Deep Freeze Ends a Dreadful 2017 for Climate Activists

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.

Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

456 responses to “Deep Freeze Ends a Dreadful 2017 for Climate Activists”

  1. 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.

    • 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.

      • Nonsense Rosie is never happy even when she gets her way.

      • “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.

      • Some people are NOT happy until they have caused problems for others. A strange breed of people indeed.

  2. 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

    • 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
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleCashCareerAmericanPartTImeJobs/computer/jobs ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!gf169lhhh

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

      • You may or may not be Hungarian, but the former part of your screen name is spot on.

      • When you can’t argue the subject, just attack the person.

      • 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…”

      • 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.

      • I have seen FTs. They aren’t all that revealing in this instance. Wrong tool for the job.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • A straight line regression is real data analysis. Indeed there’s a spectrum for which that’s the Fourier Transform and vice-versa.

      • 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?

      • 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

      • 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.

      • *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.

      • 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?

      • 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

      • 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.

      • 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!

      • Yeah, and I just ran into a Warmer at my old ladies gym. Bah Humbug!

      • Well put. I’m a Physics/Math Guy. I have hairdressers lecturing me on “science”

      • 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.

      • “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.

      • 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?

      • 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?

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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!

      • 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.

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

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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?

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

      • Is this rant leading anywhere? So you took chemistry in high school. Is that your point?

      • 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.

      • Maybe that’s because it is 50 million miles further from the Sun than the earth. Jeesh!

      • That is just silly. Show me the reference in any scientific journal.

      • 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

      • meanwhile, after spending 100 billion in 25 years, we still don’t know what’s happening.

      • We fed a lot of ‘follow the money’ “scientists” though.

      • and we will continue feeding them when they “retire.”

      • 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.

      • 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!

      • He was only 18 years late. Isn’t this the mini ice age he predicted?

      • 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.

      • I could reply to you, but you’re obviously a paid stooge of the Koch brothers.

      • 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!

      • 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!!

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • There’s a mini ice age in my backyard about right now.

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

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

      • I have to say, Crutch has a point about you being a pinhead…

      • He was looking at his manhood when he came up with that one.

      • It would be too much for you to understand averages? I thought so,

      • 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
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleNetJobsWeekWorkFromHome/more/cash ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!gh102lhhhh

      • 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
        >>>>> http://GoogleCashSmartCareerPartTimeJobs/get/hourly AYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAAYAYAYAYYAYAYYAYAYYAFAYYAYAYDZYLYKAYAYAYA:::::!rf271lywfkdd

      • Show me where. The article, the author, the date. Don’t just wave your hands at me.

      • 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.

      • 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,

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

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

      • 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”?

      • 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?

      • Do you imagine that government money is somehow less corrupting than corporate money?

      • 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.

      • 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 ????

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • “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.

      • 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.

      • I knew this cold was Trump’s fault. Is there anything he can’t screw up?

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

      • Hey, I am Hungarian, too, . . but better educated.

        Yeah, we do know what is happening, and if you were conversant in science, you would have a different attitude.

        Just go to and look at the graphs in the summary.

        Do it.

      • 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,

        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,

        3. The models that assume strong positive feedback have failed miserably. — Santer et al,

        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,

        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.)

      • 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.

      • 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,

        So, it says exactly what I said it says.

        Why did you lie?

      • “but better educated” …that should have read “but much more arrogant”….

      • 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.

      • 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.

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

      • 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).

      • I prefer to get my education from sources other than those written by politicians.

      • 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

      • 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!

      • 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.

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

    • 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.

    • 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. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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?

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

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

      • How many data sets had to be massaged to come to your conclusion? I would stay away from the 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 (

  4. 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.

    • 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.

      • They are too busy sacrificing liberal perverts in another failed folly.

      • Well, if the left has its druthers we’re screwed either way.

      • 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.

      • Except that the virgins weren’t screwed to control the weather and you are.

      • 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 –

    • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • the called Conservationism, just makes sense to have renewable resources

      • 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

      • 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. 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. 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. 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.

    • “…… 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.”

    • 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. 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

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


      Yes, this is what they actually believe.

  9. 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?

    • 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?

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

    • 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. 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. 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.

    • 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. 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. 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. 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.

  15. 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.

    • 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. 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”.”

    • 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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!

    • Very true. By the way, my catma can beat up your dogma. Cheers and happy new year!

      • But he had to take pills to do it. Underdog would have been booted from the Olympics.

  22. 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. “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

    • 32 degrees is the melting point of ice, not the freezing point of water. Salt water does not freeze at 32 degrees.

      • Okay, a few degrees either way does not make it any more “inhuman”. The “normal weather deniers” must resort to exaggeration in attempt to prove their point.

      • I totally agree. I was being nit-picky. Cheers and happy new year.

  24. 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.

    • 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.

      • … 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.

      • 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?

      • 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.

      • 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. 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.

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

    • 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.

    • 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:

  26. “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. 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. Thank God for global warming. Without it, the earth would be even colder…….. ( end of sarcasm )

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

    • ” 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.

    • 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.

  31. 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.

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

  33. 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

    Emission Budgets and Pathways Consistent with Limiting Warming to 1.5ºC

  34. 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.

  35. 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)

  36. 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.

  37. Climate may be what you want, but weather is what you get.

  38. Add to the list global greening and increased crop yields due to more plant food: CO2

  39. 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.

  40. 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.

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

  42. 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.

  43. 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

  44. 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.

  45. 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.

    • Trump killed him?
      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.

  46. 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.

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

  48. Fact-free excrement from a subhuman bagger (redundant). Yawn.

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

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

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

  52. 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

  53. A well written and enjoyable read. Keep up the good work Ms. Kelly, and Happy New Year!

  54. 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.


  55. 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.

    • 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!

  56. 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

  57. 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.

  58. By their own predictions, climatists should be nice and crispy just about now.

  59. 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.

  60. 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.

    • 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 ?

      • 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.

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

  62. 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.

    • 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

      • 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

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

      • 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

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

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

      • 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.

  63. 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.

    • I bought a $10k home in Cleveland thinking it would have good weather now!?!

  64. 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.

  65. 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.

  66. 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.

  67. 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.

  68. 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!?!

  69. 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

  70. 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’.

    • 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.

  71. 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.

  72. 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.

  73. The only thing green about the CAGW movement is their money. Which used to be our money.

  74. 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

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

  76. 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?

  77. 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 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.

  78. 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.

  79. 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.

  80. 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.

  81. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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

      • 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.

      • 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”.

      • 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.

      • 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.

  82. 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.

  83. 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**!

    • 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.

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

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

      • 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.

      • 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?

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • but when it hot, it CLIMATE CHANGE AND WE ARE GOING TO DIE!!!

  85. 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

  86. 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.

    • 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?

  87. I really need a restaurant critic to lecture me on science.

  88. 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

      • 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,

  89. 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).

    • 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.

      • 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”.

      • You do not really want to play that game.

        Even scientists have to obey the law.

      • 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”.

      • 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?

      • 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?

      • 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!

      • So much for “following” the law:

        Tell that to Mann.

        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.

      • 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”.

      • 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.

      • 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”?

      • There is true science and then there is climate science. No relation.

  90. 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.

    • 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,

  91. The coming Little Ice Age will be climate change you can believe in.

  92. 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.

    • “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!

      • Obama tried to kill fracking in the cradle, then later claimed credit for lowered energy costs.

  93. 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.

  94. 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.

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

    • 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

    • “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.

      • Several records where broken this year (but not the only one you mentioned)

  95. 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!

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

  97. 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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

      • 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

      • 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 ..

      • 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.

      • 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

      • 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!

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

      • 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.

      • 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

      • 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.

      • The principle byproducts, CO2 and H20, are NOT harmful!

    • 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.

  98. 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?

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

    • how about 20 years of models being wrong wrong wrong… dumb fuck

      • You have a link from an *actual* weather site about these “wrong” models? And no, you can’t use links to tinfoil nut job websites. C’mon, ignorant toothless hillbilly: corroborate or shut up.

      • weird he still runs he satellite program at UAH..

      • let me guess you have Mann…. BWHAHAHHHAAHAHAHAHHAHA

      • Hey now, how about you use your own standard and only post links to an actual weather site. Not that tinfoil crap just posted.

      • That statement is definitive evidence that you do not understand the scientific method.

      • It’s easy to crawl into the gutter with Paul. But, please, don’t. He’s to be pitied.

      • Good lord. The graph of just about every model’s temp output has been posted. The overwhelming majority are showing hotter results than observation. Those closest to observation place less weight on CO2. That you accept the word of others and do not perform any personal research is sad. Had you done so, it would have prevented you from playing the fool. You may apologize at any time.

        And, no, I won’t do your homework for you. If you want to understand reality, educate yourself!

      • Clearly you know yourself that your case is so weak that you must resort to childish name-calling in a desperate attempt to distract.

        Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability.

        We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.

        — Santer et al,

    • Perhaps we need to “hide the decline”? Maybe that would help convince people of GloBull warming.

    • I guess you find it amusing to go through life being both ignorant AND obnoxious

  100. Global warming hoaxsters now use the term climate change to obfuscate their hoax. Of course weather changes, the proper term for that is seasons. You know, winter, spring, fall, summer.

  101. Everybody knows — or SHOULD know that research is what funds universities. That’s why they slant the research to whomever is paying for it. Case solved.

  102. Weather vs. Climate:
    – “Weather” is used by working people to prepare for the day. For example: Raining? Wear a raincoat.
    – “Climate” is used by freeloaders to fleece working people of their cash.
    No one willingly buys what freeloaders sell (Global Warming) so the money must be forcibly taken from them.
    Working people produce products and services free people purchase of their own free will. Freeloader Climate Criminals use fear, lies, and propaganda to take money from productive people. Climate Criminals will use Weather to steal from the public whether they like it or not.

  103. After Trump sent that tweet, the MSM was breathlessly parading numerous “experts” to dispute his claims.
    He is clearly living in their heads, rent-free. Fun to watch them get so unhinged over every little thing he does…

  104. We may not know the difference in climate and weather but we know when we are being taken for fools. Globalists can spin any weather event into proof positive of whatever point they want to make. What they can’t do is describe what specific action by man will cure the climate change crisis or by when. But thrust them, our trillions will be put to good use and given to someone who didn’t earn it.

  105. Weather is not climate. Winters will still be cold. And cold in one region does not mean cold for the whole planet. In fact, while we are experiencing below average temperatures, Alaska and Siberia are experiencing above average temperatures.
    We are still going to see one of the lowest Arctic Sea Ice Maximums this winter. That means, that there is still a lot less Arctic than there used to be.
    Weather IS NOT climate.

    • All summer long we heard that the weather we were experiencing WAS climate(caused by climate change). After a dearth of strong hurricanes over the last 15 years, they came back with a vengeance. Every media outlet was falling over themselves to explain how this was all connected to climate change. It seems that only cold weather, is just weather.

    • Exactly! And the occasional heat wave (which alarmists pounce on as proof of CAGW) is offset by cooler temps elsewhere around the globe (which go unreported). Weather is NOT climate!

      And, you are right that the Arctic ice is at a low. But that is based on a graph that starts at a high measurement. Had that graph gone back further in time, it would show that Arctic ice had been this low in the last 200 years. Hint: it’s cyclical.

  106. Want to see if ‘global warming’ is real? Simple hold the next two-week ‘Global Climate Summit’ in Lagos, Aleppo, San Salvador, Kabul or Karachi. Elites need no reason to fly their private jets to Paris for an excellent two-week party. If they show up in cities most affected by their ‘global warming’ claims then it is real, if not, then it is an utter farce. Lagos is ready to welcome you!

  107. Don’t feel stupid, Julie. Even very smart people like Donald Trump screw this one up. If THE ODDS ARE that the Earth’a average temperature will go up, ON THE AVERAGE, it does NOT mean that it won’t freeze on New Year’s Eve in Times Square. Your “Huh?” is understandable, and it’s even common, but it’s wrong.

    I know it was before our time, but a man called Galileo was executed because he was right and EVERYONE ELSE WAS WRONG about the Earth’s shape. So if all your friends agree with you, you can still be all wrong. UNLESS — you are basing your opinion on something firm, like measurements and mathematics. Yeah, that HARD stuff.

    • Not to nitpick, but Galileo was not executed – he was placed under house arrest. And he said that the earth orbits the sun, not that it was round. No one believed that it was flat.

    • If only we still relied on actual measurements. Now the measurements are adjusted to compensate for all manner of data anomalies. Curiously, the adjustments always cool the past and warm the present. How else to ensure that it’s always the warmest year evah!

    • Trump is not that smart. But he, unlike you, knows a snow job when he sees one.

    • “Galileo was executed”

      No he wasn’t. Your command of the relevant facts regarding CAGW is just as accurate as your command of historical facts.

  108. 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
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleNetJobsWeekWorkFromHome/more/cash ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!gh102lhhh

  109. You have to understand the liberal’s “logic” about climate change.
    If it rains and floods, that proves climate change is real.
    If we have droughts, that proves climate change is real.
    If we have excessive snowfall, that proves climate change is real.
    If we have no snowfall, that proves climate change is real.
    If it is cold, that proves climate change is real.
    If it is hot, that proves climate change is real.
    If anything or nothing happens, that proves climate change is real.
    Because EVERYTHING proves climate change is real.

  110. The article nailed it. When their is a hurricane during hurricane season it is proof of global warming, when it’s wet or dry it’s due to global warming. As if storms, droughts and floods barely existed before. Trump called out the hypocrisy.

  111. If EDF wanted to prove their claim that rising global temp would produce more snow and rain, all they would need to do is post a historical graph of global relative humidity. But they won’t. Why? Because that graph show decreasing relative humidity it time. The exact opposite of what they’re trying to sell. And they wonder why they cannot bury skeptics.

  112. I don’t know about the rest of you, but we have been shoveling huge piles of “global warming” from our driveway over this past week:)

  113. The weather is speaking so loudly, I can’t hear what the climate change religious fanatics are saying.

  114. Is it possible, or indeed likely, that the same forces that warmed the planet will make the subsequent cooling cycle less painful? Maybe the original global warming was good after all …

  115. Here’s a fun question to ask your alarmist friends: If the science is truly settled, why is there more than one climate model?

  116. Here’s the difference between weather and climate: Weather is transparent. Anyone can go outside and easily see if it is hot or cold, cloudy or sunny. Climate is opaque. It requires collection of numerous data points from geographic areas over a period of time. It is subject to manipulation through adjustments of data, or outright fraud in order to make it fit the claims of the “scientists.”

  117. 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.”

    One of the many warmist predictions that has completely failed to materialize is the prediction that AGW would produce significant increases in water vapor in the lower and middle troposphere. Since water vapor comprises something like 97% of “greenhouse gases” this was supposed to account for most of the warming predicted by the models that predicted three or four degrees of average warming.

    That extra water vapor has never been observed, nor has the troposhperic warming it was supposed to produce. More snow: global warming. Less snow: global warming. You can’t argue with religion.

  118. The present cold is probably a result of all the air pollution caused by the California fires. The environmental lobby should demand that California install fans to blow the smoke out over the Pacific.

  119. Climate change: the Hoax that Costs Us, the Tax Payers, $4 Billion a Day!!!

  120. The Warmies sound a little like Linus explaining why the Great Pumpkin hasn’t appeared yet.

  121. Are you blithering idiots still conflating climate and weather?
    My god your stupidity never ceases to amaze me!

  122. Talking about long term trends – for 20 years, since temps peaked in 1998, global temps have been flat. If you remove from the data those weather stations in regions where the growth of cities came to encompass the weather station and induce an articartificial warmth on the local data then the temps have been in gradual decline. THAT is the trend. It is worth noting that the satellite data – uninfluenced by artifacts from city growth show flat temps over that period.

  123. In early-January 1973 I ran around Annapolis Maryland in a T-shirt. It was very comfortable. Try that today.

  124. Don’t you know, when it is cold it is weather, but when it is warmer than usual, it is climate change….

  125. We’ve got waaaay too many “know it alls” who don’t know it all. Too funny. Who’d’a thunk!