constantly violates our rights.

    They violate the 1st Amendment by banning books like “America Deceived III”.

    They violate the 2nd Amendment by banning guns.

    Both parties are lawless.

    Last link of “America Deceived III” before it is completely banned:
    FREE on Kindle – One Day only (10/11/2015):
    http://www.amazon.com/America-Deceived-III-E-Blayre-ebook/dp/B016BV09MK/

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      The US government doesn’t ban books. Care to cite where this has happened in the past decade?

  • Jedd McHead

    What they call a “polar vortex” these days we used to call a “cold snap”, when I was a kid. Anyone who would have suggested legislation or oppressive regulation to deal with a cold snap back then would have been laughed down. The only climate that has changed significantly over the last 50 years is the political one.

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      Polar vortex has been around for at least 100 years. How old are you again?

      The only climate that has changed significantly over the last 50 years is the political one.
      =======================================================================

      Political, perhaps. Physical, definitely. It takes a lot of work to be that ignorant and illiterate but many are so successful in the US despite it having one of the best free education systems in the world.

    • infadelicious

      spot on comment Jedd!!!!!!! it used to be called weather, but scumbags like al gore and most politicians see that there is much green to be made by forcing us to fo ‘green’

  • skynut

    Hmm, would like to see as list of all events used for the study that are considered “natural disasters’. Am guessing there many which would have no relationship to climate change, such as earthquakes/tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, etc. Noticed those aren’t even mentioned in the article – wonder why not?

    It’s ironic that one of the chief complaints of deniers is that climatologists haven’t sufficient long term data sets to inform their models, and then they consistently turn around and use super short term statistics to try and discredit climate models.

  • rick charles

    If such wonderful weather is due to global warming, I’m all for it!!!

  • Bryan Wiley

    Fewer vs less – I don’t know why that bugs me so much.

  • JeromefromLayton

    2015 is shaping up to be another no land-fall year for major hurricanes. Hurricane Juaquin contributed to SC flooding but, so far, that’s the worst. Meanwhile, the Al Gore prediction made back in January of 2006 runs out in 108 days (NYC flooded out, ice-free Arctic Ocean, etc.) is looking like a total bust.

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      Al Gore made no such predictions as you suggest. Al Gore is not a climate scientist. 2015 has been a major year for hurricanes … the world doesn’t only consist of the Atlantic ocean .. a bit of reading would show you how far wrong that statement was. First time ever three hurricanes of Cat4 and above occurred simultaneously in the Pacific ocean a month or two back. Also one of the most powerful hurricanes ever recorded made landfall in 2015.

      • Mike Wilsin

        Fuc…. clown

        EDITORIAL: Al Gore, soothsayer – Washington Times

        http://www.washingtontimes.com/…/editorial-al-gore-so...

        Cached

        Similar

        The Washington Times

        Loading…Dec 16, 2013 – Five years ago, Al Gore predicted the North Pole’s ice cap would become … Ice caps are still there, and hurricanes haven’t blown us away … Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore speaks at McGill University in Montreal … more > …

        An Inconvenient Truth: Cyclones, Hurricanes, Wildfires Aren …

        http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/an-inconvenient-truth-cyclones-hurrica...

        CachedApr 21, 2015 – Gore making false predictions circa 2006President Obama issued a stark … Al Gore famously said in 2014 that “extreme weather events related to climate that … Indeed, 2014 did see wildfires burn more acres than normal in …

        Al Gore, laughingstock: A look back at his hurricane …

        http://www.ihatethemedia.com/al-gore-laughingstock-a-look-back-at-his-hurri...

        Cached

        SimilarJul 5, 2011 – Al Gore, laughingstock: A look back at his hurricane predictions … He foresaw nothing but death and destruction and a little more jingly in his …

        • Leftwithrightbrain

          Cupcake there’s a video online of Al Gore giving his presentation. Give me a timestamp where he says anything you allege about Arctic ice and I’ll send you a $1000 to your PayPal account for each one.

          • IceStation Bratwurst

            Paid troll, do not feed.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Puerile words from the undereducated and ignorant. Reality is as foreign to it’s puny mind as a sanskrit manuscript.

  • Renegade Quark

    It must be Global Warming. The Earth hasn’t seen an increase in average temperature in 20 years so that heat had to go somewhere, right? The heat went into space and altered time/space to cause a lack of natural disasters. One leading Global Warming scientist, the mechanical engineer Bill Nye is rumored to have said, “Shit, and I have a boat payment due!”

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      The Earth hasn’t seen an increase in average temperature in 20 years
      ===============================================

      Delta t for 2015 is already the highest in the record (0.22F) and the year is not done and El Nino effect hasn’t manifested itself yet. So I don’t believe you are making a statement based on observations and data. Published science shows warming continuously since the 1950s and 14 of the 15 warmest years occurred this century.

      • IceStation Bratwurst

        Only if your stupid enough to believe the “adjusted” data.

        • Leftwithrightbrain

          Guess you’re dumber than stupid. Care to leave the comforts of your quilting circle and publish your diatribe in the scientific literature where it will receive the treatment it deserves.

  • I do not believe in climate change, but I do believe we are in the end times foretold of in the Bible. Something is definitely skewed with this report. It isn’t all climate changers and climate change deniers. It is way more complicated than that. This report seems about as reliable as climate change itself. Two wrongs don’t make a “right.”

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      “I do not believe in climate change” … no scientists do either. Observed reality is not subject to belief. Now one needs to have belief to rely on the bronze age book of illiterate goat herder fables. The thing about science, is that it’s the best grasp of physical phenomena that we have, whether you believe it or not. To challenge it you’d need to become educated and a specialist. Until then your vacuous opinions are worthless.

      • Samurai

        Lefty– That’s the problem with the disconfirmed CAGW hypothesis.. It’s a faith-based religion relying on VERY subjective models, which have failed spectacularly.

        Science is supposed to objective based on hard empirical evidence. Since CAGW’s hypothetical projections now exceed reality by 2+ standard deviations for almost 20 years, it’s time to toss this CAGW cult in the trash bin of history where it belongs before we waste more $trillions on this obvious hoax.

        • Leftwithrightbrain

          You will not find CAGW in science. Vacuity means you are a liar. A lie makes you look weak, desperate, and disreputable.

      • LudicrousSextus

        ‘To challenge support it you’d need to become educated and a specialist. Until then your vacuous opinions are worthless.

        There. Fixed it for you. Now go play model railroads with the recently debunked ‘head of the IPCC’…you remember him – the railroad engineer you morons cited as qualified to lead the UN’s climate angst crew…

        • Leftwithrightbrain

          The thing about science, is that it’s the best grasp of physical phenomena that we have, whether you believe it or not. To challenge it you’d need to become educated and a specialist. Until then your vacuous opinions are worthless.

    • jeffersonian_nc

      The end of times. So you believe that God is going to shrink the universe back into a singularity? Or that God simply wants to kill all of his children? Or maybe God just wants to kill his children on Earth because we did not live up to his children on another plant in another part of the universe?

  • RegisteredDemocrat

    This is proof that Global Warming was caused by Bush. The only fix is to have government take over ALL INDUSTRY IMMEDIATELY!!! Electricity, fuel, water must be rationed by force.

  • PenelopeWillis

    I recently visited some ancient Roman ruins in Italy and Turkey. They were once on the coast. Now they are kilometers inland. So much for sea levels rising.

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      Here’s a challenge cupcake. State the ruins and when they were on the coast. Or do you just like writing posts that have no value other than the comfort you derive from them.

      • PenelopeWillis

        Ercalano, ositica

        • Leftwithrightbrain

          What year were these on the coast and how far in kilometers are they now inland? Be precise as there are hundreds of Roman ruins. Ercalano does not exist but Ercolana does and it’s still on the coast.

          • PenelopeWillis

            Skelentons are piled up in the boathouses at ercalano. The site is no longer on the coast. Ositica well over a kilometer in. I’m sorry I didn’t think to take specific measurements. I forgot about the tactic employed by losers of arguments to ask for superfluous details because they think it undermines the point. Once again, textbook. We see people like you coming a mile away. You’d be better off trying to indoctrinate children. You obviously aren’t playing here.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            None of what you write supports your assertion that they’re kilometers inland now so sea levels can’t be rising. There are many reasons why they are now inland and most common are natural coastal and riverine sedimentation and isostatic rebound. As you don’t seem to know much about the physical conditions I don’t expect you to know why it has nothing to do with sea level rise or fall.

      • PenelopeWillis

        And ephesus. I don’t suppose you’ve been, but if you’d like to visit ercalano, take the ercalano scavi train stop.

        • Leftwithrightbrain

          Ephesus, if you actually visited was established on top of a hill with a port so what part of these ruins have moved kilometers from the sea as they’re still on the hill. You know that the river that flowed into the port silted everything up, right? That’s what rivers do they carry sediment from inland and deposit it when the grades flatten which is usually when it reaches the coastal floodplain. These are dynamic and nothing out the ordinary. So what’s your point?

      • jeffersonian_nc

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandhills_(Carolina)
        Oh no, it says the ocean level was higher. Albeit 20 million years ago.

        • Leftwithrightbrain

          Can you be any more dumb with such little effort?

    • jeffersonian_nc

      I just sent leftwith…. a link regarding the Sandhills of the Carolinas. Let’s see how long he/she/it takes to discredit that one.

  • PenelopeWillis

    Still trying i see.

    I think i gave you too much credit for being in a lab. A credible climate scientist would have known about the roman sites in relation to changing sea levels from man made global warming. I see you had to look it up. Keep looking, you’ll find the real answer. I’ve actually been and can see the silt argument is BS. There’s no river at ercalano yet the sane issue persists.

    Just be honest. Your lab is in your mom’s basement.

    I’ve also been to Exit Glacier where Obama was recently propagandizing about global warming. There are signs dating the glacial melt back to 1650.

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      I doubt you understand any of the physical conditions pertaining to any of the places you visit as it is evident that have neither the education nor the knowledge. The evidence was your last statement statement about Exit Glacier which was pure BS. USGS maps every glacier … it is public domain information. Look it up and see why you wilfully and purposely made a fool of yourself.

  • Joanne Carpenter

    It isn’t a matter of Global Warming. It isn’t even a matter of the number of events… necessarily. All I know is… When I listen to the news, I have come to listen for these words, “It’s NEVER been this way before.” or “We’ve never seen it this bad before.” They should do their study on the number of RECORD-BREAKING weather and disaster events, including fires and earthquakes. The problem is… this report on Drudge will get everyones attention and become the final word. While my perspective will hardly ever be seen. I only want people to consider the possibility. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6ghAY8je_U

  • RLABruce

    It’s only a matter of time before the “scientists” “adjust” the raw data on disasters, just as they have on global warming.

  • 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? Not too surprising with their use of private jets, heavy discretionary commercial air travel, specifically first class, massive living space / person across multiple homes, much higher possession acquisition levels, and a myriad of other behaviors. But do you realize this means this small group is responsible for more than 33% of ALL (that’s right, ALL) U. S. CO2 emissions? Might one of you AGW folks explain to all of us rubes why all the plans being implemented by the president (unilaterally) will allow this small group to continue to spew CO2 unabated while financially hammering the lower income and middle classes? Lacking an explanation (none provided to date), this would appear to be a giant scam. It is an emergency (we are told), so please hurry for there is no time for debate, but only time to skim money from the people.

    • jeffersonian_nc

      And yet the Pope wants us to bring the 3rd world to our standards which means multiple times the CO2 output of the last 100 years to make all of that concrete and steel.

  • devan95

    And Obama hasn’t visited a single disaster! Hecava job, Barry. We know how the left stream media would treat you if you were a Republican. Instead of visiting South Carolina flood victims he is out West chasing a foolish gun control totalitarian dream and fund raising and his leftist media flacks give him a pass…..Obama IS the disaster!

  • Jack Coyote

    Just stopping by the climate depot to pick up some paint and a load of climate change bull Shiite. Hoax.

  • devan95

    If global warming is man made, what caused the glaciers that covered North America to melt? And if CO2 causes “global warming/climate change” then why do we still mandate catalytic converters….which produce CO2?!!!!!!!
    Hint: it’s a hoax to hide the attack on capitalism and free enterprise.

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      what caused the glaciers that covered North America to melt?
      ==============================================

      Nutation and CO₂ forcing.

      • Samurai

        Nutation, earth’s eccentric orbit, solar flux, vulcanism, water vapor (30,000ppm), albedo flux, Galactic Cosmic Ray flux, obliquity, and hundreds of other factors cause climate to change.

        CO2 forcing has an extremely tiny overall effect on earth’s climate and is logarithmic; meaning each incremental increase has less and less of an effect.

        CAGW is dead. Get used to it… It’s a joke.

        • Leftwithrightbrain

          Nope. Nutation and CO₂. The rest are products of these two major forcings. We actually have evidence that in the past 800k years or so orbital forcing factors (mostly axial nutation) would create shifts in temperature which would be greatly amplified by CO2 being sequestered (cooling) or released (warming). CO₂ was the feedback on top of nutation, so the both of them were the major forcing factor.

  • fedupwithobama

    Bloody climate change!

  • Davole

    2014 Global Natural Disasters Down Massively! …No Trend In Tornado/Cyclones Since 1950!

    Supposedly educated democrats believe (change that word to “feel”) that mankind MUST interfere in the natural environment, otherwise the frequency of global natural disasters will continue to diminish!

  • Howard Crawford

    Climate Naivete

    October, 2015. Chester, Maryland, USA. I am aghast by the number of
    people who hear about global warming and believe everything said even
    if uttered by Al Gore. He has the dubious distinction of flunking
    out of Vanderbilt divinity school yet in 2007 he received a Nobel
    Peace Prize from the same group that, 13 years earlier awarded it to
    Ya-sir Arafat.

    The theory had been posited that the planet was warming due
    to a minuscule increase (1 molecule) in the minuscule amount of
    carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (what was 3 and is now 4 molecules
    per 10,000). This is purported but not proved to be caused by evil
    mankind’s incessant demand for cheap energy and his subsequent
    burning of carbon rich, fossil based fuels.

    We are to ignore that these energy fires provide all animal life, including
    humans, CO2. The fruits of carbon dioxide production are our
    primary sources of life, plant sugars and oxygen gas.
    Photosynthesis converts water and CO2 with sunlight’s help into
    sugar, C6H12O6 and Oxygen, O2. Seven pounds of carbon dioxide plus
    three pounds of water equals five pounds of sugar plus five pounds of
    oxygen. To define carbon as a pollutant is to regard organic
    chemistry as a study of soot and instead of life and life sustaining
    carbohydrates, etc. Note: carbohydrates are compounds made of carbon
    and water.

    Please note: I said people hear about a notion and
    then believe it without a whit of curiosity as to how and by whom the
    warming conclusion was derived. In the era of Google’s instantaneous
    answers, they inquire about or read
    about practically nothing. In their minds, everybody is talking
    about it so it must be true.

    The very first thing a sentient being ought to do is find an
    unimpeachable temperature database and compare the database to the
    claims. As the famous American physicist, Richard Feynman said
    about the scientific method, ”if the data do not match the
    theory’s claims, the theory is WRONG“.
    Comparison of the data to the theory does indeed prove it wrong.
    The Earth is NOT
    heating up! It is long past time to conjure up a new theory and test
    it against actual data.

    In defense of hysterical warmists, some data are a bit hard to discern
    from nature let alone from junk science. Accurate temperature
    measurements of Earth are very difficult to measure because most of
    the Earth’s surface is water (70+%). Very few of us try to do
    accurate measurements of sea temperatures and even fewer of us can
    accurately note the locations of those measurements. Besides the
    seas, a large part of the globe is uninhabitable as in too cold,
    too hot, too difficult or even too hostile for regular measurements
    to be taken. Also half of the earth is in darkness at any given
    time.

    Most permanent weather stations were established in rural areas during the
    latter half of the 19th century. Subsequent urbanization
    of most of those locations has introduced a very noticeable warming
    bias in what have now become, urban or suburban locations (search
    the aforementioned Google for the urban heat island effect, UHI).

    Fortunately satellites began recording Earth’s temperature in December of 1978.
    Last November (2014) marks 36 complete years of unbiased records.
    Satellites measure the entire globe: oceans, the Arctic, the
    Antarctic, swamps, mountain tops, jungles, war zones and while
    only 3% of the Earth’s land are cities, the urban heat island effect
    is averaged over the whole planet when measured by satellites. They
    also measure every day and every night like relentless robots.

    Much like Johns Hopkins University maintains the Hubble Telescope, The
    University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) maintains the satellite
    temperature records. Anyone with a web browser and internet service
    may access these records by typing UAH into a search engine to access
    their web site. Type climate into UAH’s search box at the upper
    right and initiate the search. Read and/or download
    the “December 2014 Global Temperature Report :: UAHuntsville”. Using the red and blue graph presented, you will be pleased to note there has been zero warming of the Earth for
    225 months or 18 years plus 9 months. UAH maintain the most accurate
    Earth temperature records ever recorded.

    Today’s high school students have never experienced a single day of global
    warming. The pity is they were taught to think they have. This is
    because of the propaganda advanced by the grant seeking industry
    (People who make their living doing dubious research in exchange for
    government money).

    If you replace the red and blue UAH bar graph with a smoothed line graph you
    would notice that our current temperature lies on the descending part
    of what looks like a cosine curve. The Earth’s temperature appears
    to be cyclical, as logic would predict it must. Global cooling is
    in progress and you and I should vote to adapt to it rather then try
    to change it.

    Looking at the graph from a distance will give the appearance of a cosine
    curve with the year 2015 on the descending side of the temperature
    curve. QED

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      Complete and utter crap. UAH’s satellite delt t derived data shows the steepest warming trend in the record. I notice you avoid comparing them with RSS who use the same raw data but get different results. Most of your fellow deniers here allege that models are 100% incorrect. So why is the UAH climate model accurate in your mind which manipulates the satellite microwave data into temperatures? The satellite data measures the mid-troposphere through microwave radiometers, and is actually significantly more difficult to interpret than the ground-based observations. The idea that the satellites are some kind of truth-o-meter is really not correct at all. You also purposely and deceitfully avoid explaining why the satellite data confirm the theoretical physics of the GHG effect.

      • Samurai

        Ummmmm… Lefty…. Look up UAH version 6.0….

        Again, your ignorance is showing.

        • Leftwithrightbrain

          UAH’s satellite delt t derived data shows the steepest warming trend in the record.

    • jeffersonian_nc

      Awesome report! 1,000 likes. Ignore leftwithrightbrain – he/she/it have long been disproven on this thread.

  • propel7

    Fish and animals dying all over. Sink holes appearing in everyone’s backyard. Floods and earthquakes all over the world and fires. Not to mention every volcano in world coming to life…and you only include tornadoes and hurricanes around America as your base line? lolololol What a twisted BULLSSHIT “study”. Regardless wether there is “Global Warming” or not, the Jesuits little Banker Cabal, and their contrived UN, will try to create a world carbon tax to rob the innocent and poor even more with.

    • propel7

      More People more wealth? Sound like the People are obtaining that wealth. That is BS too. The 1% are the ONLY gains in wealth versus the “more People”. Less losses for the people, because they have less wealth.

      • Samurai

        All people prosper and gain wealth by the entrepreneurs of industry. The reason they are so wealthy is that so many people want to purchase their goods and services…

        The poor aren’t poor because others produce. They’re poor because they don’t produce enough to feed themselves…

    • Samurai

      IPCC’s 2013 AR5 report finally admitted there have have been NO global increasing trends for: floods, droughts, hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, thunderstorms, tornadoes, tropical storms, sub-tropical storms and hail for 50~100 years…

      There also hasn’t been a global warming trend for almost 20 years, despite 30% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being made over just the last 20 years…

      CAGW is a dead hypothesis.

      • Leftwithrightbrain

        There also hasn’t been a global warming trend for almost 20 years

        ==============================================

        Most liars usually try to provide a lie that is not easily debunkable. I presume you know that and that’s why you provide no evidence to substantiate your vacuity. I won’t hold my breath waiting for your answer with a DOI or two. A conservative who is also a great scientist has a blog about how the pause didn’t actually happen … look up “Karl 2015”.

        • Samurai

          I can’t post the link for some reason, so please go to “Skeptical Science Trend Calculator”, select RSS at the top,, type 1996.6 for start and 2015.9 for end, hit calculate, and you’ll see a trend of 0.001C/decade…

          No global warming trend for almost 20 years…. Ooopies…

          SATELLITE and radiosonde data will only get worse for CAGW from here on because:

          1) the PDO entered its 30-yr cool cycle in 2008.
          2) the AMO enters its 30-yr cool cycle around 2020.
          3) the current solar cycle is the weakest since 1906
          4) the next solar cycle from 2022 will be the weakest since the Dalton Minimum.
          5) a Grand Solar Minimum will likely start from around 2030…

          The idiotic CAGW model projections are already off by 2 standard deviations and in 5~7 years, they’ll likely be off by 3 SDs, given the above negative forcing effects occurring concurrently….

          No wonder you sound so desperate…. All those wasted years you wasted worshiping at the alter of CAGW….

          It’s time you found a new leftist cause to obsess over….

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Your posit is absolute nonsense.

          • Samurai

            Like I said, I can’t post the link, but there hasn’t been a global warming trend in the RSS satellite dataset in about 20 years.

            This is a well known fact, so I’m not surprised you’re not familiar with it…. You’d rather go with the “consensus” since you seem to believe hypotheses are confirmed by vote…..

            How quaint… Wrong, but really quaint… I’ll give that to you… LOL!

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Your post is absolute nonsense.

    • jeffersonian_nc

      You must remember than humans are animals and that if we overpopulate an area for its ability to produce food, we die off just like the other animals. So, GMO’s may have a profit motive, but they equally have a motive to feed more people so that we do not have a die off. We can of course not use GMOs, but we can then tell everybody that we will probably have a die off for not having enough food.

      As for the carbon tax – that is a farce. It is nothing but a grab of wealth from wealthy countries to give to poorer countries. What it ignores is this. If the poorer countries employ their new found wealth, they will use it to improve their infrastructure which will require the release of tons of more CO2 as the production of concrete and steel require. Even with GMOs there is limited fresh, clean water and their improved infrastructure will only encourage more population growth and so it becomes a vicious circle.

      God isn’t going to do anything. If you actually studied the Bible, you would realize that God only punishes his children. God provides commandments but never any stone tablets with a cure for disease. Sort of curious about God.

  • Yu So Wong

    Natural disasters up proves global warming. Natural disasters down also proves global warming. A NASA study proves it. The NASA study will begin next month.

    • propel7

      NASA is owned and operated by the Globalist Bankers and their little installed concubines. Same ones that want to tax the world to empower their contrived UN, which they also own and operate.

  • Global warming caused the good weather.

  • Mac-101

    So Global Change is GOOD? Or is it bad since the worlds population isn’t bein decreased by natural disasters faster than da 3rd world is multiplyin?

  • Voxhalyn Rakkasan

    It’s divine intervention because Obama is the Chosen One; at least that’s how (atheistic) liberals will respond.

  • kestrel27

    No, those idiots will claim it’s “Global Warming” anyway. You just don’t get it. When you are a Progressive, you are always right. If the sun comes up, it’s “global warming”, if it rains, it’s “global warming”, if it snows, it’s “global warming’, when it’s hot during the summer, it’s “global warming”, if it’s cold in the winter, “it’s global warming”, and on and on it goes. If you are confronted, you change it to “climate change”. You people are all just “deniers” because you are too smart to be taken in by this mindless BS of “global warming”/”climate change”. If you dig just a bit deeper, you’ll find it is all related to Progressives making money off of taxpayer funded government grants. That’s the other dirty little secret the “global warming” morons don’t want you to know. Then you go out and take a picture of a Polar Bear on an ice berg, the same Polar Bears that can swim for days and claim that it is stranded on said iceberg because of shrinking polar ice due to…you guessed it, “global warming” and voila, you have all the lemmings that make up the Progressive side still living in Mom and Dads basement, crying in their milk. Never mind how many expeditions to explore the shrinking ice due to “global warming” have gotten stranded in the ever increasing ice pack. You see, when you are a Progressive, you are duty bound to be a mindless twit and never question what your betters in the Democrat National Committee tell you. You must continually parrot what you are told to parrot, never ask any “Inconvenient” questions, and march in “obedient” lockstep. Your betters will tell you what to think and when!

  • tonylion

    Global warming aka climate change causes: diarrhea, nausea, headaches, vomiting, erectile dysfunction, rising sea levels, polar bear extinction, de-forestation, racial tension, general malaise and anger. We have to fight it with every dollar on the planet.

  • Mr. White Folks

    I blame all these comments for global warming because science proves it, somewhere. Also, consensus.

  • jeffersonian_nc

    For “Leftwithrightbrain”
    Answer these questions:
    1) Since the Earth’s climate changes over 10’s of thousands of years and runs in cycles, when will the Holocene Epoch stop warming (assuming no influence from man)?
    2) What impact will man have on changing the underlying prediction of question #1?
    3) When will we enter a new ice age?
    4) Pertaining to Q #1, what will be the high reached at the top of the Holocene Epoch?
    5) In relation to Q #4. How much will it deviate due to man’s influence?
    6) What is Eden supposed to be like and how are we deviating from it?
    When you, the “great scientist”, can answer those questions, we can have a serious conversation.

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      So you run from the crapola you posted lower down the thread because you can’t substantiate your vacuity. But as I am capable of answering and you aren’t let me help you out.

      1) The Holocene ended in 1945. Are you referring to the Anthropogene?
      2) You need to answer 1.
      3) We like most extant, will not be here to enter the next ice-age, the onset of which will be delayed by thousands of years.
      4) You need to answer 1. If you do, you already have the answer.
      5) Moot.
      6) Eden is a myth. Make it whatever you imagination desires. Add some unicorns and dragons too if that makes your day better.

      • jeffersonian_nc

        1) The Holocene ended in 1945? So we are entering a new ice age?
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene
        Clearly you just proved you are not a scientist – Thanks for that.

        3) So you agree that we will enter a new ice age and thus man has not changed the overall cycle of climate on Earth (especially due to your answer to #1). Thanks for that.

        6) If there is no Eden (the perfect climate), then why are you attempting to arbitrarily pick a perfect climate that we really cannot control? Thanks for admitting to that as well.

        You have now confirmed that “man-made” global warming is a hoax, that you are not a scientist and your whole argument is moot.

        • Leftwithrightbrain

          Reading comprehension is never a hillbilly strong point. Cupcake, we have left the Holocene and now in the Anthropocene. Bring yourself up to speed and all your stupid questions will evaporate if you can comprehend what you learn about the current era. Is there a reason you’re still hiding from from vacuity lower down this thread?

          • jeffersonian_nc

            As of 2015, Anthropocene has not been adopted as a part of the OFFICIAL NOMENCLATURE of the geological field of study. Clearly you are not a scientist. It is made up by the religious zealots of climate change. It is as of yet, NOT a true geologic epoch.

            Since it is about human impact and humans came about around 14,000 years ago, many argue that it should date back longer than the Holocene Epoch of 11,000 to 14,000 years ago. So, it would be synchronous with the current term, Holocene. “Other scholars point to the diachronous character of the physical strata of the Anthropocene, arguing that onset and impact are spread out over time, not reducible to a single instant or date of start.”
            Once again, you lose. You constantly lose. And I do not have to resort to name calling.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            It has been adopted cupcake and correctly it has not been sanctioned officially as that takes a rigorous process. All these wonderful science things about which you’re steadfastly clueless, why? At least one thing your middle school education knowledge has improved a magnitude since you bumped into me. We may yet get you up to GED level. You avoid answering why you can’t answer the BS you posted lower down the thread … Wiki has all the answers you need and we know you have found out how that works. So why don’t you go and remove the idiot stigma from your posts by answering how you were duped into writing so much crapola.

          • jeffersonian_nc

            Clearly you are not a scientist. A scientist would never write what you just did. And yet you proclaimed that you were one. Thus you are a liar.
            Being that you have sunk to such a low level of communication, it is equally clear that you are nothing but a troll and shrill. As to whether you ever attended any university or college, it is hard to say since there are many uneducated people that have university degrees.
            Thanks for showing that you know not what you proclaim to know and that you are merely a lying troll. You have done so well in coming out that you deserve a hardly round of applause. Maybe you can be nominated troll of the year for bravery by coming out of the closet.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Absolute crap.

  • tomroberts

    When a vile dictator seizes upon the natural end of the ice age, which has been occurring for thousands of years, in order to take totalitarian control of all industry – then we have a very serious Ovomit.
    No, not even that, merely an interglacial period of an ice age. The obscene stupidity of Basuckah shocks and horrifies the mind!

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      Could you take a writing class so we do not need to be frustrated trying to read your gibberish?

  • dr3yec

    Gee so much for the weather tax the liberal trash were trying to impose.

  • hd625b

    First thing I noticed is on the Exhibit 80: United States Hurricane Landfalls chart is that starting in 1951, there are no hurricanes about every 10 years. These years are also shortly before or after and election year. Perhaps hurricanes are encouraged to stay away during an election.

    • Stelex

      HAARP…….

  • Stainmaster Zinc

    Interesting.
    Go to youtube.com and enter, as ONE example, Jade Helm 15. In real life it was a multi-state military exercise that ended in September. Read nearly any video posted near or about it and you will see people screaming about Bible passages, tsunami warnings swamping the Eastern coast of America, Dozens of other varieties of natural and unnatural catastrophes about to happen nearly every other day, and that is if you ignore the purely religious warnings if one does’t repent Right Now.

    It is easy to see why print tabloids went out of business: They can’t keep up with the insanity on the Internet.

  • olee1947

    BUT it can’t be according to the climate experts we are to have mass flooding , the most severe hurricanes in history, rising sea levels NYC under water, all the ice caps gone, all the polar bears gone …..by now

  • Stelex

    This is tragic news for the Gorians……..the world will live on……..how inconvenient

  • FlyntLoc

    When associating natural events with the effects of recent global warming, they begin their description with…… “The worst flood since 1846 (Or whatever year)”. So what explains that flood of 1846….. before the effects of global warming? Or is the “cap and trade” another money grab because they have already taxed everything they can tax? O’Malley was trying to tax ……. rain…….. now they want to tax ……. a gas. To a politician, enough is never enough.

  • Frank

    Funny how they claim hurricanes as man-made, despite ones many times the size of Earth have developed on Saturn!

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      Funny how they claim hurricanes as man-made

      ====================

      Funny how idiots make stuff up and then proudly post their stupidity.

  • Angelicus1

    How come the Climate Changers/Global Warmists keep telling about gloom and doom?

  • odysseus660

    So do I still ride my bicycle in the snow on my way to work? Will that still help prevent global warming? Obama would be proud of me.

  • LudicrousSextus
    • Leftwithrightbrain

      Only an uneducated m0r0n who is obviously neither a scientist nor scientifically literate would be fooled by the fossil fuel shill Tony Heller who has never researched nor published one article about climate science using its given name or its pseudonym Steven Goddard. Heller/Goddard has had to issue several written apologies to NASA, NSIDC and NOAA for his pseudo-climate science alleging they were wrong over the years to avoid libel suits as he didn’t have the evidence to support his denier claptrap. The classic was he published an article titled “Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered” in The Register on 8/15/2008. Goddard claimed that the NSIDC plot of the extent of Arctic Sea Ice was wrong. However, on 8/25, Goddard retracted his claim, saying that “… it is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year – just as NSIDC had stated.”

      • LudicrousSextus

        Nice try – ‘try’ being the operative word. In no way…shape…manner or form – disproving the alteration of historical temperature data by NOAA.

        Seems you’d get tired of preaching your ‘gospel’ to the non-faithful after 18 thousand posts. Guess not. You’re simply that dedicated and at a loss for a ‘real life’…

        “The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.”

        Patrick Moore, Ph.D. – leader in international environmentalism for more than 40 years. He cofounded Greenpeace and currently serves as chair of Allow Golden Rice.

        • Leftwithrightbrain

          If you are going to be duped and regurgitate lies then at least be smart enough ti use ones that are not easily debunkable. Patrick Moore was not a cofounder of GreenPeace … he was an employee. Use that Google tool and you’ll find his letter of appointment online debunking the crap you posted.

          • gofer1

            Another lie about Moore.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Produce your evidence. Please proceed …. while you search you will find his letter of employment on line.

      • gofer1

        Complete and total lie. I am very familiar with Tony and that is a baldfaced lie.

        • Leftwithrightbrain

          Surely you have evidence. Please proceed ….

  • Matthew

    Don’t forget a consensus matters more than facts !

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      That’s is true. Facts are an undeniable truth and science doesn’t search for truth but rather the best explanation of physical phenomena. Consensus is how science works. The reason there is consensus is because of theory and/or empirical evidence.

      • Samurai

        LOL! Science is ALWAYS seeking to explain phenomenon through the application of the scientific method… When hypothetical projections fail to match the reality they’re supposed to explain, they are either modified or tossed on the trash heap of failed ideas…

        CAGW has failed miserably at projecting global temp trends and all the other catastrophic events supposedly inevitable from increased manmade CO2 emissions: ocean acidification, catastrophic sea rise, catastrophic increase in severe weather trends, catastrophic increase in CH4, catastrophic ice melt, etc..

        CAGW laughable at this stage

        I would suggest that you study Dr. Richard Feynman’s lectures on the Scientific Method as you obviously don’t understand how it works….

        • Leftwithrightbrain

          You purposefully avoid linking to this strange CAGW hypothesis you constantly espouse erroneously or provide a DOI or two. Why? Because no such gibberish exists in climate or any other science.

  • Rlee

    How can that be? I thought the science was settled? But….But….

  • JJ

    Must be “global warming”, um I mean “climate change”

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      For the millionth time, “climate change” has become shorthand for “anthropogenic climate change that is likely to be disruptive”. Try to keep up.

      • Samurai

        Lefty, the reason leftists suddenly changed the name from Gloooooobal Waaaaaaarming to Cliiiimate Chaaaange is that there hasn’t been a global warming trend for almost 20 years….

        Rather than adhering to the Scientific Method and disconfirming the CAGW hypothesis, the grant grubbers decided to change the name of their hoax to Cliiiimate Chaaaaange, which can’t be nullified since the climate is always changing…..

        So, when global temps continue to fall, these grant grubbers will still blame global coôling on CO2 to keep the grant choo-choo train chugging along…

        • jeffersonian_nc

          After I challenged him regarding when will be the end of the Holocene Epoch, he started blabbering about the Anthropologene Epoch that began in 1945. While the term gets thrown around, it is not a term that has been accepted by any geological standards board. It basically means a new Epoch based upon man’s influence, except some have argued that man’s influence began when man began, and thus a little longer than the Holocene Epoch and essentially the same thing. It is typical of the left to try to redefine things when they lose their argument.

          • Samurai

            Jeffersonian– Lefty……has issues…

            The poor kid has apparently invested a large portion of his life to this CAGW scam and simply can’t accept all those years have been wasted; somewhat understandable but still rather pathetic.

            The poor guy is so deluded, no amount of evidence disconfirming his religion will suffice for him to renounce his religious beliefs.

            I’m done wasting time on the poor soul…

            CAGW is dead.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Diatribe of vacuity. CAGW does not appear anywhere in science yet you persist.

          • Leftwithrightbrain

            Anthropologene Epoch
            ===================
            It is Anthropocene cupcake, you have hillbilly reading comprehension skills. And yes it is accepted and the standards are currently being agreed upon.

        • Leftwithrightbrain

          Again you clueless about science, CAGW is not found anywhere in science and neither is the rest of your gibberish. You seem to think climate science has a political persuasion and is a ‘socialist’ plot when it’s solid science. Go read Barry Bickmore’s blog if you don’t believe me — he’s a nice pro-business Republican from Utah. He’s also a very good scientist.

  • Juanita Broaddrick’s Lip

    It’s settled science.

    No anthropogenic climate change exists to cause catastrophic natural disaster.

    Yup.

    Settled science for sure.

  • Onceler’s Revenge

    you can all thank Obama this was a campaign promise

  • Secure

    Thank the gays! God loves them!

  • Jody Hylton

    my collaborator’s stride mother makes $97/hr on the web…….…..Last weekend I Bought A Brand new McLaren F1 after earning 18,512$,this was my last month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k last-month .No-doubt about it, this really is the most comfortable work I have ever had . I began this 8-months ago and pretty much immediately was bringing home at least $97, p/h….Learn More right Here.
    ny..
    ➤➤
    ➤➤➤➤ http://www.googlefeedbuzzmoneybestukmoney065.blogspot.com/ ❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦

  • luis

    Johan Roshtrom, the anti global warming scientist who is now all for global warming, reminds me of the story of an influential republican who is talking to a big republican crowd and says – You all know that I have always been 100% republican, but do you know now why I have turned 100% democrat? The crowd in unison yelled- Because you sold yourself!!!

    • Leftwithrightbrain

      Your puerile logical fallacy doesn’t work because of your undereducated parochial mind. Exactly how has every scientific organization worldwide sold out and to whom did they sell themselves. Be specific now or admit you sucked that out of your thumb.

  • ithakavi

    This will not deter the warmists. They’ll just come up with an explanation of why it’s caused by warming.

  • MH27610

    Fewer natural disasters for the Establishment to take advantage of means there will be more man-made disasters for the Establishment to take advantage of. Lets see what new chaos they’ll cause in order to not waste an opportunity to grab more power.

  • Tell this to Californians who’ve suffered in drought for many years and fire for several. Tell this to those in Carolina who’ve been flooded out. Tell this to New Orleans folks who ARE STILL DISPLACED out of their original homes. Tell this to those in the mid-west who have lost everything to tornadoes and to those in Europe who’ve been flooded out. Tell it to those who’ve lost their homes due to volcanic eruption or tsunami. Tell this to those who count the number of devastating earthquakes to have risen significantly

    Something tells ME that this article is bogus

    and that’s me, hollering from the choir loft…..

    • malaka_eneuresis

      Oh, choir loft? Should be the looney bin!

    • Tell it to Californians who are in a drought? I’d tell them it was stupid to build a mega city in a desert.

  • spawn44

    But 97% say the opposite. Make that 98% with THE FOREIGNER adding his Einsteinion take. The left is exactly like the witch doctor scamming the villagers out of their corn crop during an eclipse.

  • Frontierguy

    If global climate warming cooling change is not believed, how will I get tax payer funded research money? You science deniers are just plain mean!

    • 5pmSomewhere

      Been Banned by Michelle this was deleted
      Quick go hide under MM dress and tell Doug someone is picking on you again

      Sorry Frontier Guy

      The double amputee Lt. Col Duckworth with her right arm almost blown off while fighting in a combat zone in not sexually attractive or intelligent enough for you or your high standards of what women should look like or attacking her suppose low IQ even after she flew many mission as a Black Hawk pilot in a combat zone.

      Purple Heart BAR.svg

      Purple Heart Meritorious Service ribbon.svg Meritorious Service

      MedalRibbonAirMedal.PNG Air MedalArmy Commendation Medal ribbon.svg Army

      Commendation Medal with Oak leaf clusterArmy Reserve Achievement ribbon.svg

      Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal with four Oak leaf clustersCombat

      Action Badge.svg Combat Action BadgeSenior Army Aviator Badge.png Senior Army

      Aviator Badge

      Sorry she’s not worthy of you high standard of intelligent women

  • ou812

    Be prepared.. an onslaught is coming, some things will be seen..that have never before in human history.

    • jeffersonian_nc

      recorded history

  • echo sierra

    It has been a DECADE since a major hurricane has made landfall in the continental United States. (2005, the year of Katrina and Wilma.) Yes, in complete opposition to all warmist models. When can we begin prosecuting the Warmist collaboration for fabricating data, colluding to cover it up, and diverting Millions from real threats such as AIDS and Malaria?

  • Bob Roberts

    Just just kills the warming nuts who pray for disasters like Hurricanes just to boost their twisted money laundering scheme.

  • 1911

    I guess if Bush really was to blame – he’s doing a damn good job of keeping things calm these days!

    • Verbotene Gedanken

      He’s Magic.
      Just like Obama…

  • LeisureForeigner

    “Animals like earthquakes, tornadoes and volcanic activity.” –David Byrne–

  • Gerry Persowich

    15 of the world’s biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world’s 760m cars

    April 23, 2009 The Guardian
    has reported on new research showing that in one year, a single large
    container ship can emit cancer and asthma-causing pollutants equivalent
    to that of 50 million cars. The low grade bunker fuel used by the worlds
    90,000 cargo ships contains up to 2,000 times the amount of sulfur
    compared to diesel fuel used in automobiles. The recent boom in the
    global trade of manufactured goods has also resulted in a new breed of
    super sized container ship which consume fuel not by the gallons, but by
    tons per hour, and shipping now accounts for 90% of global trade by
    volume.

    The title of world’s largest container ship is actually held by eight identical ships owned by Danish shipping line Mærsk.
    All eight ships are 1300ft (397.7m) long and can carry 15,200 shipping
    containers around the globe at a steady 25.5 knots (47.2 km/h, 29.3 mph)
    . The only thing limiting the size of these ships is the Suezmax
    standard, which is the term used to define the the largest ships capable
    of transiting the Suez Canal fully loaded. These ships far surpass the
    Panamax standard (ships that can fit through the Panama Canal), which is
    limited to ships capable of carrying 5,000 shipping containers.

    Not only are shipbuilders resetting the world record
    for size on a regular basis but so are the diesel engines that propel
    them. One of the eight longest container ships in the world, the 1,300
    ft Emma Mærsk
    also has the world’s largest reciprocating engine. At five storeys tall
    and weighing 2300 tonnes, this 14 cylinder turbocharged two-stroke
    monster puts out 84.4 MW (114,800 hp) – up to 90MW when the motor’s
    waste heat recovery system is taken into account. These mammoth engines
    consume approx 16 tons of fuel per hour or 380 tons per day while at
    sea.

    Unregulated emissions

    In international waters ship emissions remains one of
    the least regulated parts of our global transportation system. The fuel
    used in ships is waste oil, basically what is left over after the crude
    oil refining process. It is the same as asphalt and is so thick that
    when cold it can be walked upon . It’s the cheapest and most polluting
    fuel available and the world’s 90,000 ships chew through an astonishing
    7.29 million barrels of it each day, or more than 84% of all exported
    oil production from Saudi Arabia, the worlds largest oil exporter.

    Shipping is by far the biggest transport polluter in
    the world. There are 760 million cars in the world today emitting approx
    78,599 tons of Sulphur Oxides (SOx) annually. The world’s 90,000
    vessels burn approx 370 million tons of fuel per year emitting 20
    million tons of Sulphur Oxides. That equates to 260 times more Sulphur
    Oxides being emitted by ships than the worlds entire car fleet. One
    large ship alone can generate approx 5,200 tonnes of sulphur oxide
    pollution in a year, meaning that 15 of the largest ships now emit as
    much SOx as the worlds 760 million cars.

  • Vincent Vega

    But, but what about hurricane Sandy?