America • Big Media • Donald Trump • Energy • Environment • Government Reform • Post • The Media • The Resistance (Snicker)

Deep Freeze Ends a Dreadful 2017 for Climate Activists

[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”no” hundred_percent_height=”no” hundred_percent_height_scroll=”no” hundred_percent_height_center_content=”yes” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” video_preview_image=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=””][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” link=”” target=”_self” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding=”” dimension_margin=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”no”][fusion_text]

[/fusion_text][fusion_text]

It’s been a bad year for global warming propagandists, but fear not: Here comes a polar vortex to make it worse for them.

The unrelenting Arctic blast arrived on Christmas Eve and it remains the holiday houseguest from Hell that won’t leave: Record-breaking cold and snowfall are tormenting the eastern half of the country, and it’s only going to get worse. Weather models predict Americans will ring in the New Year while shivering under the lowest temperatures in 70 years, and the first day of 2018 could set record lows everywhere east of the Rockies.

Folks are being warned about the health risks associated with sub-zero temperatures, which could last beyond the first week of the year and stretch as far south as east Texas. It’s even too cold for the most intrepid thrill-seekers: Cities are canceling the Polar Bear Plunge on New Year’s Day due to inhumane air and water temperatures.

It marks a frustrating end to a dreadful year for climate-change activists, who have been frozen out of the Trump Administration. After Trump’s election, environmentalists prophesied the end times, labeling the president and his advisors “anti-science” and bracing for catastrophe. Climate scientists and bureaucrats at scientific agencies reached out for counseling, seeking ways to cope with life under the Trump regime; many have resigned “in disgust.”

But for once, the climate crowd’s “dire” predictions came true. Our “Denier-in-Chief” wasted no time dismantling Obama’s climate change legacy by appointing climate skeptics to fill top cabinet posts, exiting the Paris Climate Accord, repealing the Clean Power Plan, scrubbing government websites of climate change references, and promoting American fossil-fuel use abroad. If this wasn’t bad enough for them, now the climate crowd is trying incoherently to explain to frigid Americans—who are muttering “global warming, my ass” under their double-wrapped scarves—how this frigid weather is actually caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

Never one to miss an opportunity to incite his foes, President Trump sent out this tweet Thursday night:

(Meteorologist Ryan Maue compiled an amusing list of Trump tweets that mock global warming.)

Trump’s tweet—one of his most popular social-media missives of the year—did exactly what he wanted it to do: Torch the mob.

Reporters, politicians, and environmentalists exploded with rage, ridiculing Trump for not understanding the difference between “weather” and “climate.” Keep in mind, this doublespeak is from the same armchair climate experts who blamed every destructive weather event this year—from hurricanes to wildfires to droughts—on anthropogenic global warming. Now, they are hand-waving away the most brutal cold snap in decades as nothing more than a normal appearance by Old Man Winter.

On Friday morning, the Weather Channel posted a world map, purporting to show how North America is an anomaly in an otherwise toasty world, and trolled the president by claiming “there is a difference between weather and climate. Short-term cold snaps will continue to occur in a warming world.” (The map was widely shared on social media, yet failed to make a convincing case that warming is significantly and uniformly impacting the planet right now: in fact, the map showed virtually no temperature change in the southern hemisphere and the tropics, and steep temperature drops in North America. Far from the “global warming” climatologists have tried to convince us is happening.)

An accompanying article warned that “a single weather event like a heat wave cannot be linked to climate, but long-term trends are better indicators of a changing climate.” This is the same weather site that posted numerous articles linking 2017’s extreme weather events to climate change, including this article that claimed winters will become “shorter and warmer.”

The New York Times, which has an entire section devoted to climate change news and often searches for the thinnest reed to connect some human tragedy to manmade climate change, scoffed that Trump appears “unaware of the distinction between weather and climate.” Science blogger Phil Plait tweeted that Trump would “literally fail grade school science. He doesn’t know the difference between weather and climate.”

But the climate propagandists can’t quite get their spin together. Is the deep freeze just weather, or is it due to climate change?

The always-charming Chelsea Handler called Trump a “dumbass” and claimed “global warming doesn’t only mean extreme heat; it means extreme weather. Hot and cold.” One climate scientist quoted in USA Today said the frigidity proves climate change is real: “We can still expect periods of very cold temperatures, snowstorms, and even days of record low temperatures,” the University of California’s Zack Labe told the paper. “However, climate change continues to shift the odds towards more periods of warmer weather and less so for colder weather.” Huh?

The Environmental Defense Fund offered its explainer on how record snowfall is evidence of global warming. “It may seem counterintuitive, but more snowfall during winter storms is an expected outcome of climate change. That’s because a warmer planet is evaporating more water into the atmosphere. That added moisture means more precipitation in the form of heavy snowfall or downpours.”

Talk about covering all your bases. EDF also took the common route of climate propagandists: don’t believe your lying eyes. It only feels colder. “Winters in the U.S. have warmed a lot since the 1970s—making what used to be a typical winter feel even more frigid nowadays.” Just remember that when your eyelids are frozen shut next week.

This mess of unscientific, emotional rants by the climate change crowd is typical of how it responds to any challenge to its dogma: Detractors are belittled, goal posts are moved, reversals on previous views are accepted without question. The scientifically-illiterate media plays along, rarely stopping to examine evidence or challenge glaring hypocrisies.

There is also a chance this cold snap portends a global cooling period that some scientists now predict. If that happens, we might all be huddled near the furnace, wondering why we ever feared global warming in the first place.

[/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

456 replies
  1. Michel Maiorana
    Michel Maiorana says:

    So global warming is what caused the mile thick glacier that covered NYC?
    You tube has the In Search Of The Coming Ice Age with Leonard Nimoy.

    • Gene Dellinger
      Gene Dellinger says:

      Yep, global warming was caused by the teem billions (tongue in cheek) of our early human ancestors 600,000 years ago, when they learned to control fire for cooking, caused the melting of the two-mile-thick glacier that covered much of North America during the last Ice Age. If they had only listened to the Liberal great, great, great, great, great, great, etc., etc., etc…. Neanderthal grandfather of the present Neanderthal Fat Albert Gore, Global Warming could have been averted and we humans wouldn’t all be under water and breathing with gills now. We could all be in “Safe Places” hands linked together with our global brethren, the Whole World Singing in Perfect Harmony-y-y-y-y. Even Rosie O’Donnal would be happy.

        • Another deplorable
          Another deplorable says:

          “Nonsense Rosie is never happy even when she gets her way.”
          Re that statement above – I would quote “some people are happiest when they are miserable” A lot of truth in that.

  2. Bob Sydney
    Bob Sydney says:

    They are getting hysterical in their demands we all shut up. So funny. We need to make note of these liars and when it’s proven to be all based on lies hold them all accountable. All of them

    • Abigail
      Abigail says:

      Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
      On tuesday I got a brand new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It Sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !gf169d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleCashCareerAmericanPartTImeJobs/computer/jobs ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!gf169lhhh

    • CrazyHungarian
      CrazyHungarian says:

      The argument that the climate is changing is impossible to disprove, as it has always been changing and always will continue to be changing.

          • Henry Miller
            Henry Miller says:

            If you were in fact “with the scientific community,” you’d realise that not everyone who claims to be so in fact adheres to scientific method and that, far too often, “scientists” let politics cloud their judgement.

            How much do you know about statistical data analysis? Does the phrase “signal-to-noise ratio” mean anything to you? “Representative data sampling?” A big problem with climate “science” is that the collected data is so lousy. It’s very noisy–i.e., it has a low signal-to-noise ratio–and that means you can pull just about any trend you like out of it. Find an old-fashioned AM radio, tune it to a frequency where there’s no station broadcasting, and listen to the static. That’s what climate data “sounds” like. And the climate “scientists” pretend they can see a trend in the noise. Talk about “wishful thinking…”

          • CrazyHungarian
            CrazyHungarian says:

            I’ve yet to see any of these self described scientists use real data analysis to pull signal out of data, like Fourier Transforms, for example. The only math I’ve seen is at the middle school level.

          • Henry Miller
            Henry Miller says:

            An FFT (or a DCT) could detect short-term periodicity–not that that means much in this context. But a simple least-squares fit on data after 1850 shows a statistically significant rise of about 1 degree C per century, but since that starts a long time before 1900 and coincides with the “end” of the Little Ice Age, my guess is that it’s just the tail-end of the LIA.

          • Henry Miller
            Henry Miller says:

            I ran a DCT on a dataset I pulled from Berkeley: monthly average temperature samples from 1750 to 2016, by proxy prior to about 1850. It was pretty much what you’d expect: flatline white noise*. There’s a statistically valid linear ramp up of about 1 degree C per century from about 1850 to the present, my personal wild guess is that’s left over from the tail end of the Little Ice Age. (Prior to 1850, the data is way too noisy to be significant–the error bars swamp the delta t measurements.)

            * Well, mostly flatline except for a peak at 512 months and another peak at 1024 months. Both of these I attribute glitches in my DCT algorithm.

          • CrazyHungarian
            CrazyHungarian says:

            If the datasets were actually complete and reliable, then common sense would dictate a nearly flat line without much data spikes. After all, when it is daytime on one side, it is night on the other. Likewise with winter/summer. What we have instead is a sparse number of thermometers located on a relatively minuscule portion of the globe taking measurements with uncalibrated instruments haphazardly located in places originally meant to measure weather, not climate. Some are located in urban areas, many near paved airport runways with measurement times being recorded as nearest time zone instead of true solar time. How valid is it to compare two measurements located at opposite ends of a time zone when in reality they are one hour of solar time away? Then, to make the records even less credible, “adjustments” are made using some secret guidelines. That’s science?

          • America Is the People
            America Is the People says:

            san jose state was exposed as throwing out tons of data that debunked the narrative. they are not alone. i believe yale did the same

          • Henry Miller
            Henry Miller says:

            Sssssh! Don’t say that in this forum! The warmists will claim it proves climate change is real because science has proven* that the Big Bang actually happened.

            * Not true–there are still some major problems with the theory.

          • HappyWarrior2020
            HappyWarrior2020 says:

            *GROAN* Okay, I can see now that my attempt to persuade you with established scientific data that is —in aggregate— overwhwlmingly supported by climatologists is a waste of time. Have fun in your alt-right, conspiracy theorist echo chamber. There’s obviously no reasoning with you.

          • NutherGuy
            NutherGuy says:

            It’s even worse than that: Climate ‘scientists’ have been injecting a signal into the noise that — conveniently — supports their theory. So when they take the real noise and the man-made signal (‘adjustments’ to actual temperature measurements’) and filter out the noise, guess what?

          • America Is the People
            America Is the People says:

            exactly . true science always allows for opposing data, in hopes that truer theory can advance us. Phony silence demands all opposing data be thrown out and voices silenced. The left has lies and only lies. Their truth is tied to self-interest and continuation of corruption and extortion

          • MostlyRight
            MostlyRight says:

            Those of us in the scientific community who actually practice hard science have learned to recognize those of you who put your Progressive ideologies above science. Nice try achieving your political goals through climate science but fortunately you’ve failed, as Socialists always do in the end.

          • Al Wright
            Al Wright says:

            Failed perhaps, for now. But many of the subsidies continue. And the “Paris Accords” of the future may be but an election away. Socialism is like alcoholism. You can be “clean” for a year or two or ten, but relapse is one drink away. And like Glenn Close from the bathtub, it always comes back!

          • HappyWarrior2020
            HappyWarrior2020 says:

            If you are indeed a scientist, then you belong to an extreme minority that shares your views. Yours is a slim margin that denies what is indeed happening with climate change and its causal phenomena. Of course, you find a way in your argument to tie science to politics, which is an insult to the scientific discipline in the first place. Perhaps that is your overall agenda; to discredit science in order to advance your bizarro worldview? Incredible.

          • Hypernonpartisan
            Hypernonpartisan says:

            “If you are indeed a scientist, then you belong to an extreme minority that shares your views.”

            So, like Galileo? Or do you think that John Yudkin would be a better comparison?

            John Yudkin… was a British professor of nutrition who had sounded the alarm on sugar back in 1972, in a book called Pure, White, and Deadly.

            The book did well, but Yudkin paid a high price for it. Prominent nutritionists combined with the food industry to destroy his reputation, and his career never recovered. He died, in 1995, a disappointed, largely forgotten man.

            https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin

          • MostlyRight
            MostlyRight says:

            Is a non-Trump voter who believes the climate is and has always been changing a bizarro world-view to you? Who believes humankind certainly does impact the environment from local to global scales? Or is it bizarro because I don’t think the evidence points to a crisis worth the international policy actions of very political, typically leftist mouthpieces?

            What are your politics? Be brutally honest. Why do you keep your comment history private?

          • DrZman
            DrZman says:

            Which part of the “scientific community”? All scientists or climate scientists? If the later do you agree with those that claim anthropogenic warming or those scientists who claim that man has little or no effect on the climate?

          • Al Wright
            Al Wright says:

            Oh, so you are with the “scientific community” are you? What does that even mean? Most people and scientists agree that CO2 can trap heat. No people or scientists know for sure how much CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to long-term global temperatures. Many on both sides may claim they know, but no reasonable person would say either is certain. And people who claim “97% of scientists agree” on whatever are just ignorant or lying.

            What is certain is that all the solutions to address the problem if it exists spend a lot of money and do little to “fix” the problem. How could you justify spending lots of money for little benefit if you are so sure there is a problem? Perhaps you do not understand economics and will erroneously claim “green” projects actually help the economy. Or perhaps you are one of those who feel it is better to spend $1 trillion trying to help even if we know it will do little or nothing. Both of those are somewhere between ignorant and shameful.

            Honestly, if you want to claim moral and intellectual superiority, you need to do a little more legwork first. Your misguided demagoguery is just sad.

          • derek
            derek says:

            CO2 is used by plants. With more CO2, you have more plant growth which in return lowers the CO2 rate which in return feeds animals.

          • HappyWarrior2020
            HappyWarrior2020 says:

            It means exactly that; I believe in scientific data and its methodology of colIection, rather than the ideology of paranoid, anti-science, anti-globalist conspiracy theroists. I dont need to be lectured by you about critical thinking. That is laughable, as in bigly.

          • Al Wright
            Al Wright says:

            I should not have to lecture you in critical thinking. It is beneath me.

            I have an engineering background and degrees from the best universities with the highest honors. While I am not a “climate” scientist, I am an expert in interpreting data. I am qualified to read and critique the IPCC reports and the “scientific research” from which the 97% figure derives, and I have.

            Do you have the intellectual capacity to do this? Have you taken the trouble to do this? I see no evidence in your posts that you have. Only a smug, demagogic insistence that unnamed “authorities” back your position.

            I weary of the intellectually vapid demagoguing their betters on issues that are beyond their meager capabilities.

            Come back with something based in evidence rather than empty assertions. Absent that, you are just another mindless parrot. A useful idiot, as Marx would say. To use a non-sequitur you seem to embrace, you fail bigly!

          • HappyWarrior2020
            HappyWarrior2020 says:

            Even if you were a climatologist, your opinion puts you in a distinct minority of scientists. Call me a servicable idiot if it pleases you, but really, that title belongs to you and the conspiracy theorists you accompany. Given the data I’ve examined, I can say without reservation that I don’t believe you. Where are YOUR reports, papers, findings, data, etc? Nowhere. You graft political controversies and ideologies to science, mutilating your credibility. Goodbye.

          • Voootaaa
            Voootaaa says:

            What? With the scientific community you say? Leapin’ Lizzards! Very impressive. I guess that’s all there is to that. Case closed. Next?

          • bobclarebrough
            bobclarebrough says:

            I’m sure you would respect the statement by the head of the research unit of the IPCC. He famously said: “People must understand that our work is not about climate change, it is about wealth redistribution.”

            Thank God President Trump refused to allow the US to be blackmailed into supporting that at the cost of trillion of dollars and the loss of millions of jobs.

            Probably you are a non-working, non-taxpaying type so you don’t care who pays or who loses their job.

          • Patrick Turner
            Patrick Turner says:

            Well I see scientists calling for World War II era levels of social and economic control in order to prevent climate change. Do you worship scientists enough to institute scientists with dictatorial control over society in the hopes that it will always be benevolent?

            I cannot live within a strictly controlled society like that, even if it means saving planet earth.

          • DallasTexas
            DallasTexas says:

            I think you meant to say you’re with a certain segment of the scientific community to the best you can understand it as explained to you by the media and internet.
            It’s a highly politicized topic and field of study. What the scientific community thinks on this topic is widely varied and nuanced. The answers to even the simplest climate question depend on who you ask and how the questions are constructed.

        • Joe Farrell
          Joe Farrell says:

          Such odd phrasing,” former part of your name” most Americans and
          native English speakers would just say “first part” Sounds like
          a ringer to me.

      • Jon Schneck
        Jon Schneck says:

        Look to the Moon, the Moon’s temperature appears to change in a similar pattern as the Earths, proving that the core cause is from outside our atmosphere

        • Some Rabbit
          Some Rabbit says:

          Likewise on Mars where the atmosphere is largely CO2. It should be a sweltering greenhouse yet it’s rare when surface temps reach 60 degrees.

          • Dan Brown
            Dan Brown says:

            People… This is all backwards… One of the problems with “climate science” is in order to study it correctly you have to be conversant in all the sciences, from geology and paleontology through physics, chemistry, and the life sciences to astronomy. There really is no climate science or climatology. It’s a subset of all the others. The focus is too narrow, and on top of that there are too many computer nerds mucking up the soup.

            ALL planetary atmospheres on planets with rocky surfaces will be loaded with CO2. “Rocks” are essentially variations on oxygen compounds – the crust of the earth is half oxygen. Oxygen is too reactive to stay uncombined or in its diatomic state.

            Diatomic oxygen is an artifact of life. We have it because plants liberate it – from carbon dioxide. If that were to stop the rest of the oxygen would react with anything available, and if it involves nonmetals and gasses it will end up carbon dioxide because that is the most thermodynamically stable form.

            You hear about methane, the other global warming alarmist’s demon. Methane is constantly released into the atmosphere. Why isn’t it a significant component of the air? Because it reacts with oxygen – fast – to form carbon dioxide & water. It’s half life is about 7 years. Likewise all the other gasses people fret about. Ozone lasts abut 100 days.

          • derek
            derek says:

            Another important thing to study is history. What regular people wrote about during certain periods. Historically the 1300’s were warmer than it is now.

          • Patrick Turner
            Patrick Turner says:

            That’s why we had the Great Oxidation Exitinction back half a billion years ago. Plankton in the ocean liberated oxygen and that oxygen was first locked up in iron oxide(rust). Once those O2 sinks were filled the O2 escaped into the atmosphere which back then was mostly methane. As the methane reacted with the O2, it very very quickly caused a global cooling that led to the entire Earth freezing solid all the way to the equator for a couple hundred million years.

            Methane used to be the primary component of Earth atmosphere but it didn’t take long for O2 released by plankton to react it all away.

          • gkam
            gkam says:

            I have studied the field in graduate school. it included heavy chemistry, graduate-level Ecoscience, Thermodynamics of Energy Systems, Environmental Law, Environmental Economics, and other technical subjects. It took years of physics and other fields to get there.

            Here, I see hard-line ignorance of science and the adoption of feel-good politics in its stead.

            Guess who has the credibility?

          • CrazyHungarian
            CrazyHungarian says:

            The wonder of internet commenting is that anybody can be whatever they wish to claim, even you.

          • garywildd
            garywildd says:

            Mars’ atmospheric pressure is 160 times smaller than Earth.. there’s hardly any warming effect. And the Sun’s energy received at Mars is about one-third that at the Earth.

          • Jon Schneck
            Jon Schneck says:

            why is it silly just because it would disprove the man caused crap. when a request was made for the moon temperature data 5 years ago NASA declined to provide it and scrubbed all references to it from all computers. looks like they use some of hillerys bleach bit

        • Dan Brown
          Dan Brown says:

          Yes we do. A lot of “scientists” have been living very comfortable lives off that loot.

          People… We have way too many “scientists.” Jobs in real science are hard to come by and therefore jobs have to be “invented” or the university / “research” complex will wither – and they will fight hard against that; they are fighting for the survival of their very comfortable lives / lifestyles.

          These days we have PhDs teaching in obscure community colleges, filling jobs that could be accomplished very successfully with years less education – in fact, less education / more real world experience – is a superior model. If that doesn’t define an artificial, out of balance market… Nothing does.

          • LIEberalDESTROYER
            LIEberalDESTROYER says:

            Like the ones in Jimmy Carter’s administration that said by the year 2000 we would have a mini ice age from Minnesota to Texas. Yeah , that happened.NOT!

          • LIEberalDESTROYER
            LIEberalDESTROYER says:

            So which is it? Mini ice age or global warming? There is climate change. It’s called spring, summer, winter and fall. It’s been happening for millions of years and i would bet the house it will continue. The climate will change no matter what we do or don’t do. Oceans rise and they fall.It’s only facts and not that hard to understand. Al Gore and the taxpayer scientist love you low info wits. You are keeping their mansions warm in the winter and cool in the summer and their bank accounts full. Bless your hearts. I can’t imagine how easy it is to lead you mindless sheep to the slaughter house. GEEEZ.

          • LIEberalDESTROYER
            LIEberalDESTROYER says:

            Who are the Koch Brothers? I don’t know where you live but here in the Midwest we are praying for some of that global warming. BURRRR!

          • Wreckedem
            Wreckedem says:

            I think we should raise taxes and send manufacturing plants to 3rd world countries so they can create even more of this horrible CO2. TRUMP 2020!!

          • President Beef Supreme
            President Beef Supreme says:

            You do understand that global warming (climate) can lead to freakishly cold weather in some places, right? Or do you genuinely believe that climate is the same thing as the weather?
            Spoiler alert: they are not the same.
            I often get annoyed by climate change extremists too, but puerile taunts like “it’s cold outside so whatever happened to global warming” only serve to help their cause and hurt yours.

          • LIEberalDESTROYER
            LIEberalDESTROYER says:

            I see you have swallowed the Al Gore bait. If people like you would just research the climate changes of the earth over millions of years you will find facts about how the earth has evolved. The Oceans rise and fall. The earth gets warmer and cooler. Man has no effect on how the earth changes over time. You do realize Florida has been under water many times due to rising ocean levels, right? The desert is hot, the north pole is cold. Things change over time. Man has no effect on what the earth will or will not do. It’s a scam to pick your pocket. What’s sad about all of this is the fact that people who believe in this hoax are not bright enough to know they are being duped by wealthy criminals.

          • President Beef Supreme
            President Beef Supreme says:

            Look, it’s simply naïve to think that modern human behavior cannot change the earth’s climate. You’re making a straw-man argument about natural climate change, because nobody is disputing that the climate changes naturally. As I said before you are only hurting your cause by refusing to have a good faith debate about the extent to which humans are contributing to climate change and what, if anything, we should do about it. Calling it a “criminal hoax to take people’s money” is as nonsensical and intellectually dishonest as pretending that weather and climate are the same thing.

          • LIEberalDESTROYER
            LIEberalDESTROYER says:

            I about pissed my pants from laughing at this monkey shit reply. Thanks for the humor. The LIEberal education system has done it’s job brainwashing you. Next comment out of your mouth will be Slick Willie is a devoted and loyal husband. HAHAHAHA! You LIEberals keep us smiling everyday. I was hoping there was still some common sense left in the American people, but you have proved me wrong.

          • President Beef Supreme
            President Beef Supreme says:

            You’re smiling ’cause your a drooling, brain-dead savage. Only freak would think that climate and weather are the same thing or that climate change is a Chinese hoax to steal your money. That’s the OPPOSITE of common sense.

          • LIEberalDESTROYER
            LIEberalDESTROYER says:

            What Al Gore phrase are you going to swallow next week. Al and Michael Mann said by 2013 the polar ice cap would be gone. In the last year it has grown by over 30,000 square miles. In 1978-1979 Jimmy Carter’s scientist said we would be in a mini ice age by the year 2000 from Minnesota to Texas. Wrong, and wrong again. Wonder what the Al Gore groupies will call the 4 seasons next? I’m just all squishy inside with anticipation. Oh, and the suck my balls , dude comment, shows your IQ. Now get off of mommies teet and go make me a ham sammich, girlie boy.

          • President Beef Supreme
            President Beef Supreme says:

            All that shit is false ( because you probably got it from Fox or Brietfart, or somewhere worse). You literally know nothing about it because you are moron as well as a liar.

          • LIEberalDESTROYER
            LIEberalDESTROYER says:

            It’s called winter. Is Al Gore typing for you? I bet you will say it’s hot outside in July next.

          • LIEberalDESTROYER
            LIEberalDESTROYER says:

            Why do you resort to name calling? I took your post as a uninformed LIEberal. You could have replied…..Sarcasm. You on the fence?

          • Eleanor
            Eleanor says:

            Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
            On tuesday I got a brand new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It Sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
            !gh102d:
            ➽➽
            ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleNetJobsWeekWorkFromHome/more/cash ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!gh102lhhhh

          • Frances
            Frances says:

            Go-o-gle is paying 97$ per hour,with week-l-y payouts.You can a-l-so avail this.
            On tuesday I got a brand new Land Rover Range Rover from hav-i-ng earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have e-v-er done .. It s-o-unds un-b-elievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
            !rf271d:
            >>>>> http://GoogleCashSmartCareerPartTimeJobs/get/hourly AYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAAYAYAYAYYAYAYYAYAYYAFAYYAYAYDZYLYKAYAYAYA:::::!rf271lywfkdd

          • LIEberalDESTROYER
            LIEberalDESTROYER says:

            Look it up like i did. You can type, right? You are either too young or uninformed on the once worst POTUS of the US. That title has been passed on to Barry. So, get back with me on your findings.

          • Hypernonpartisan
            Hypernonpartisan says:

            Indeed. Here’s one of my favorite parts:

            Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence)…

            The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing.

            No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

            — IPCC AR5, Summary for Policy Makers, Page 14, https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf

            Yep, improved understanding led to a lowered and widened range and an inability to state a best estimate.

          • garywildd
            garywildd says:

            Of course scientists are less reliable. Most of them are Democrats, aren’t they? Enough said. j/k haha

          • Attila
            Attila says:

            Like the ones who said we should give the fossilized remains of “Kennewick Man” to a modern native American tribe so they could be destroyed, or the ones who call the likes of Bradley Manning “women”? Those “scientists”?

          • gkam
            gkam says:

            Do you prefer the ones hired by corporations?
            Such as the ones who sold us cigarettes for decades knowing they were both addicting and lethal?

          • Sherlocktoo
            Sherlocktoo says:

            Government money is my money. Corporate money is their money. Don’t waste my money, and we will allow Corporations to break themselves, or prove themselves truthful. You see, corporations are owned by people too. And these people, breathe and drink just like we do.

          • garywildd
            garywildd says:

            OMG you idiot, corporate money is also YOUR money!! Did Bill Gates print his billions? NO !!!! Every single penny came from a consumer’s pocket somewhere in the world. But he can spend it any way he pleases, while the government is accountable to US, THE PEOPLE. Get it ????

          • Michel Maiorana
            Michel Maiorana says:

            If you think the Federal government is accountable you are delusional. The Civil Service runs this country not the hacks we return to office every couple years.

          • Sherlocktoo
            Sherlocktoo says:

            Let’s see? If the government gives me billions of taxpayer dollars to find a problem, I better find them a problem. And a outrageous solution, even if it makes the USA a third world nation. It won’t matter, because I will be rich. I can turn that worthless money into gold before it becomes worthless. I simply need political help, where is Al gor? He can make believers bigger idiots than they have already been. Prophet Algore can do “Inconvenient Truth II”, and demand that everyone believe, and that it be taught to the youth, so that the next generation will be indoctrinated fully.

            Oh, if corporate money is my money too, I think I’ll go in tomorrow morning and ask for the checkbook, so l can write myself a nice fat check. And take your next payday, (you do work don’t you?), and give it all back to the government. That check is really standing good for government money, and by your mentality, all money belongs to the government, so give them their money.

          • Hypernonpartisan
            Hypernonpartisan says:

            “we will allow Corporations to break themselves”

            Indeed, while those who spend “government” (our) money risk little to nothing, so government money is more easily corrupting than corporate money, just as Ike warned us.

          • koenigsking
            koenigsking says:

            How about none of the above?

            Just give me honest information and the data and methodology used to gather it. I don’t need to be preached to by sanctimonious phony “elites” that fly around the world in private jets to tell me how my Toyota pickup is destroying the planet.

          • polijunkie100
            polijunkie100 says:

            Or as the ‘GOV’ said in Blazing Saddles, “Gentlemen. We have to protect our phoney-baloney jobs! Harrumph!”

          • Hypernonpartisan
            Hypernonpartisan says:

            The science does not support the conclusion that humans are primarily responsible for recent warming, and doesn’t come close to supporting alarmism.

            1. Neutral feedback CO2 equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS — the amount of warming from doubling CO2) is a highly unalarming 1°C. Absent strong positive feedback, there is no crisis. — Rahmstorf, p 38, http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf

            2. Feedback is very poorly understood, hence the lowered and widened ECS range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C from the UN’s 5th Assessment Report. — IPCC AR5, Summary for Policy Makers, p 14, https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf

            3. The models that assume strong positive feedback have failed miserably. — Santer et al, http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v10/n7/full/ngeo2973.html

            4. We have had 3 statistically identical periods of warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. The first 2 could not have been due to humans. — Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm

            5. The null hypothesis — that late 20th century warming was the natural continuation of the trend that started in the 19th century with the end of the Little Ice Age — must be accepted unless someone can show otherwise. (There is no theory that attributes warming prior to about 1950 on human activity.)

          • garywildd
            garywildd says:

            I read your first reference; it SUPPORTS anthropogenic global warming. Since you’re obviously lying about these papers, I did not waste time checking out your other claims.

          • Hypernonpartisan
            Hypernonpartisan says:

            Of course I’m citing alarmists. I’m demonstrating that their politics are not supported by their own scientific work.

            As for the fist reference:

            “Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1°C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback” — Rahmstorf, p 38, http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf

            So, it says exactly what I said it says.

            Why did you lie?

          • NutherGuy
            NutherGuy says:

            Well I did. I’m underwhelmed. It’s a major problem that because the U.S. has been routinely ‘adjusting’ the temperature data to support GW and the models are unable to predict anything for which we already have REAL data the whole thing is falsifiable. It’s endlessly interesting and doubtless provides employment for many who would otherwise be managing the climate in a pizzateria but science it’s not.

            Prediction: the issuance of ‘ARs’ — now up to AR-5 — will stop before they get to AR-15. Anything that sounds like the name of a gun terrifies the supporters of this sort of garbage.

        • President Beef Supreme
          President Beef Supreme says:

          A drop in the bucket, of course. We’ve spent more than $2 trillion over the last 25 years on so-called criminal justice and crime rates continue to rise and fall.

      • Dyllin Barnett-Lozano
        Dyllin Barnett-Lozano says:

        Years ago read in the NatGeo that of course the earth is warming because we’re still coming out of the last ice age.

        • Caddolakeguy
          Caddolakeguy says:

          You are spot on. To a geologist we are in an interglacial period, a lengthy warm period between glaciations. In other words, we are still in the last glaciation.
          To a geologist an ice age has ended when there are no polar ice caps. If there is permanent ice at the poles, the ice age continues. Also ice ages are noted for extreme temperature swings (that last on a time scale of decades to centuries).

        • America Is the People
          America Is the People says:

          I worked with folks like you, was even one of you. It was literally impossible to turn me from my desperately absorbed beliefs. I see the same in you. A minor miracle intervened for me, not a person or an event, no person to credit or blame. Once I allowed myself a TRUE scientist’s open mind, my irreversible dogmas fell like dominoes and I was humbled by how hard I’d fallen for indoctrination.

          You don’t have to belong or be liked.Get over your adolescent weakness for peer pressure

      • TNCBG
        TNCBG says:

        That’s why it’s a perfect scam! Climate is not weather unless the weather is bad. Global warming was too specific, so the amorphous “climate change” became the new meme. Now, no matter what happens, it’s climate change. Predicting that the climate will change is a safe bet. What a beautiful scam!

      • Denton_Fisk
        Denton_Fisk says:

        Exactly. That’s why the “Climate” must be “fixed”. It is always ‘too hot’ or ‘too cold’. Something must be done. Take money from somebody and ‘fix’ the ‘climate’. That’s what it is all about.

    • RRDRRD
      RRDRRD says:

      In addition to not understanding science, the alarmists are too stupid to know when the President is trolling them.

    • gkam
      gkam says:

      I do not understand how some folk can fool themselves again and again. It went from Trickle-down and Star Wars/SDI through decades of scams and swindles all the way to “WMD!” and “MAGA”

      The same folk keep on getting fooled by the same folk! Meanwhile we have the Republican National Debt hovering over us, and a new addition to it so rich folk can get richer, as the environment starts to fight back through climate change.

    • garywildd
      garywildd says:

      Tell me WHY they would lie. What do they gain from it? Now I’ll tell you what Republicans gain by denying the science. Global warming is a truth that’s mighty inconvenient for the GOP’s donors. They don’t want to clean up their carbon emissions — so they order their kept men in Congress deny the facts.

  3. Floyd_Lloyd
    Floyd_Lloyd says:

    This extreme cold weather will not dissuade the global warming / climate change/disruption crowd. They have already included every permutation of weather or “climate” modification to suit their doctrinaire needs. If it’s cold, it’s cause by extreme weather. Hot, stormy, mild with a chance of late afternoon showers…same, same.

    • Phlegm Ball
      Phlegm Ball says:

      Nothing will ever dissuade the “true believers”. For them. this is nothing short of a religion. The “facts” are mere articles of faith. They are the useful idiots of the communist global totalitarian government kabal.

      • HappyWarrior2020
        HappyWarrior2020 says:

        Wow; not only a Phlegm Ball, but paranoid and ignorant as well. I’m sure you possess a Flat Earth Society membership in addition to your alt-right qualifications?

        • strongmind
          strongmind says:

          you can criticize all you want, but the fact of the matter is that none of your scientists can tell us what the average temperature of the earth is, has been, or should be.

        • Phlegm Ball
          Phlegm Ball says:

          You are obviously threatened and triggered. Hense your ad homenem argument. The ignorance is demonstrably on your side as true scientists, not the political shills who pretend to be scientists in the global warming/climate change church, observe the raw data and form conclusions from it. The “scientists” in the Church of AGW/Climate Change manipulate and adjust date to fit the conclusion they have come to before the “experiment” had even begun. Another way we can shatter the lie of the Church of AGW/Climate Change is to look at the solution that they propose, massive wealth redistribution (primarily to the government masters) and total government control of the populace. It’s all a lie, Happy. A lie to control you and I.

    • HappyWarrior2020
      HappyWarrior2020 says:

      The vast majority of the scientific community disagree with you. We’d be better off consulting a witch doctor regarding climate change than to defer to you. 2017 according to scientific data has been the SECOND HOTTEST YEAR IN RECORDED HISTORY. You deniers live in a fantasy world and understand little to nothing about climate change. Are you members of the flat earth society as well? Ignorant or evil; you are one or both of these.

      • Michel Maiorana
        Michel Maiorana says:

        So the claim that the world has been warming steadily since 1940 is real.
        Why then in 1978 did the vast majority of scientists claim we were heading to a new ice age and that world temps had been dropping for thirty years?
        And why is the solution the west (Europe and North America) has to give up industry and automobiles when China and India can keep building coal fired power plants?
        By the way the current great dip in the jet stream exhibits the same pattern as it did during the last ice age.

      • Dyllin Barnett-Lozano
        Dyllin Barnett-Lozano says:

        None of this matters. Governments in China and India are burning every bit of hydrocarbon fuel they can for the energy needed to lift their 3 billion people out of despair. Combined those two nations in 20 years will increase CO2 emissions by multiples over global levels now. We can thank the anti-nuke nuts in part.

      • Jerry_From_CO
        Jerry_From_CO says:

        You outed yourself with the phrase “recorded history “. How many years is that? Not enough to prove squat.

      • Tom Austin
        Tom Austin says:

        How many data sets had to be massaged to come to your conclusion? I would stay away from the skepticalscience.com website as it seems to have no idea what precision and accuracy is and how to integrate data sets with differing A&P’s into a single data set. You alarmist seem to think there is a ideal Temperature for the world. there is not (http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/16/almost-300-graphs-undermine-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warmth/#sthash.6hSXfkcX.XnyDJXWL.dpbs)

  4. Eric
    Eric says:

    Ever notice the climate change chumps have the same agenda as every other Marxist cause? Raise taxes and increase regulations eliminate all chance for a profit. Strange how there is never a positive environmental solution to the CO2 “poison” causing terrible global warming, e.g. desert regreening strategies, Thorium nuclear reactors. Never. Ever. Only taxes, taxes, more taxes. This is an NWO strategy to fund their world domination effort. It is SSOOOOOO obvious.

    • CrazyHungarian
      CrazyHungarian says:

      Once virgins were sacrificed to control the weather. Now it’s my money being sacrificed, with the same chance of outcome in controlling the weather.

        • Its_All_Baloney
          Its_All_Baloney says:

          I suppose I could offer my services … I mean, being a humanitarian and all….

          I’d specialize in eighteenth birthday specials. Maybe with a group discount. Yeah, yeah, I can already hear the cries of “ewwwww! Creepy old guy!” From all over the forum. But be realistic here. What’s worse: two hours with a creepy old man? Or being tossed live into a volcano? I don’t force anyone. They get a choice.

      • Voootaaa
        Voootaaa says:

        The US has spent untold treasure in the last 50 years to address real pollution, and it has succeeded. And we must keep it up and that costs money. And some are ready to blow it on reducing CO2. Crazy. Human activity is a tiny drop in the CO2 bucket. Perspective: Termite activity in Africa generates more CO2 than all human activity. 1982 New York Times – http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/31/us/termite-gas-exceeds...

    • Mediaistheenemy
      Mediaistheenemy says:

      That’s it. There is no science. Give me all your money and complete power over your lives or you will all die by drowning, extreme heat, extreme cold, tornadoes, hurricanes, snowstorms, earthquakes, terrorism, etc. All of these dreadful things are caused by man-made generation of CO2 and the government alone can save you!
      Logic/science are to leftists/media/Democrats as salt is to a slug.

    • Jim M. Ryles
      Jim M. Ryles says:

      Yes and when you ask why they don’t just chuck it all, their heating, their AC, their SUV’s, their manufactured clothes and food and show us all their serious ….they give you that “I Didn’t mean me look”. Global control, that’s all this is about, control of every thing , how you live and who lives.

      • cochise1
        cochise1 says:

        Global control by an unelected cadre of elites is the end game. It’s the overriding egotism of leftists to think that they are the wise ones and should make the rules for the rest of us. The planet is now proceeding to make fools of them. We are very likely heading into a period of global cooling. No one knows how severe but if it’s anything like the ‘little ice age’, It will be catastrophic for a lot of people. Crop failures, energy prices skyrocketing, food riots and even wars. We will be begging for some of that global warming to return.

        • Its_All_Baloney
          Its_All_Baloney says:

          We’re looking at a three year solar minimum as various different cycles coincide at a low point. After that, temps should start easing upward again. But of course, the leftist puppets will point and screech that the lower temps are because Trump is “literally” killing the planet — while accusing the rest of us of being anti-science.

    • Michel Maiorana
      Michel Maiorana says:

      Back in prehistory before global warming enviros were pushing planting trees to help reduce CO2. Since that allows insufficient opportunities for graft you never here that idea pushed anymore.

      • Its_All_Baloney
        Its_All_Baloney says:

        They tried paying college students to plant thousands of seedlings in mass reforestation projects. They eventually realized the lefty students were grabbing a couple flats of seedlings, walking over the ridge to their assigned grid square, lighting up a joint, then taking a nap, and walking back in time to catch the school bus back and collect their day’s wages.

        And now those left tree planting frauds are all grown up and lecturing the rest of us about doing our part to save the planet.

        • DKD
          DKD says:

          Reforestation continues, it’s the law in Oregon that landowners must restock forestland after harvesting timber if the number of remaining trees falls below specified levels. It makes economic sense. It’s not just leftist tree planting frauds.

          • Tom Austin
            Tom Austin says:

            And one major volcano with an Pyroclastic eruption and trees wont matter. If Yellowstone or its equivalent of which Vesuvius us only part of goes planting trees won’t help much. I agree 100% on replanting trees as those are renewable and useful

          • Michel Maiorana
            Michel Maiorana says:

            Here in Michigan we use selective cutting. Benefits wildlife and doesn’t require other than natural replanting. The only exceptions are on private land or Jack Pine forests which require periodic clear cutting to prevent them from becoming a fire hazard.

  5. Mike Hawkslarge
    Mike Hawkslarge says:

    You dummies don’t no nothin…. you see this cold stuff all IS global warming for total sure….why can’t ya’ll understand it???
    See, it’s like this, let’s say the climate and temperature is like a circle – or a clock. And let’s say that 11:59 is freezing, while 5:59 is burning. So you see that as it get’s hotter and the clock winds clockwise, towards 5:59 and gets super hot, then the clock keeps going around and it gets so hot that at 11:59 it’s actually so frickin hot that it’s cold….but not just cold – I’m talking super cold.
    So now I’ve explained it to you all.
    Thank God for my awesome science background and my extra super ability to explain things so that average people can understand them… :-)

  6. Stephen Clayton
    Stephen Clayton says:

    The liberals who believe in man-made climate change are also the same ones who ignore the truth that they will someday be judged harshly before their maker because they have promoted abortion, homosexuality, overthrowing a lawfully elected president through devious and treasonous acts, and even justify the crimes of their socialist/globalistic/power-hungry leaders – since the ends always justify the means. 2018 will be a great year for purging the DOJ, NSA, CIA, EPA, HLS, State Dept. and FBI of all Obama appointed, swamp creatures.

  7. Mr.P
    Mr.P says:

    The climate on planet earth has never been static (Or any other planet for that matter.) Its included everything from massive earth covering floods, to ice ages, to the melting of those ice ages, and so on and so forth. When a group claims that any “change” from what is perceived as comfortable for humans needs to be “fixed” by giving them trillions of dollars…you’re quite simply being lied to and taken advantage of for their financial gain. No amount of money will stop or even slow what happens naturally (you’d think these “science believers” would appreciate the natural ebb and flow of our planet.

    • strongmind
      strongmind says:

      “…… No amount of money will stop or even slow what happens naturally (you’d think these “science believers” would appreciate the natural ebb and flow of our planet…..”

      but the activists and true believers will die trying to use our money to “change the world.”

    • Joe Blow
      Joe Blow says:

      Yes the climate has changed. Glaciers, etc. However, there has never been a “massive earth covering flood”. (Stories, from peoples living in the Levant, of a great flood most likely originated when an ice damn, left over from the last ice age and separating the Mediterranean and Black Seas, broke, flooding the shoreline of the Mediterranean.)

  8. Tim Tarr
    Tim Tarr says:

    Just the 1st qtr in an overtime game. Sunspots follow an 11yr cycle. So 3 more years of cooling.

    There are indications this is a super cycle. So maybe several cycles with each getting lower or staying low. Think Frost Fair on the Thames and ice in Gulf of Mexico. Mini Ice Age. Interesting that the last 100 years was an up cycle.

    Of course just a theory. I’d say a better one than manmade BS. More money to be made on Manmade psudo-science. Besides how much can the Sun affect the weather anyway. Hahahahaha

    • Marshall Gill
      Marshall Gill says:

      Exactly. That “ball of fire” in the sky driving climate and weather?! Absurd? It simply must be the exhaust from my car!!

      “I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!! MY PERSONAL ACTIONS DRIVE THE CLIMATE OF THE WHOLE PLANET!!”

      Yes, this is what they actually believe.

  9. auggie123
    auggie123 says:

    We better be concerned about something that is going to f-up the entire planet and it’s inhabitants – Fukishima!
    Why is this not a priority?

    • JmdJr1944
      JmdJr1944 says:

      Oh, much better to ignore it for now, then scream later when your fish dinner glows brightly.
      Build a nuke reactor on islands / land prone to earthquakes. Now what can go wrong there?

    • thaidude
      thaidude says:

      auggie, sweet-heart. The only thing that is going to “f-up” this planet in your life time is an over abundance of LIBRHOIDS.

    • Marshall Gill
      Marshall Gill says:

      RAAAADDDDDIATIONNNN!!!!!!! I know, and not only from Fukishima but the Earth itself produces that poison!! We are all going do DIEEEEE, unless benevolent politicians save us from ourselves!

  10. Jerome Barry
    Jerome Barry says:

    There was that huge snowstorm back in the 1880’s, which obviously needed a lot of water evaporated into the atmosphere. I’m going to go ahead and guess that was just weather. How about that time the Old Farmer’s Almanac predicted snow on July 4? Oh, weather.

  11. DisgustedwithElitism
    DisgustedwithElitism says:

    If the climate change alarmists took their own claims seriously they would be abandoning coastal cities in droves, but they aren’t.

    Wait a minute… since they are all about transfers of wealth from others to themselves, they are using their climate alarmism to build a case for never-ending taxpayer bailouts and reconstruction funding.

    • brian_in_arizona
      brian_in_arizona says:

      I’ll believe in AGW when Mayor De Blasio tells residents of low lying regions of NYC that they should retreat to higher ground because the city cannot afford to protect them.

  12. Enderby
    Enderby says:

    Leftists watch far too much science fiction. They think they can pass laws that repeal the laws of supply and demand, or the laws of human nature. They believe humans can control the weather, that windmills can power cities, or 747’s can fly from NYC to LA on solar power. But ask them when life begins, or how many genders there are, and the clear evidence of their rejection of science is stunning.

  13. CrazyHungarian
    CrazyHungarian says:

    We all know what the New Science teaches: If it helps argument that the earth is spinning into undampened overheating, it’s climate. If it weakens that argument, then it’s just weather.

  14. GemStone
    GemStone says:

    Here’s some science for you: In additional to whatever contributions greenhouse gases add to climate and weather, there is a ~60 year natural cycle. When the oscillation switches, it is going to warm for a while (or cool) depending on the side of the cycle in play. Back when the warming period started, the activists could say with confidence that the planet is getting warmer, now that the switch is flipped, they need to come up with a new strategy to get people be less wasteful.

    http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm

  15. Tim
    Tim says:

    Don’t worry, the environmental nut cases are surely standing out at the weather station themometors with blow dryers ensuring that, like 2016, 2015, 2014 etc, will be the hottest year on record again.

    • Marshall Gill
      Marshall Gill says:

      No, they don’t do that, too much work. They simply add a few degrees here and there to adjust for the heat that the thermometers are not detecting but that they KNOW must be there.

  16. Mediaistheenemy
    Mediaistheenemy says:

    Huffpo has an article today (Yeah, All of this really happened in 2017-section Mother Nature’s Revenge) where the author uses examples of major earthquakes as evidence of climate change to bemoan the Trump administration denial of climate change (in the sense of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming based on CO2 emissions). The rest of the article is mundane, but that section was unintentionally hilarious.
    Do warmists have any capacity for rational thought?
    The left/media should also acknowledge their working definition of climate/weather. “Any weather data which supports my point of view is “climate”. Any weather data which does not support my point of view is “weather”.”

    • Marshall Gill
      Marshall Gill says:

      If warmists had an ability for rational thought they might actually realize that moderate warming would be a boon to mankind. Back in the day when I was in school they used to teach this thing called “cyclical glaciation” which sounds much worse to me than a few low lying island being supposedly inundated.

  17. David
    David says:

    I’m a global warming critic, denier, skeptic, etc….But clearly, the cold “cap” of air that is normally over the Arctic has blown south for a week. It’s not like the entire Earth is suddenly freezing cold – just Canada and Eastcoast US. (I know, some will reply “so is Midwest” — ok, that too).

  18. CrazyHungarian
    CrazyHungarian says:

    First they tell us that the California drought and lack of rain was caused by the earth overheating, but now they tell us that the abundance of snow was caused by extra evaporation from the Earth overheating. Which is is? More evaporation of less evaporation? This New Science is so confusing.

  19. 620889
    620889 says:

    Lost in this inane banter about climate change is the all too real fact that humans are impacting the planet in nasty ways. Love your Mother and strive to lessen your footprint.

  20. weston
    weston says:

    What one must always discuss when trashing these leftists about global warming is what is their actual purpose. That purpose is control through tax and regulation. And not just control of many little things. What taxation and regulation allows for is control of the Nation’s demographics. By raising the cost of living on families they have changed the face of America. The America that once saw large families as a sign of its abundance and fruitfulness, now is mired in one and two child families, and scores of young people having no children at all. With this decline comes the need to import the brown faces from Central America, N. Africa, the Middle East. N. Africa and the Middle East are especially dangerous because they bring their warped, 7th century religion with them. And we have an elite progressive class that is more than happy to see the white middle class (the rabble) of this Country disappear or be enslaved into economic servitude in order to feed and house our new…ahem, Americans.

  21. Marshall Gill
    Marshall Gill says:

    Every year is going to be hotter than the preceding one. Even before this year ends, is there any doubt that each of the last 10,000 years have all been the “hottest on record”? I am willing to bet $10,000 that next year will also be the “hottest on record”. Of course, not in reality but only after severe massaging of the numbers. The HAVE to adjust them up, because they just KNOW that it must be hotter than the actual records. Satellite data indicating a pause in heating? That pesky heat, which we KNOW (from preconceived belief of course) must be hiding. Yes, the heat is hiding from us it is so diabolical!

  22. Paul52
    Paul52 says:

    It’s called “global” warming. Not “my backyard” warming.

    Check the temperature differentials in places like Alaska, you’ll see that relative to “normal” it is as warmer there (10 – 20 degrees above norms) as it is colder than normal in New York.

    Because a “polar vortex” MOVES Arctic air south. And that air, at the ARCTIC, is replaced by warmer air.

    And yes, on a whole planet basis, winters are shorter and warmer, notwithstanding that certain areas may be colder.

    We had a record ($400 billion) amount of weather related damage in 2017. It wasn’t a “dreadful year” for “climate activists,” it was a dreadful year for people hit by record storms, wildfires, and flooding.

  23. Nathan Bedford Gump
    Nathan Bedford Gump says:

    “Cities are canceling the Polar Bear Plunge on New Year’s Day due to inhumane air and water temperatures.”

    Uh, water can’t get colder than 32F

  24. robert joseph
    robert joseph says:

    I love how the left tries to shut people up by attempting to ridicule them. The idea of a few weeks of weather is any indication of climate change is ridiculous. But so is the record over 30 years, 50 or even 100 years is an indication of climate change. Its too small of a sample. When the say what temperatures we’re a million years ago, they can’t narrow anything down to a hundred years. Its an average over 10’s or 100’s of thousands of years, Only 20,000 years ago ice extended down from the arctic to Chicago. Thousands of years before that the same area was ice free. Using a 30 year sample as an indication of climate change is ridiculous as saying a cold snap is and indication of no climate change.

    • Paul52
      Paul52 says:

      Except, of course, for the fact that the cause of the 50 year trend has been identified and is not going away. To the contrary it’s increasing as we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

      Therefore we know to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the warming trend will continue.

      • Its_All_Baloney
        Its_All_Baloney says:

        … or not. So far, ALL the models have been wrong. And, there is no trend that cannot be accounted for by margins of error and massaged data.

        But, thanks for playing.

      • robert joseph
        robert joseph says:

        Of the entire atmospheric makeup, only 2% are cause of the greenhouse effect, with CO2 making only a little over 3% of that, and water vapor upwards to 95%. And the same scientists say emissions will need to be cut in half, for CO2 emmisiions to stop rising. So lets spend trillions upon trillions of $$$ to say we tried to do something about lowering CO2 emmisions for our kids, to slow climate change from destroying life on the planet, and make ourselves feel good. I was around in the 70’s and the 80’s when global cooling and CFC’s we’re going to be the end of us. We did what the scientists said to stop using CFC’s , and the ozone hole is as big as it ever was. Whatever happened to those dire pronouncements?

        • Paul52
          Paul52 says:

          1. There was never a consensus — or anything close — on the idea of global cooling. Stop repeating lies.
          2. Per NASA: First detected in 1985, the Antarctic ozone hole forms during the Southern Hemisphere’s late winter as the returning sun’s rays catalyze reactions involving man-made, chemically active forms of chlorine and bromine. These reactions destroy ozone molecules.

          Thirty years ago, the international community signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and began regulating ozone-depleting compounds. The ozone hole over Antarctica is expected to gradually become less severe as chlorofluorocarbons—chlorine-containing synthetic compounds once frequently used as refrigerants – continue to decline. Scientists expect the Antarctic ozone hole to recover back to 1980 levels around 2070.

          • robert joseph
            robert joseph says:

            I guess we’ll agree to disagree on some points. Firstn of all calling me a liar doesn’t get anything done. No on said in 1985 it we did what scientist told us to do, ozone hole would take 80 years to recover to 1980 levels.Never read that, So stop reperating that lie.

  25. HappyWarrior2020
    HappyWarrior2020 says:

    Julie Kelly: Still according to scientific data the SECOND HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD in recorded history. You live in a fantasy world and understand little to nothing about climate change. Are you a member of the flat earth society as well? Ugh.

    • Abraham_Franklin
      Abraham_Franklin says:

      Please link us to the data–more specifically, the unadulterated raw data from temperature stations that meet NOAA’s own standards.

    • GemStone
      GemStone says:

      This does not mean the second hottest year in the history of earth.

      NASA began collecting data with satellites in 1978. The last cooling period ended around 1972. All of NASA’s records have been during the latest warming period.

      Modern record keeping is considered to have begun in 1880. The temperature globally has been warming since the end of the little ice age. There is evidence that prior to that, the earth was warmer during this interglacial period.

      https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally

    • Tom Austin
      Tom Austin says:

      While you show us that “record” temperature. Please how they took various data sets with widely varying accuracy and precision, differing instrumentation, even differing media, and evolving sampling sites, and yet have the nerve to come up with any coherent A&P to apply to any data. Also look at the actual temperature they claim to be a “record”. It fall well below any sane A&P they could claim for other than satellite data, which they did not use (and that A&P would be swamped by larger, less accurate/precise data sets). Before you start the ad hominem attacks, I’m a retired research chemist whose entire career (30 years) was performing experiments, developing large data sets, determining A&P, and developing meta set taking these factors in to account. I am verse in descriptive and inferential statistics (including Bayesian). Simple question: Are you?

      By the way, NASA is not the ICON you think it is:

      http://joannenova.com.au/2017/09/former-nasa-giss-climate-scientist-tells-the-new-nasa-head-to-stop-funding-them/

  26. brian_in_arizona
    brian_in_arizona says:

    “Hoist on their own petard” is what happens when AGW advocates link current, local weather to long term climate change predictions. As the author notes, the climate change crowd never misses an opportunity to use extreme weather events to “prove” AGW theory/models.

    The AGW threat is too slow moving, on a human time scale, for it to register in the psyche of the average citizen.

    The best hope for the AGW advocates is something like avoidance of high-risk coastal areas (like Miami Beach) by new real estate buyers, making it hard to sell existing property. This would be a tangible, understandable response to the threat of rising oceans. It also does not spell the end of the world as we know it: one coastline disappears, and another one is created. There will still be an ocean beach somewhere, and the rich will own it.

  27. Henry Miller
    Henry Miller says:

    The “climate change” hysteria was never about “climate change.” The whole point was to justify higher taxes, bigger government, and more government control of practically everything, and the “threat” of catastrophic “climate change” was supposed to have been incontestable, “backed up” by fake “science.”

    You can only scream, “The sky is falling!” so many times before people start to notice that there aren’t broken fragments of it littering the landscape.

    The next step is to demonstrate that just about every other pronouncement of the Left, about how we need to be nannied (“for our own good”), how everything under the sun (and the moon and the clouds…) needs to be “regulated” by our moral and intellectual superiors, is just as much a lie as “climate change” ever was.

    It will be interesting to see what new scare-tactic the Left comes up with once “climate change” becomes an historical event studied by future generations as a great example of artificially-induced irrational mob behaviour. Maybe it will be that aliens are going to invade–hey, you can’t prove it’s not going to happen.

  28. vendome
    vendome says:

    There’s been no global warming for over 20 years.

    The entire Global Warming/Climate Change scam was built on 15 years of failed computer generated climate models.

    The entire world is aware of the failed climate models and that this entire scam is nothing more than a global tax and redistribution scheme.

    This isn’t science – it’s fraud.

  29. bilahn
    bilahn says:

    The absolute stupidity of this article – the utter willful ignorance and politicalization is beyond belief. Since you have already read the appropriate materials and choose to ignore it because of your politics and idiocy there is no need to repeat it here. This website should be renamed “American Irrelevance” because that is where Trump and you cultists are leading us.

    • TheSagaciousOne
      TheSagaciousOne says:

      ” Since you have already read the appropriate materials and choose to ignore it because of your politics and idiocy there is no need to repeat it here. “
      See my post above.

    • Its_All_Baloney
      Its_All_Baloney says:

      Rinse your panties and p/§§¥ hat and celebrate the new year, secure in the knowledge that if everything collapses in 2018, it will only be weather, not climate.

  30. E. T. Bass
    E. T. Bass says:

    Drawing conclusions about man’s impact on a climate system that has been in constant flux for billions of years based on about 200 years (at best) of moderately reliable data measurements is about the most unscientific thing I’ve ever heard of.

  31. Bob Jones
    Bob Jones says:

    It’s pretty sad when you realize that there are still millions of simple minded, naive, people who believe the climate Nazi’s.

  32. TheSagaciousOne
    TheSagaciousOne says:

    There have been a number of peer reviewed papers this this year that AGCC adherents never seem to mention. Here are three.

    Nature Geoscience recently published two papers discussing AGCC models. The first was published on 19 Jun 2017. The title is: “Causes of Differences In Model and Satellite Tropospheric Warming Rates.” It makes the following points:
    1.Tropospheric warming trends in the 21st century have been less than predicted by the models.
    2. There is a low probability (0 – 9%) that this can be explained by the naturally occurring multidecadal oscilations (El Niño/La Niña., AMO, PMO, NAO, etc.).
    3. It is also unlikely due to variations in climate sensitivity in the different models
    4. The difference between predicted and actual temperatures are due to modeling errors.

    The second article is titled: “Emission Budgets and Pathways Consistent with Limiting Warming to 1.5ºC,” and was published on 18 Sep 2017. The thrust of this paper is that the Paris Accords should be accepted by all countries, and do not need any clarification or adjustment of the goals. A rise of 1.5ºC is achievable because the projected warming has been overstated by the modeling.
    NOTE: The abstract is insufficient. It is necessary to read both the full article and the Supplementary Information. If you are not a subscriber, you can purchase PDF versions of articles for $32.00 USD.

    So there you have it. The “settled science” knows that the computer modeling is accurately predicting virtual runaway global warming. That,heretical publication, Nature Geoscience, says there are problems with the modeling.
    BTW: Before you scream “Deniers” check the authors. They are all recobnized AGCC adherents. In fact, one of the first article authors is Dr. Michael E. “Hockey Stick” Mann.

    Then there is NASA . According to a 30 Oct 15 (updated: 4 Aug 17), study by NASA the Antartic ice mass is increasing.

    A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers. The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

    Has NASA joined the “denialist” ranks? Decidedly not. Later in the report it says:

    IF [emphasis added] the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years.

    This mealy mouthed statement should prevent a fall from grace with the faithful adherents.

    The point is, the “Settled Science” says the Antartic ice mass is presently decreasing. The heretical NASA science says it is not.

    Causes of Differences In Model and Satellite Tropospheric Warming Rates https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2973.html

    Emission Budgets and Pathways Consistent with Limiting Warming to 1.5ºC http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html?foxtrotcallback=true

    http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

  33. rlhailssrpe
    rlhailssrpe says:

    Some of us, a few, have memories which extend over several months. When hurricane Harvey sat over Houston and destroyed people’s lives, there was a flood of “I told you” articles relating climate change to human suffering. When another hurricane gave the coup de grâce to Puerto Rico’s creaky grid, it happened again.

    Several certainties must be learned by all Americans. There is a difference between weather and climate. And there is no science in a tweet, or most articles on climate change.

    The environmentalists have several insoluble problems in regaining power. It is impossible to predict, with scientific accuracy, the what, when, and how bad of any climate related phenomena. Their reliance on “whatever bad happens proves my point” is lousy science and is no longer accepted by most Americans. Climate changes occur over centuries and the most honest predictions (they exist) claim bad things of ill defined consequence 500 to 1,000 years from today. Consider New York city 500 years ago, and all the suffering which occurred in that time. Should any human, back then, have worried about suffering due to climate? Should we worry about this 500 years from now? Destroy our economy on this concern? Only religious Americans think this way.

    There are only two fuels which are cheap enough to sustain life; that is what energy does. They are the elements carbon and uranium. All other green technologies cost too much so their proponents dump the costs on the next generation via our national debt or regulate American industries off shore. There are situations which green technologies can help, but not for base loaded supply, which is where the fortunes are to be made.

    To survive, we must break the thumb of government on the scales of energy commerce. Let engineers, not lobbyists, decide thermodynamics and hurricane wind forces.

  34. The Truth
    The Truth says:

    According to the NY Times global warming will make California both wetter and drier.

    In 2014 they published an article syaing that global warming will make California wetter

    In 2017 they published an article stating that global warming will make California drier

    Global Warming makes the earth hotter/cooler/drier/wetter, it is to blame for everything (at least according to liberals)

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/07/climate/california-fires-warming.html
    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/science/some-scientists-disagree-with-presidents-linking-drought-to-warming.htm

  35. Andy Maxwell
    Andy Maxwell says:

    So when will these climateers tell us the damage caused by things like the California wildfires, the western US % Canadian forest fires from this past Summer, or the effect of the ash and gases spewed into the atmosphere by the volcanoes around the world? Ooops. They don’t track those things so they don’t exist or count.

  36. jguy1957
    jguy1957 says:

    What gets me are these fool Climate Change people who do not see that temperature readings made 80 years ago now are showing higher because the readings are now in high concrete industrial metro areas that 80 years ago were much smaller and less developed. There also is not an increase in temperature readings across the planet yet we have the ability we did not have in the past. The reason is they do not want the numbers for anything but the scam to provide money.

  37. creative_dude
    creative_dude says:

    There is global warming. The sun has been powerful, as it grows stronger or weaker it does the same to the planets. The amount of global warming that comes from man is unknown but at most a tenth what the alarmists have their hissy fits about.

    That stuff about a little ice age? The sun is (has already) entering a cooler spell, just like the warmer period that is now leaving. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fa4672251bed154e99582b605915059d0e297c0dd8cbbbc658cb71eee96c52cc.jpg

  38. UrbanCamper
    UrbanCamper says:

    The climate has been changing since the earth was formed. If given a choice, Id’e choose warming over cooling thank you.

  39. Rodrigo
    Rodrigo says:

    In looking at the cold temperatures HERE, I have found many going back farther that were just as cold or colder.
    On Jan 4, 1959, it was -2.
    On Dec 23, 1963, it was -8.
    On Jan 7, 1970, it was -11.
    On Dec 25, 1983, it was -8.
    Right now it is +15 degrees.
    In other words, a normal winter.

  40. Bob
    Bob says:

    Summary of the reasons why CAGW myth is over:
    Global greening and increased crop yields due to higher CO2 levels.
    No appreciable rise in sea levels, and no change in the rate of rise
    No appreciable warming of either oceans or troposphere in over 20 years
    No collapse of Arctic sea ice
    Highest ever Antarctic ice cover, including sea ice
    IPCC models that invariably run hot
    Lack of correlation with solar cycles and activity

  41. keyster
    keyster says:

    They want a centralized government to control The People’s access to energy.
    Promoting global warming hysteria/propaganda is key to attaining this goal.
    AGW is a THEORY they claim to be absolute truth.

  42. keyster
    keyster says:

    Cue up picture of one emaciated old polar bear sifting through dumpsters in northern Canada.
    See? There’s your “proof” right there that global warming is real.
    Poor thing.
    Trump killed him.

    • ooddballz
      ooddballz says:

      Trump killed him?
      REALLY?
      Wonder if he would send me a few polar bear steaks, and maybe the hide.
      I always wanted a real bearskin rug in front of my fireplace.

      And yeah, for you liberals out there……..that was a joke.

  43. Albertus Magnus
    Albertus Magnus says:

    Funny. Those who make the boldest claims about this hoax, never ever have a science background. It’s always Gender Studies, or Gaelic Dance or Interior Design.

  44. Dyllin Barnett-Lozano
    Dyllin Barnett-Lozano says:

    After ‘they’ ‘adjust’ the raw data yet once again, it will be proved that this is the warmest winter on record.

  45. crowbar
    crowbar says:

    Total scam on the level of scientology. Is Al still trying to diddle hotel maids. Pychopaths and grifters the whole bunch.

  46. Dan Brown
    Dan Brown says:

    Maybe some of the alarmists will freeze to death this winter… Imagine a big beautiful blackout in NY or Boston. :-)

  47. EllaWilson
    EllaWilson says:

    The last twenty years of NOAA data show decreasing global temperatures not warming. Warming alarmists keep saying it only weather not climate.

  48. Robbins Mitchell
    Robbins Mitchell says:

    Well,I’m just going to sip a nice cup of hot chocolate and enjoy all the eco-nazi panty wetting over President Trump’s Tweets….personally,I blame anAL GOREtentive for a lot of the hysteria

  49. LionHeart0712
    LionHeart0712 says:

    Give it up lefty use climate to control the masses from freedom into slavery!

    Move on losers!

    Get on the Train or GTFO!

    Our educated idiots are an embarrassment to idiots.

    USAPF,
    MAGE!

  50. Mike Hogan
    Mike Hogan says:

    So, those of you that are so sure that there’s no such thing as man-made climate change — why aren’t you pushing hard for coal? Cheap, super cheap and super plentiful coal. And we already have the infrastructure in place to utilize it all the way from the coal mines to people’s homes. Who needs wind and solar? Burn baby burn.

    • TheSagaciousOne
      TheSagaciousOne says:

      In totality, Natural Gas is cheaper than coal when transportation, and abatement procedures are factored in. That is why utility companies are switching over.

      Frack, baby, Frack!

  51. Bandit Keena
    Bandit Keena says:

    My son asked me if I knew the difference between climate and weather and of course I did – it’s weather when it’s freezing cold like this and doesn’t fit with proggies POV and it’s climate when it’s hot and does fit with proggies POV

  52. Orleans
    Orleans says:

    More heat = climate change; more cold= climate change; more rain or snow= climate change; less rain or snow= climate change; hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, floods, volcanos, all= climate change.
    Appparently, all weather is climate change.

  53. Something, Something
    Something, Something says:

    Until the technology catches up to the science, I will be skeptical of all the gloom and doom forecasts. What I mean is that the models they use are basically flawed in their outcomes. They generally predict global warming when none occurs. Or might accurately predict rainfall but the rainfall occurs in a region different then the one predicted. Also our Earth is open to outer space, so there are inputs and outputs there that I think these climate models miss or fail to understand. And, of course, how can one know with any accuracy the amount of C02 coming from natural and manmade sources? Nations lie and Mother Nature doesn’t publish statistics. And this is just one chemical! So until these models improve count me as a mild skeptic, not a denier. There are many skeptics reading this but very few deniers exist.

  54. blackdog
    blackdog says:

    First cooling, then warming, then climate change. Bases covered. Any change is now the possession of the cult. Environmentalism, green on the outside, communist, I mean red on the inside.

    • moderate dem 1969
      moderate dem 1969 says:

      so who should we trust ? Is the environment 100% immune to what ever we the human race does to it ? instead of bashing the pov you disagree with how about giving us your actual view . do 1 billion cars running on fossil fuels have zero effect . If there is an effect what effect is it ?

      • blackdog
        blackdog says:

        Personal opinion, human activity has negligible effect on climate. It does have local and even world wide effects regarding environmental toxins and poisonous waste products. CO2 is not a heat sink and levels have been hugely higher in the past including during ice ages. The underlying point is that the people running the scam have covered their bases in such a way they can claim whatever they want is real. The people running the scam are statist totalitarian descendants of the old Communist kind.

  55. moderate dem 1969
    moderate dem 1969 says:

    Discredit the scientists , discredit the press , and discredit the lead law enforcement agency of the country . What could possibly go wrong ?

  56. TheGipper
    TheGipper says:

    Hey silly Dems, if we get rid of all atomic and fossil fuels like you’ve wanted all my life, we’ll all die. Don’t forget to include that your future proposals.

    • moderate dem 1969
      moderate dem 1969 says:

      why would we all die ? were we all dead in the 1800s , the 1300s the year our lord Christ was born , 2000 BC when did we all die with out electricity

        • moderate dem 1969
          moderate dem 1969 says:

          so first off I have been in favor of nuclear energy over that of fossil fuels for about 35 years now and even did a paper on it in college . Thats just a small part of getting cleaner energy . we now have access to green energy as never before . Sadly it’s Germany and China leading the way on this when the US should be

          • TheGipper
            TheGipper says:

            How long has it been between nuclear power plants in this country because the left has ALWAYS been against them.

          • moderate dem 1969
            moderate dem 1969 says:

            I can’t argue that point and it’s a very good reason as to why I support more centrist candidates from both parties . Pragmatism must have a place in our decision making and sadly we have now elected our 3rd straight ideological leader in a row . I miss the days of Reagan and Bill Clinton

          • moderate dem 1969
            moderate dem 1969 says:

            although to be honest I can’t really label Trump as a conservative he’s more of the anti-Obama president

          • SeattAl
            SeattAl says:

            the New Gen 4 and Gen 5 Nuclear power Plants are 99.99999999999999 % safe, totally clean and affordable power for a millenia

      • Sebastian Cremmington
        Sebastian Cremmington says:

        We wouldn’t necessarily be dead we just wouldn’t be alive. Burning of fossil fuels to release energy is the reason we have a higher standard of living than in 1850 and the reason 7 billion humans exist.

  57. SeattAl
    SeattAl says:

    Global Warming , in between glacial ages (Ice Ages are Civilization Killers) , it’s the greatest time to be alive. 7 Billion people on the Planet, not possible during an Ice Age.

  58. Doug
    Doug says:

    And when the global cooling comes, and our windmills won’t spin and our solar panels are covered in snow and our electric cars have 1/2 the range, somehow it will be Trump’s fault for liking coal.

  59. Kris
    Kris says:

    The carbon taxes are nothing more than foreign aide, they want to make sure there are enough 3rd worlders to replace us, the stupid use fewer resources and Jews can have more for themselves.

  60. Cjones1
    Cjones1 says:

    Ice Ages are climate change and if the Solar sunspot cycle continues a downward trend, we are heading into a predicted Dalton or Maunder Minimum lasting many decades. If a few large volcanos expel enough particles into the upper atmosphere, expect much colder climate conditions. By the way, climate events are measured in 30 year spans.

  61. FreedomFan
    FreedomFan says:

    Great article. All the really, really smart people (Democrats) believe snake-oil-selling politicians can prevent the entire planet from warming, if only we give them lots more cash.

  62. Sebastian Cremmington
    Sebastian Cremmington says:

    If I actually believed in the underlying science I would propose we just start burning coal simply to release carbon into the atmosphere in order to warm the planet!?!

  63. david
    david says:

    The solar system had existed
    for 4.6 billion years and there are still places uninhabitable by humans due to extreme cold and suddenly someone believes the planet will die in next 10 years due to global warming. Ppl are already using alternative energy except the same ppl that are crying global warming. They all use fossil fuel and gas for their cars but want others not to. They want more tax from ppl so that govt can give it to them to fulfil their opulent lifestyle. Al gore comes to mind. Obama that the teenage daughter smoke weed and pollute the air. Liberals are fighting to stop global warming and the same time fighting to legalize smoking weed and cigarettes. The same products that pollute and warm the air. I have never seen such craziness in my life

  64. RL
    RL says:

    I can’t figure out why all of the global warming/climate change zealots don’t switch gears and start addressing problems that are real. For instance the problems of rampant pollution in our oceans which has all kinds of genuine long term consequences (destruction of coral beds and killing fish) and the decimation of rain forests where a significant amount of our oxygen is created. Most of us would support efforts to address those issues.

    Probably the financial opportunities just aren’t as far reaching and long-term as the impossible-to-prove-let-alone-solve-for global warming scam; which is clearly an increasing annuity for trillions of dollars with no end in sight.

    Hey, I’m from the generation who was taught to stop littering, not to smoke cigarettes and to prevent forest fires. We are reasonable people, for the most part, who don’t want to harm ourselves, others or the planet.

    Runaway terrorism over environmental issues that don’t really exist like ‘global warming’ undermines the opportunities to tackle real problems and limits the resources that could and should be allocated to them. Just sayin’.

    • odys
      odys says:

      Very true, and Pruitt is on it! He has chastised the EPA for chasing unicorns with its all out effort on gullible warming while they have ignored numerous superfund site cleanups that they were funded to do, and directed to do twenty years ago. Pruitt is re-vectoring the EPA to address what it is funded to do, clean up pollution.

  65. odys
    odys says:

    The maunder minimum is supposed to start in 2030, 12 years away, and we should see a steep drop in temperatures for a sustained number of years. It caused the crop failures that sparked the French Revolution in 1789, and caused a mini-ice age that is best immortalized in Napoleon’s retreat from Russia.

    If we hang on until then and keep the gullible warming crowd from enacting any more damaging legislation, then I think their credibility will be completely shot in a year or two.

  66. odys
    odys says:

    One last point:

    Only a complete idjit would believe that Vlad, who gets 90% of his funding for his military adventures from oil and gas sales, would prefer the pro-oil and gas exporting Trump over the anti-fracking, anti-fossil fuel production Hillary. Vlad’s and Iran’s military adventures and support for terrorism will end when they run out of money, and they will run out of money much faster under Trump as president.

  67. Robert Catt
    Robert Catt says:

    Hate to break the bad news but climate and weather and both controlled by the sun and all the caucuses in the house of representatives can’t do anything about it

  68. Steven Podvoll
    Steven Podvoll says:

    …proving once again that the ability to distinguish between weather and climate apparently has a liberal bias.

  69. derek
    derek says:

    The author wrote:

    The Environmental Defense Fund offered its explainer on how record snowfall is evidence of global warming. “It may seem counterintuitive, but more snowfall during winter storms is an expected outcome of climate change. That’s because a warmer planet is evaporating more water into the atmosphere. That added moisture means more precipitation in the form of heavy snowfall or downpours.”

    That is true a warmer atmosphere would hold more moisture. But in reality that is a good thing. That would mean places that did not get rain would get more. So deserts would green and more life would flourish.|

    At one point the Sahara Desest was grasslands. Maybe the grasslands would return and we can put the Sahara in its original condition. Isn’t that what the environmentalist want?

  70. MPH
    MPH says:

    Why is this even still being talked about? The “Climategate” dump by Wikileaks in 2009 proved beyond any doubt that the APGW scare was 100% pure fraud. People should be in prison, not still feeding at the public trough on billions of dollars.

    My favorite site about this is http://surfacestations.org. They surveyed 80% of the USA’s surface stations. Many sites have been overcome by urban encroachment, artificially raising their readings – my favorite is the one in the middle of an asphalt parking lot – and are the actual source of the scary rising temperature trend. The 200 that were still well sited (and don’t need their readings adjusted), have been showing a cooling trend for about 20 years now.

  71. Willow
    Willow says:

    The EDF seems to have a problem. Water evaporates until the air is saturated. “Relative humidity” is the fraction of saturation of water vapor in the air. Saturation is a direct function of temperature — the warmer the air, the more water vapor it can hold before saturation. Cold air is drier than warm air because air is saturated with water at a lower temperature, and therefore with less water than at higher temperatures. The whole CO2-emissions-are-warming-the-globe idea is irrelevant for low temperatures; cold is after all the absence of heat.

  72. XSANDIEGOCA
    XSANDIEGOCA says:

    I notice the Pooh-bahs lecturing us about the climate have an affinity for private jets and giant SUVs. They really want us proles to ride bicycles a la Mao.

  73. TJB
    TJB says:

    And of more importance…those same idiots who talk about the difference btwn weather and climate have opened the door to actual climatologists who say that man induced global warming is simply not real except for the 1-2% of the change. Yes real climatologists say that since the last ice age…the earth has been gradually warming…with the sun being the most important inducer for change. We are at a solar minimum , which has corresponded with ALL the global cooling trends…and solar maximums have corresponded with ALL the global warming trends. So basically we have NO control on climate. NOTHING the environmentalists and weather wackos like algore say we must do to change global temperatures will work. We must do like we always do…ADAPT.

  74. Blackie17
    Blackie17 says:

    Would everybody here that thinks Sean Hannity is a fine fellow and on top of the news, please raise your hands. Ah, yes, quite a few. I begin to understand the drift of the comments here. Deplorables, one and all. People that can’t tell the difference between a carnival barker and a journalist, should probably keep their ideas to themselves. They are likely to have been imprinted on their psyche by that well paid propagandist shill and liar.

    • robert joseph
      robert joseph says:

      OK, you keep following Rachel Madcow, Con Lemon, Pooper Anderson, Lyin Williams, Sis Matthews, Jim Accoster, Christian Amanbore, Brooke Baldlose, Dana Trash, Wolf Shitzer, Gloria Boreger, Pamela Brownstain, Erin Burnott, Ana Cowbrera, Alisyn Cumerota, David Whaleian, and the rest of their ilk, and continue to be misinformed.

      • Blackie17
        Blackie17 says:

        We can all agree that it is a responsibility of adult voters to differentiate between what is true and what is false, do we not? Well to do so, we must be equipped to analyse what we are fed and sort through the garbage and identify the truth. If you can do that, you would not watch Hannity, Fox and Friends, and the rest of the propagandists on Fox News. They are purveyors of falsehood.

        • robert joseph
          robert joseph says:

          It cracks me up how if anyone says something negative about either of the the ideological and bias channels, it’s assumed they must watch the other.

          • Blackie17
            Blackie17 says:

            Am I to conclude from this that you don’t watch Hannity, not even once weekly, or any of the other popular panel shows on Fox, like Fox and Friends? Honestly, I have yet to meet a Trump supporter that hasn’t gotten his views from Fox. You would be a first.

        • Tom Austin
          Tom Austin says:

          So you like the “purveyors of falsehood” at CNN and MSNBC? They have gone with stories not sourced and then proven to be false how many times in the past months? Hannity is not a news show. Slants are different on different networks bit at least Fox does do negative administration stories(~35-40%). CNN/MSNBC are upwards of 90-95% negative vs Trump and mirrors the talking points of the DNC. News should at least pretend to be unbiased.

          • Blackie17
            Blackie17 says:

            Fox News news shows – Shepard Smith for one – is no worse than CNN. Neither gets it wrong very often. It is hard to cover Trump and avoid being negative. He lies all the time. But the commentary on Fox is another matter – 24/7 full of lies and propaganda.

          • Tom Austin
            Tom Austin says:

            CNN never gets it wrong? How many people have they fired in 2017 for getting it wrong? suspended? You, sir, see and hear want you want. And that has very little to do with objective reality. Good day

          • Blackie17
            Blackie17 says:

            I see that you are not a careful reader. I’m not surprised. Your views disclose that fact all the time. I said, “NEITHER GETS IT WRONG VERY OFTEN” which you blithely read as, “Never get s it wrong” and then spew dirt based on the misreading. There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see. I advise all who read these comments to block the blind Mr. Austin.

          • Tom Austin
            Tom Austin says:

            Sir, I suggest that a difference in slant on the news is no “propaganda” and it’s you not me, who is blind to the rampant partisanship among the two networks you say are unbiased. I submit, sir, that they only reinforce your own biases and rank partisanship and thus you are blind to any flaws. I, as an independent, do see and acknowledge flaws in all the networks that go far beyond , “NEITHER GETS IT WRONG VERY OFTEN” which, as i had shown, patently false. In the world of journalism even 2-5% is to many mistakes, especially when those mistakes are always the same bias and about the same group. As for “blocking” me, “there are none so blind as those that will not see”.

          • Blackie17
            Blackie17 says:

            Well, to start with unmasking your delusions, you have “shown” nothing patently false. Many very able researchers have examined the quality of news reporting, all quantified in one form or another. So your shallow claims about “2-5% is to[sic] many mistakes” has very little substance behind it. I surmise that you don’t even have a clue to what partisanship is. Partisanship, in itself, is not wrong. Lies and deception are. Deliberate falsehood is wrong. Mistakes are unfortunate and if they are quickly corrected, do little or no harm. There are heaps of evidence to show that Fox News deliberately falsifies. There is little or no evidence to show that CNN or MSNBC does. An occasional mistake, quickly corrected, is to be expected from even the best journalism. Only a delusional fool would claim that Fox News and CNN, taken as a whole, are equally guilty of distorting the news.

          • Blackie17
            Blackie17 says:

            Do you look into these stories or just cite them blindly? What 2 networks are we talking about? Of the last 3 stories you cite from Dec., one deals with ABC which we’ve never discussed. And the other 2 quote the same story about a mistaken date on an email that led to wrong conclusions by CNN. While the latter is not trivial, it is a pretty slender limb to hang a charge of NETWORK BIAS on, as right wingnuts try to do. Far more important is the first article which cites a study showing negative coverage of Trump by the networks. The study itself states, “While some may be tempted to read this as evidence of media bias, the leader of Pew’s Journalism Project said that isn’t a conclusion one can draw from the study.” It would be worth your while to examine this study and what it means. I don’t like exaggerations, but here is a very bold statement, Trump is the biggest liar in the history of United States politics. That assertion is fairly easy to support, and has been supported. The whole world is aware of Trump the liar but maybe not you. Negative coverage can’t be avoided for someone who lies as much as Trump does. It would be interesting to see how much of the negative coverage relates to his lying. So it is a pathetic charge that bias guides such coverage. It is negative because Trump is a low form of human being. When he isn’t lying, he is insulting some person or group, over and over.

  75. LVTaxman
    LVTaxman says:

    Of course Trump knows the difference between Climate and Weather. He trolls the media constantly because they are used to automatons like Obama that quote government speak in public. Trump speaks in regular language, not parsed and filtered to proper official language. For 40 years he has spoke in exaggeration and hyperbole, and regular listeners get it.

    These humorless progressives take everything Trump says seriously and could never understand the joke is on them.

  76. AuldGuy
    AuldGuy says:

    Paris accords were all about hamstringing the USA while China and India get to spew poison unchecked for 30 years. Bend over and TAKE IT IN THE A**!

    • robert joseph
      robert joseph says:

      We can thank Trump for that. And why are they getting back together again this year trying to make a new climate deal? I thithought the Paris accords we’re the greatest deal in history of climate change? So they all fly their private jets and limos, and eat and drink and party, while we’re supposed to ride bikes to work in the snow, unplug our cellphone chargers and wipe our asses with a single sheet of TP.

  77. Jones Jones
    Jones Jones says:

    Another moronic article conflating weather with climate. But what do expect from a fake news outlet like this.

    • robert joseph
      robert joseph says:

      Kinda like the morons who said the hurricanes over this past season we’re due to climate change. duh

      • Jones Jones
        Jones Jones says:

        No, like the moron who wrote a stupid article, this one, saying one cold snap in one small part of the world is an indicator that all of climate science can be ignored because it was cold out today. Conflating weather with climate to make an erroneous point in a fake news piece. Nothing whatever to with your what-aboutism irrelevant point.

        • robert joseph
          robert joseph says:

          I said the morons who are saying this cold snap is a indicator of no climate change is kinda like the morons who reported the hurricanes over the summer we’re indications of climate change. Are you saying there we’re no moron conflating weather with climate in reference to the severe hurricanes?

          • Jones Jones
            Jones Jones says:

            I am not referencing hurricanes, you are. Multiple severe weather events over an extended period is an indicator of climate change. Saying that severity and frequency of hurricanes is consistent with climate change predictions is fine and does not conflate weather with climate.

            Saying that a single geographically isolated weather event proves climate change science is wrong, as this article does, conflates weather with climate and is moronic.

            As to what you are specifically referring to, I have no idea, since you cite no sources or quote anyone. As far as I can tell you are just another moron.

          • robert joseph
            robert joseph says:

            You’re a little slow aren’t you? And you pretend not to know what I’m saying, or you are one of the morons I was referring to. One of the problems climate change nuts have is what “an extended period of time” represents. Climate change nuts claim a single winter or year is too small a sample to show a pattern. So is a 100 years on a planet 4.5 billion years old. So as a final statement to you, i agreed from the very beginning this article was as dumb as the ones saying this seasons hurricanes we’re indicators of climate change. There we’re climate “experts”, whatever that means, that have said this. Look it up yourself if you’re really too dumb to know this. And i believe you are, since you lost any debate we we’re having by resorting to name calling.

          • Jones Jones
            Jones Jones says:

            Nope. Just saying your point is bogus, no evidence, straw man argument. And that it does not adress the point I made at all, that the author is conflating weather with climate. That’s a fact that you have not refuted.

  78. gkam
    gkam says:

    Oh, my. I earned a Master of Science in this field in 1982 and have watched as malevolent politics made conditions worse even faster than we originally feared. We had no idea the goobers would put political prejudice over science and get away with it.

    This site is based on the ignorance of science. If you want to understand our present condition go look at the graphs in the IPCC Report. Or stay ignorant.

    It is at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

  79. algonquinmatt
    algonquinmatt says:

    You can’t have it both ways.. and when the desperate global warming alarmists decided they had no other choice than to go ‘full b.s.’ and ditch ‘global warming’ for the catch all ‘manmade climate change’, that should have been enough for most clear thinkers to say ‘no. no way’.

    These people keep trying. They have mortgages.. big cars with payments to make.. they need their jobs and really need the grants to keep their jobs. If there is no crisis, they’ll be back in the classroom making 50k.

    • gkam
      gkam says:

      You have told us more about conservatism than climate scientists.

      I will bet you have NO IDEA what is in the report. None. So, let’s discuss part of it, shall we?

      What do you want to start with , . . ocean acidification? Sea level rise? The loss of glaciers which feed 2,000,000,000 people? The spread of tropical diseases and pests?

  80. gearjammer2000
    gearjammer2000 says:

    in my 61 yrs on this planet I have seen temps in Ohio in the summer above 100 in the summer, [I haven’t seen 100 in a long while], I have also seen cool summers where a rare 90 was a treat.

    I have also seen Winters where 10 below happened way too often, and then there was one winter where I saw the forsythia bloomed one new years day beside my dads garage.

    There has been late springs where a very late frost killed off the gardens and then springs where I wish I would have planted the garden a month earlier.

    falls where it was very cool the first of September, and falls where in December there was times you worked outside in a tee shirt and shorts.

    I have seen droughts, floods, tornadoes, floods, blizzards just a host of different extremes of weather.

    I remember in the”70’s” the earth is rapidly cooling hysteria and today the hysteria the earth is heating up.

    I do believe in climate change because in my 61 years I have seen it change constantly

    my conclusion is mother earth has always changed from the beginning of time where we were told the earth was too hot to support life, too where scientists tell us of great ice ages covered most of the earth destroying life in its wake.
    mother earth is going to do what she wants to do and humans,at least at this time in history have very little say in the matter

      • gearjammer2000
        gearjammer2000 says:

        actually I am looking at the past history that scientists have reported and my own experiences not the political nonsense that is reported on either side of the subject,

  81. Attila
    Attila says:

    Climate is always in flux. We currently live in an interglacial period and have been in one for the past 15,000-20,000 years. Over the past 1,500 years, the earth has experienced much greater variation in climate than what we are experiencing today, such as that experienced during the “little ice age” or the “medieval warm period” (without the intervention of modern industrialized civilization). The earth’s climate is impacted and influenced by several factors outside of the control of humanity including solar output and variations in the earth’s orbit around the sun (but don’t try to explain any of that to the AGW luddites and loons).

    • gkam
      gkam says:

      You do not have to try to explain it, we have studied all of that.

      But why would you assume you understand it better than professionals who spent their lives studying it and whose credibility depends on their professionalism?

      I think many folk here have no understanding of the rigors of science and the character required.

      • Attila
        Attila says:

        I suspect I have a very good understanding of the type of “character” which has such an awesome respect for “science” that he/ she would hand over the 20,000 year old Kennewick Man fossil to a modern native American tribe for destruction, and which calls the likes of Bradley Manning “women”.

          • Attila
            Attila says:

            As we’ve seen with the regard to the raw data supposedly used to concoct the infamous “hockey-stick” graph depicting AGW, that is NOT always true.
            Truth is optional for liberals, including liberal “scientists”.

          • gkam
            gkam says:

            It is true. Stop getting your “science” from the same political sources which screamed “WMD!” at you until you sent our sons and daughters to become the killers of folk who had done nothing to us. What do you think that did to our sons and daughters??

            When are you going to pay for those Republican Wars? Or even fully-fund the VA?

          • Attila
            Attila says:

            When are you going to be on topic, and directly address the issue of the phony AGW cult and the corrupt “scientists” who push it with little or no evidence of human causation?

          • RPVG
            RPVG says:

            Would these be the same ones who actually SAW Sadaam use WMDs — on his own people? Intelligence sources around the world reported on it at the time.

            Intelligence sources around the world also confirmed truck covoys heading from Iraq into Syria. Syria was later confirmed to have WMDs for the first time.

            I’m with you on the VA!

          • Tom Austin
            Tom Austin says:

            So much for “following” the law:

            https://climatechangedispatch.com/update-michael-mann-doubles-down-over-contempt-issue/

            Tell that to Mann.

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#641bd8914c7c

            But if they speak on the record they will lose grants, publishing rights, colleagues, and tenure. It has happened a number of times before and is illegal.

            As for your other comments on the “republican” wars. Sorry, after eight years Obama owned everything else he owns those as well. Even more so after the progress of the last eleven months and the real progress that has been made when someone (Trump) wants to win the wars.

      • Groty1
        Groty1 says:

        Lots of scientific “truths” turn out not to be. The overwhelming consensus about gravity, developed by Newton, stood for about 200 years until one man, Einstein, proved it wrong. The “consensus” about climate science is no where near as strong as Newton’s theory about gravity was, no matter what you read. The 97% “study” often cited was terribly flawed and never should have been published in a peer review journal. Richard Tol, who spent many years with the IPCC and was lead author of one of its chapters, destroyed the 97% paper.

        Some dissenters say AGW may be right, but enough uncertainty remains that they are unwilling to agree to it. Then there are people like Richard Lindzen, recently retired from MIT after studying climate his entire life, who dismisses it completely. And Princeton’s Freeman Dyson, a physicist who has studied climate, and who has been called this generation’s Einstein, also dismisses the theory. I could name 15 other distinguished scientists like them. And there are people who say privately that they have lots of questions about it but refuse to say so publicly because they do not want to be savaged by the alarmists and they are afraid they will lose government funding for their projects whenever Democrats control the purse strings again (this has happened before). Democrat AG’s are suing people for thought crimes about AGW and Democrat congressmen have demanded certain skeptical scientists disclose who has paid them to speak or who paid them to conduct research in an effort to intimidate them. Dissenting against the orthodoxy has huge social costs associated with it that many skeptical scientists are not willing to incur. That’s the sad state of “science”.

        • CrazyHungarian
          CrazyHungarian says:

          There has been a lot of studying of climate trends, but the entire field is based on non-scientific data sets. Anyone who has performed laboratory measurements will agree that data based on non-calibrated thermometers in poorly controlled environments/scenarios cannot be used as a basis of scientific conclusions. Most temperature data is so poor that it has to be “adjusted”, thus blowing any credibility of historical data.The only credible approach would be to start all over with laboratory quality measurement systems and laboratory quality measurement protocols, gather data for many decades, if not centuries, and then attempt to make conclusions. As it is, there is no science level credibility in temperature records.

          • RPVG
            RPVG says:

            Indeed. The Scientific Method requires duplication of experimental results by disinterested others to prove or disprove an original hypothesis. Unless (until?) we “see what happens” in 50 or 100 years, climate “science” isn’t following the Scientific Method at all. So far, all of the hypotheses of the “alarmists” have failed to occur. The glaciers didn’t melt after 25 years. Crops didn’t die from the heat.

            It doesn’t (can’t) follow the Scientific Method. So why do we still refer to it as “science”?

  82. gkam
    gkam says:

    Thanks to you who normally use this forum for engaging with me. We may differ on opinions, but need to present them so we can learn how others define reality. So we can get along.

    • Hypernonpartisan
      Hypernonpartisan says:

      Excellent advice. One of the things AR5 did was demolish the “extreme events” nonsense of AR 1-4.

      There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century

      Current data sets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin

      In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale

      In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems

      In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950

      In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low.

      — IPCC AR5, WGI, Chapter 2, https://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

  83. Done With It
    Done With It says:

    If climate-alarmists truly believed we were on the brink of disaster, they would not have pushed for waivers for China and India from the Paris Accord.

    They happily gave them a pass for many years, penalizing only us, even though we’ve done better than Germany at lowering our CO2 output.

    • Hypernonpartisan
      Hypernonpartisan says:

      “we’ve done better than Germany at lowering our CO2 output”

      Thanks, frackers!

      It’s almost as if free markets work, and central planning doesn’t!

  84. jkk1943
    jkk1943 says:

    Global Warming is like a religion, it must be taken on faith. Like a religion its true believers attack anyone who doesn’t share their beliefs as heretics, non believers who must be, at the minimum, shunned or more typically punished.

  85. aj1575
    aj1575 says:

    It was actually a good year for climate science. A record breaking Hurricane season (in case some people forgot). Climate change does not only mean it is getting warmer everywhere, climate gets more extreme, and pattern change (this could also mean record cold in some areas).
    And a few cold days don’t prove anything, like a few nice muslim don’t prove, that it is a peaceful religion.

    • CrazyHungarian
      CrazyHungarian says:

      Climate change causes everything. And something that causes everything, in reality causes nothing.

    • Tom Austin
      Tom Austin says:

      Actually it was a fairly normal to low end of normal season, hate to break it to you. We’ve seen more than one cat 5 storm in a season five times before. None broke any records. Harvey’s “total” rainfall was normal it was just pushed down by a high pressure into one place. Here is a wonderful table that will completely ruin your entire comment

      https://twitter.com/philklotzbach/status/930478711371157506

    • Tom Collins
      Tom Collins says:

      “A record breaking Hurricane season” after a 15 year dearth of significant hurricane activity. The record for land falling cat5 hurricanes in the US is 6.

  86. CaptainA
    CaptainA says:

    It is getting hysterically funny. One is reminded of the Hans Christian Andersen’s tale The Emperor’s Clothes – the weavers in the tale being the alarmists. Read it and laugh!

  87. BallBounces
    BallBounces says:

    Doesn’t Trump realize that global warming is making extreme weather — including extreme cold — worse???!!! … I mean, better??!! … I mean… I’m confused.

  88. Jason White
    Jason White says:

    To believe that human activities (i.e. burning fossil fuels) has no impact on our environment is naive and ignorant. The universal scientific consensus is that our activities DO impact the climate. The debate remains as to the extent of that impact but to deny it all together is wrong-headed. A simple experiment will illustrate how harmful the burning of fossil fuels is. Connect tubing to your car’s tail pipe and run that tubing into the interior of the vehicle. Turn on the car and remain seated in the vehicle for 1hr, with the windows rolled up. That is a small illustration of what happens when the products of combustion build up. If you scale that up to global proportions, the results are the same but will take longer to manifest. I will agree that the issues of global warming and man-made climate change have been politicized but do not throw out the underlying scientific evidence because it still snows or gets cold where you live.

      • Jason White
        Jason White says:

        Bless your heart! Gasoline combustion produces a number of byproducts, not just CO. Check out this info from Penn State, it will illuminate the topic for you. The eia link puts the amount of CO2 produced by combustion into numbers. The CO2 is actually beside the point that I was making. My point is that we impact the environment and the climate, period. Rejecting that because of ignorance or the opinions of imbecilic politicians does not change the fact that it is true.

        https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee102/node/1951

        https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=307&t=11

        • Tom Austin
          Tom Austin says:

          As a chemist(research, physical chemistry, retired) I am quite familiar with the combustion of hydrocarbons. The minute an article goes from gallons to pounds and assumes complete combustion I stop reading. How much does that gallon of gasoline weight? How much, by weight, is the O2 from the atmosphere contributing to that finally product? I know the answers but I doubt you do. The numbers sound “scary” but the facts are just not. Then this article simply ignores the CO2 needed to produced the EtOH compounding the error. The other article completely ignores a major area of combustion research and major teratragens/mutagens; the nitrated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Now do you want to play in an area that I’ve actually done real in-the-lab research in by cutting and pasting two mainstream nontechnical articles and think you’ve enlightened the world? Or do we start talking SIM DIS, GC/MS SIM vs full scan, low vs high res MS, other detectors( mainly FID or PID but ECD is sometimes useful), volatile/semi-volatile/nonvolatile fractions, MeCl2 vs CS2 extraction, GC vs HPLC for the asphaltenes, Column selection( GC and HPLC are separate discussions, of course) and so on. I can make more of a fool of you than you have made of yourself with that asinine comparison of the car.

          • Jason White
            Jason White says:

            I am more than happy to discuss chromatography or mass spectrometry but that is beyond the scope of my point, which you still fail to acknowledge. Seemingly in spite of the lab experience you claim to have in chemistry, written comprehension has alluded you. I will reiterate, for the sake of clarity, that gasoline combustion produces toxic by products that harm the environment, period. The extent of the damage is debatable but not the harm. Lastly, you may take issue with the references that I provided but they served singular not comprehensive purposes: 1) to show the by products of combustion and 2) to show the amount of CO2 produced through combustion. Any details beyond those are tangential.

    • RealConservative
      RealConservative says:

      the fact you do not know carbon MONOXIDE kills you in a garage with a car running .. not carbon DIOXIDE … makes you an fn idiot

      Carbon MONOXIDE .. binds to blood cell more easily than oxygen… thus killing you

      • Jason White
        Jason White says:

        I see you and Tom suffer from the same affliction. My comment speaks to the overall toxicity of gasoline combustion. From your ill-informed perspective, you automatically jumped to CO because you think it debunks my assertion, but even if you removed the CO the fumes coming into the car would still be toxic. Just so we are clear I pasted the formula for gasoline combustion below. As you can see the principle byproducts are CO2 and H2O. Every time we travel by train, plane, or automobile we introduce harmful fumes into the environment. We accept that because we need to go to work, school, and other important places, but the fact remains that the trade off is having an impact on our environment.

        C8H18 + O2 -> CO2 + H20

        • RealConservative
          RealConservative says:

          here is a FACT … your car + garage analogy is brought up by morons…..who then try to bring up water..

          build a solar panel in your closed garage and see how long you live..

          you really are a moron ..

          • Jason White
            Jason White says:

            1. Do you not realize that there are people that live without power or only have solar/wind powered homes? Battery technology makes alternative energy sources completely viable for all home energy needs. You might also consider that plenty of people around the world live completely healthy and productive lives without home electricity. Home electricity is not required for life but it is an awesome convenience.

            2. You can lead a horse to water but you can not make him drink. I state a position and use evidence to support it. You reply by writing incomplete sentences and hurling insults. I think the only person exposed as a moron is you.

          • RealConservative
            RealConservative says:

            you do know all those green energy fantasies you like; are possible because OF FOSSIL energy…..

            as for “people around the world live completely healthy and productive lives without home electricity”
            Its called the 3rd world you fn moron.. how about this; go a month with out anything that uses fossil fuel for energy. If i hear back from you i know you are a fn liar…. because you will be dead

          • Jason White
            Jason White says:

            You really are an idiot and/or lack basic reading skills. My words were very intentional. I said, “home energy”. That was very specific. Also, it is not just in the 3rd world. Ask the Amish. Lastly, you are changing the point. The discussion was not whether to use fossil fuels it was about the impact of the use of the fuels, for energy, on the environment. Since you have failed to refute that impact I would presume that you either agree or lack the evidence to refute it. Good Evening!

          • Tom Collins
            Tom Collins says:

            With the environmental policies of the left, we will not need to ask the Amish, because we will all be living just like them.

          • Jason White
            Jason White says:

            As long as policy is driven by sound science, party affiliation/ideology should not matter. We need to all be open to make sure that we make informed decisions. Peer-reviewed, reproducible science should drive the policy conversation not party or ideology.

          • RealConservative
            RealConservative says:

            Ask the Amish.

            Hey moron .. the Amish BUY much of their goods from places that USE FOSSIL FUEL…

            It like camping in the woods only to return to your house at night

            As for the impact of those fuels.. its obvious…its made life better for virtually everyone on the planet, the proof is irrefutable

          • adam_s_0625
            adam_s_0625 says:

            No one is arguing that alternative power generation does not have niche applications. Only that it is not yet reliable enough (or competitive enough) for stand-alone base load power. And if you are really worried that fossil fuels are such a bad thing, then walk your talk and give them up.

    • adam_s_0625
      adam_s_0625 says:

      You are correct regarding the CO2 debate. However, your example points to the danger of CO, not CO2. And, if it were the danger you make it out to be, people would be asphyxiating in large numbers globally. But they’re not. So, you need to research what happens to atmospheric CO.

  89. Huxley Jackson
    Huxley Jackson says:

    To say that there is a difference between climate and weather implies that these are two distinctly different and separate concepts, with climate being the parent of weather. This implies that climate creates the weather. When did this occur historically. I believe that in order to establish the standard for climate, a history of weather has had to occur with a sufficiently solid history of weather events to establish the conditions of a given climate. Which raises this question. On day one, and it seems that there had to be a day one, what were the weather conditions on that day. Was it hot, was it cold? The historical record has to be clear on this, as one would expect that in a warm climate that day would be warm. But what if the next day were cool. Would we have a warm/cool climate on day two? How many days of weather events would we have to string together to establish what the general conditions of the climate are? Where is this leading? I seems that we may be similar to a dog that is chasing its tail. I feel that this extremely important concept can be summed up and solved by asking this ancient question. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

  90. Paul Linxwiler
    Paul Linxwiler says:

    What a load of horse shit. One cold snap does not disprove global warming. Fuck, conservatives are stupid.