Still don't know the difference between weather and climate I see.

There was a global warming protest in Calgary where about 300 people were supposed to show up. Only 50 made it due to a snow storm. And they held the protest indoors due to cold weather.

Web Link

Hey Menlo Voter, when it gets warm that is due to weather too.

/snore

Every major national scientific group gets it. The Pentagon gets it. The folk in the Philippines sure got it. Ask the folks in Jersey about it.

Just a couple deniers grasping at straws. Ignore them.

Global: you still don't understand the difference between climate and weather. No kidding when it gets warm in a particular place it's due to weather. We're talking climate when discussing global warming.

Greenland was relatively warm between about 800-1300 AD due to the well-defined 1500 year solar cycle, as detailed by Singer and Avery in:

"Unstoppable global warming every 1500 years".

We are currently in another upswing in the solar cycle, which started about 1750, and which will probably rise about another 0.5-1 degree C over the next few hundred years. Current T to the 21st century is entirely in line with this solar cyle trend. C02 is irrelevant to this cycle,it has been traced 600 times over the last 1 million years in ice cores, and is a result of an overlap between the 87 and 210 year solar cycles.

It is well documented, world wide, and climatologists have conveniently forgotten about it.

Greenland was settled by vikings during the last solar warming period, which is also why they traveled so far in general during this time period-the northern world was warm.

The advocates of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), whether they are scientists loyal to IPCC, or just well-read opinion makers. They pick out the data that support the trend that they want to prove, and ignore the data that do not support it. Then they make impressive-looking graphs, where the proper 'corrections' are always added, so that the desired slope of the curve is achieved.

The uniformity, the flaw-less consensus, and the lack of debate within the group of AGW supporters, all just works together to make me more skeptical. It would be a healthy sign if they sometimes disagreed, if they ever showed doubt, or if they once in a while agreed that a skeptic arguments had some merit.

Global:

first you argue that global warming is happening, then you say it is but there's no human component to that warming? Which is it, warming or no warming? You can't have it both ways.

Whoa boy! Really reaching with those two!

Dennis Avery and Fred Singer are sponsored by the Heartland Institute a denier group sponsored by the Kocks, Exxon, etc.. They're paid handsomely to make this crap up.

What I don't get are the deniers like our friend above who are doing it for free. There's so much money out there for denier trolls, don't you feel bad not getting in on part of the Koch Brothers/Exxon gravy train?

There has been no global warming since 1998. The Earth's warming and cooling comes in natural cycles caused by the sun. You global warming alarmists can go on ranting about AGW but the sun has a far greater effect on the earth's climate than man. Man is just a drop in the bucket. There was more earth warming during the medieval area than today.

OK. We get it. The poster that calls themselves "global warming" is a troll. Not really interested in discourse. TTFN

Solar activity is now falling faster than any other period in the last 10,000 years, and some researchers have suggested that the planet could cool off in the coming decades.

“By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, (Professor Mike Lockwood of Reading University) has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years,” the BBC reports. “Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.”

“When we have had periods where the sun has been quieter than usual we tend to get these much harsher winters,” said Sunderland University climate scientist Dennis Wheeler.

“So the warming we saw, which lasted only from 1978 to 1998, is something that is predictable and expectable,” said Don Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University. “When the ocean changed temperatures, global cooling is almost a slam dunk. You can expect to find about 25 to 30 years yet ahead of us before it starts to warm up again. It might even be more than that.”

Of course man is responsible for the decrease in sunspots.

The sun is causing global warming/cooling? Ya gotta be kidding! That's the best you can come up with?!?!?!?

His climate evidence is from a GEOLOGIST?!?!? (professor of geology)

This poster is ignoring all response, any facts presented that destroy his whack-a-doodle crackpot denier theories are not even responded to.

So here's mine:

Web Link

To be better informed about the great Global Warming Hoax pleas refer to this web link where distinguished scientists throughout the world throw "cold" water on the AGW bullcrap being promulgated by the far left.

Web Link

Still "trolling" eh Global?

Many of the AGW religious fanatics claim that increased tornado activity is a direct cause of AGW. Here is NOAA's top 10 deadliest tornado list, courtesy of CNN, and only one tornado made it into the AGW period.

1. The "Tri-State Tornado" killed 695 people and injured 2,027, traveling more than 300 miles through Missouri, Illinois and Indiana on March 18, 1925. It was rated an F5 at the top of the old Fujita scale (with winds of 260-plus mph).

2. The "Natchez Tornado" killed 317 people and injured 109 on May 6, 1840, along the Mississippi River in Louisiana and Mississippi. The official death toll may not have included slaves, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

3. The "St. Louis Tornado" killed 255 people and injured 1,000 on May 27, 1896, in Missouri and Illinois. It had winds of between 207 mph and 260 mph.

4. The "Tupelo Tornado" killed 216 people and injured 700 on April 5, 1936, in the northeastern Mississippi city.

5. The "Gainesville Tornado" was a pair of storms that converged April 6, 1936, in Gainesville, Georgia, killing 203 people and injuring 1,600. The tornado destroyed four blocks and 750 houses in the northern Georgia town.

6. The "Woodward Tornado" wreaked havoc across parts of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas on April 9, 1947. The storm, which killed 181 people and injured 970, reportedly was more than a mile wide in places.

7. The tornado that struck Joplin, Missouri, on May 22, 2011, killed 158 people and injured more than a thousand. The storm packed winds in excess of 200 mph and was on the ground for more than 22 miles.

8. The "Amite/Pine/Purvis Tornado" killed 143 people and injured 770 on April 24, 1908. The storm left only seven houses intact in Purvis, Mississippi, and also caused damage in Amite, Louisiana.

9. The "New Richmond Tornado" killed 117 people and injured 200 on June 12, 1899, in New Richmond, Wisconsin.

10. The "Flint Tornado" killed 115 people and injured 844 on June 8, 1953, in Flint, Michigan. The tornado was the deadliest twister ever recorded in the state.

A list of deadliest tornadoes, however tragic, is not an indicator of STRONGEST tornadoes, just most deaths. Therefore using is as any indicator of either weather anecdotes or climate change is a misuse of data.

Gray Lady specializes in misapplication of data. See other threads for her examples.

As an example, one can list the COSTLIEST tornadoes, and say that yes, they appear in the period Gray Lady/global warming discuss, and CONTRADICT her argument: Web Link

That would also be a misuse of data.

Gray Lady/global warming is a good example of Mark Twain's 'statistics' comment.

-------------------------------

The 10 Costliest U.S. Tornadoes in 2013 $

1 22-May-11 Joplin MO (note Joblin is 7th on death list and first in damage cost)

2 27-Apr-11 Tuscaloosa AL

3 8-Jun-66 Topeka KS

4 11-May-70 Lubbock TX

5 3-May-99 Oklahoma City OK

6 27-Apr-11 Hackleburg AL

7 3-Apr-74 Xenia OH

8 6-May-75 Omaha NE

9 10-Apr-79 Wichita Falls TX

10 3-Jun-80 Grand Island NE

Almost 1000 record low max temps vs 17 record high temps

Records in the last 7 days:

205 snowfall records.
969 Low Max. 203 Low temps.
17 High Temp.
61 High minimum

It is all about the research grants. These scientists would sell their souls for grant money. With Al Gore Lemmings infiltrating Government we have scientists whose rapacious thirst for grant money causes them to give whatever answers the Grantors want.

All movements that reject an overwhelming scientific consensus show 5 inevitable characteristics. They celebrate fake experts, cherry pick the data, argue using misrepresentation and logical fallacies, indulge in conspiracy theories, and demand impossible expectations of what research can deliver.

Web Link

Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry

Web Link

It was minus 4 degrees in Truckee this morning. Decreasing sunspot activity indicates that the Earth may be entering a mini ice age.

Web Link

Funny how Gray Lady, global warming and the new poster Nathan Detroit post at similar times, and all represent a fringe right viewpoint so far out of the mainstream for sunny California. Must be soooooo depressing to live in such a great area, the highly educated, active, solid blue Bay Area, and the only place you can safely talk is cloaked in the anonymity of a small anonymous forum like this.

Must be just awful.

So awful, one grasps at absurd straws like "it's sunspots causing climate change!!"

One should step back and consider how absurd that sounds.

Or get out and talk to real folk. Or some specialists.

In climate change, I mean.

Sunspots?

Have a wonderful, warm and blessed day!

New York Post today reports Global Warming Proof Evaporating

Web Link

Global Warming, nice try. No, the Post did not REPORT that global warming proof is evaporating. The Post ran an OPINION PIECE by a person whose credibility intelligent readers will assess for themselves. Personally, I have found global warming deniers not to be at all credible, and the OPINION writer you've linked to here hasn't disabused me of that belief.

Every winter, the climate change Deniers, suddenly exclaim:

"It's cold! Global Warming must be a hoax by every major science group!"

So come Spring, we should say "see, it's warming"?

Deniers are the same group that supported Apartheid, because reagan told them that "constructive engagement" was 'fair', and sanctions would hurt neighboring countries. They supported Vietnam. They doubted the hole in the ozone.

It's a pathetic life.

Have a wonderful, warm and blessed day!

They're the same group that call it Obama's recession, when it is clearly Bush's Great Recession, otherwise referred to as the second Great Republican Depression.

Job growth for the last 10 Novembers

November 2003: + 13,000
November 2004: + 65,000
November 2005: +335,000
November 2006: +205,000
November 2007: +111,000
November 2008: - 775,000 under Bush
November 2009: - 21,000 Obama's first year
November 2010: +144,000
November 2011: +174,000
November 2012: +247,000

Nov 2013 = +203,000

Not enough jobs still. Need to pass jobs bills and get Americans back to work!!

Forbes magazine put out a great article yesterday on the global warming myth.

Web Link

In a polling of the American Meteorological Society 52% said there was AGW and 48% said there was not. Hardly a super-majority.

Conclusions

"the majority of meteorologists whose jobs, salary and publishing activities are dependent on government funding and the perpetuation of the mythical global warming crisis say global warming is occurring and humans are the primary cause.

Wow, that’s quite a news flash. Meanwhile, for the vast majority of meteorologists who don’t fall within that group – those who aren’t beholden to government funding and who don’t have a funding dog in the global warming debate – only a minority say global warming is occurring and humans are the primary cause."

Its all about the grant money. And the Global Warming fanatics would say the moon is made out of green cheese if it would get them more grant money. Now that is what I call objectivity.

Meteoroligists? You mean weathermen? Like the young blonde on teevee?

Oh boy. Back to explaining the differences between weather and climate.

Simple folk can be so predictable.

AGW hysterics warned in 2007 that by summer 2013, the Arctic would be ice-free. What a joke! As with so many other doomsday Chicken Little predictions by AGW alarmists, the results have turned out to be quite the opposite. The UK Daily Mail reports:

A chilly Arctic summer has left 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year - an increase of 29 per cent.

Days before the annual autumn re-freeze began, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already had stretched from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores.

The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific remained blocked by pack-ice all yearlong. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it were left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back.

Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of global cooling that will not end until the middle of this century - a process that will expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as being wrong.

In the United States, President Obama still plans to bypass Congress, which like most American people is highly skeptical of the discredited-by-events predictions, and use administrative regulations and executive orders to impose drastic and expensive carbon restrictions on the American economy. These have already cost jobs and have lowered the standard of living particularly for lower income Americans, who can least afford the higher electricity, food, gasoline, and other prices that have resulted from carbon tax profiteering.

AGW is the most expensive and widespread con job in the history of the world. And one day there will be a terrible reckoning for the "scientists" and profiteers who have foisted this crackpot atrocity on the world.

GW GL HL E etc.. copies and pastes unattributed copyrighted content from Web Link

Noise is noise, fringe is fringe, but geez.... obey the law and the rules of the forum. Gray Lady, give credit for the original content, however crazy it is.

According to the Washington Post, the darling of liberal elitists, Antarctic Sea ice hit a 35 year high on Saturday. The liberals are in a state of disbelief. How could the Washington Post betray them like this.

Web Link

It seems like the Global Warming Crackpots climate modeling is a bit off. That grant money can sure affect objectivity.

Golly, HL, did you even finish reading your own link?

"Ultimately, it’s apparent the relationship between ozone depletion, climate warming from greenhouse gases, natural variability, and how Antarctic ice responds is all very complicated. In sharp contrast, in the Arctic, there seems to be a relatively straight forward relationship between temperature and ice extent.

Thus, in the Antarctic, we shouldn’t necessarily expect to witness the kind of steep decline in ice that has occurred in the Arctic.

“…the seeming paradox of Antarctic ice increasing while Arctic ice is decreasing is really no paradox at all,” explains Climate Central’s Lemonick. “The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land, while the Antarctic is land surrounded by ocean. In the Arctic, moreover, you’ve got sea ice decreasing in the summer; at the opposite pole, you’ve got sea ice increasing in the winter. It’s not just an apples-and-oranges comparison: it’s more like comparing apple pie with orange juice.” "

Related: Arctic sea ice has *not* recovered, in 7 visuals.

Below is Robert Carter's 10 Global Warming Myths. Robert Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience. He is neither a Democrat or Republican.

Myth 1: Average Global Temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years.

Fact 1: Within error bounds, AGT has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8% since 1995.

Myth 2: During the late 20th Century, AGT increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached an unprecedented magnitude.

Fact 2: The late 20th Century AGT rise was at a rate of 1-2 Degrees C/century, which lies well within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 years. AGT has been several degrees warmer than today many times in the recent geological past.

Myth 3: AGT was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years (the Mann, Bradley & Hughes “hockey stick” curve and its computer extrapolation).

Fact 3: The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in AGT were unusual, nor that dangerous human warming is underway.

Myth 4: Computer models predict that AGT will increase by up to 6 Degrees C over the next 100 years.

Fact 4: Some deterministic computer models do. Other equally valid (empirical) computer models predict cooling.

Myth 5: Warming of more than 2 Degrees C will have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and mankind alike.

Fact 5: A 2 Degree C change would be well within previous natural bounds. Ecosystems have been adapting to such changes since time immemorial. The result is the process that we call evolution. Mankind can and does adapt to all climate extremes.

Myth 6: Further human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous warming, and is generally harmful.

Fact 6: No human-caused warming can yet be detected that is distinct from natural system variation and noise. Any additional human-caused warming which occurs will probably amount to less than 1 Degree C. Atmospheric CO2 is a beneficial fertilizer for plants, including especially cereal crops, and also aids efficient evapo-transpiration.

Myth 7: Changes in solar activity cannot explain recent changes in AGT.

Fact 7: The sun’s output varies in several ways on many time scales (including the 11-, 22 and 80-year solar cycles), with concomitant effects on Earth’s climate. While changes in visible radiation are small, changes in particle flux and magnetic field are known to exercise a strong climatic effect. More than 50% of the 0.8 Degree C rise in AGT observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change.

Myth 8: Unprecedented melting of ice is taking place in both the north and south polar regions.

Fact 8: Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are growing in thickness and cooling at their summit. Sea ice around Antarctica attained a record area in 2007. Temperatures in the Arctic region are just now achieving the levels of natural warmth experienced during the early 1940s, and the region was warmer still (sea-ice free) during earlier times.

Myth 9 Human-caused global warming is causing dangerous global Sea-Level (SL) rise.

Fact 9: SL change differs from time to time and place to place; between 1955 and 1996, for example, SL at Tuvalu fell by 105 mm (2.5 mm/yr). Global average SL is a statistical measure of no value for environmental planning purposes. A global average SL rise of 1-2 mm/yr occurred naturally over the last 150 years, and shows no sign of human-influenced increase.

Myth 10: The late 20th Century increase in AGT caused an increase in the number of severe storms (cyclones), or in storm intensity.

Fact 10: Meteorological experts are agreed that no increase in storms has occurred beyond that associated with natural variation of the climate system.

Robert Carter is a geologist. Add the environmental stuff to pump up his resume, but he is still a geologist.

His 'facts' are a bunch of horse droppings. When he claims "AGT has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002" just remember that 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.

A simple search finds most of his previous claims to be totally bogus, like in 2011 when he claimed that 1934 was the warmest year on record

In fact, 1934 WAS the warmest year on record IN THE US, not globally.

Dude's a denier. A geologist, for sure, but just a denier selling books to the fringe right. ANd our poster above is just the sort of sheep he's peddling to!

Carter's just another denier dumb enough to say "Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant" (May 1, 2011)

Yeah, right. Pump up the CO2 and everything will just grow faster, right?

Fools.

Just more of the puerile antics from the left. When you can't refute facts then resort to name calling. How childish.

The following is from Global Research:

1. Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a “stable” climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.

2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.

3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.

4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life.

Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (80 C) of the total greenhouse effect (330C), of which in turn at most 25% (~20C) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas.

5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).

6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.

Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that “the IPCC review process is fatally flawed” and that “the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz“.
7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met).

The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism “one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism“. If Kyoto was a “first step” then it was in the same wrong direction as the later “Bali roadmap”.

8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.
9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.
10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.

The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.

Name calling? Calling your so called climate expert by his title - geologist?

A geologist selling his books to the fringe deniers (sheep) - sounds like a smart plan. It's a book full of horse droppings, but keep spending your money! Makes the geologist very happy!

Yet you keep throwing the droppings against the wall to see what will stick...

Let's start with #1 "Climate has always changed, and it always will."

... and the quick google gets us:

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.


"A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so humans can't be the cause of the current global warming. Peer-reviewed research shows this is not the case."

It's important to know there are a number of different forces acting on the Earth’s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. It's worth remembering that without some greenhouse gas the Earth would be a ball of ice.

These forces are called "forcings" because they force changes in the global average temperature."

Global Warming Lemmings, you have lost the argument. There is a great article about the Global Warming Hoax. Some excerpts:

Craig Rucker, the Executive Director of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a think tank that has helped organize the Poles to protest this travesty. “Poland has been bullied for decades and they are not about to cede their energy independence to Russia, the UN or anyone. Nor should they.”

“Never underestimate what a gathering of bureaucrats and carbon profiteers might accomplish when after your money”, warned Rucker.

"Nation by nation the UN global warming hoax is being abandoned for the obvious reason that it is a lie perpetrated to transfer wealth from the developed nations to those less developed. It was never about saving the Earth from a global warming; that was a lie from start to finish.

Some journalists are trying to tell the truth, but newspapers like the New York Times continue to keep the hoax alive. An informed population, not just in the United States, but increasingly worldwide, will ensure that it dies a long overdue death."

Web Link

A link to Heartland, a hoax 'think tank' funded by Koch Brothers oil money.

Yup, two choices:
- believe most of the scientists
or
- believe a 'think tank' funded by oil, in this case, the Kochs, etc..

Yeah.

Here's a link to Nuclear News about the Koch Brothers and Heartland, fighting renewables up in Maine. Web Link

Gray lady, you should know better than link to Heartland. At least your other fringe websites are harder to link to Oil money, but Heartland is too obvious. Why not just link to bp.com?

National Geographic sites the correlation of Earth temperatures to Mars temperatures. Unless the martians are creating g;lobal warming then the Sun is responsible for most of the heating and cooling of the planet. Admittedly man, does contribute a small amount of global warming but compared to the sun it is negligible.

Web Link

"Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun."

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

"Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets."

"Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories."

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

Let's list ALL the peer reviewed papers by Habibullo Abdussamatov that take a negative or doubtful position on human-caused global warming...

Whoops! Too bad - there are ZERO peer-reviewed papers and studies by Habibullo Abdussamatov on human-caused climate change!

Keep studying martians, gray lady/global warming/HL/etc...

You nailed it on Abdussamatov, he is not a climate scientist.

Nice to know that the deniers are starting to hedge their bets with "Admittedly man, does contribute a small amount of global warming..."

So before when you screamed there is no man-made climate change, we were supposed to believe you, even though now you admit "man does contribute a small amount of global warming". Now we're supposed to believe your new stance.

And two years from now, you'll admit you were wrong today?

So sad.

There have been far warmer periods for this planet well before there were cars pumping the dreaded carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is known to climatologists as the Medieval Climate Optimum. But Research Scientist desperate for grant money bestowed upon them by far left government bureaucrats they will fudge the data to fir the grantors' wishes as evidenced by Climategate at the University of East Anglia.

For more Climategate facts that reveal how corrupt these Global Warming so called scientists are please refer to this link:

Web Link

The Medieval Climatic Optimum was from 900 through 1200 AD. During this period the European climate was much warmer than it is today. It was followed by a general cooling off which lasted until the end of the 19th century known as the Little Ice Age.

Since records of the temperature were not kept during this time, there is other evidence to substantiate this claim:

1) Greenland was settled and farmed by Danish explorers who set out from Iceland. Throughout this period the settlers were able to farm but, once things began to cool of again, it was too cold to grow crops. The Vikings of this period were also able to colonize Newfoundland.

2) Agriculture in Scotland was sufficient that the average height of men was six feet as a result of better nutrition. We don't think much about this today where people are routinely six feet tall but, outside of these few centuries, people were much shorter then.

3) In the Rocky Mountains, the snow line was 370 meters higher than it is today. The snow line refers to the altitude at which there is a permanent snow cap. Above this line the snow never melts. The higher the snow line, the warmer the temperatures.

4) Data from the Sargasso Sea shows that the sea surface temperature was approximately 1 °C warmer during the Medieval Climate Optimum than it is today.

global warming: you forgot the canard you've used in the past, about how seal hunters and fisherman issued reports in the 1920's about no arctic ice, reprinted in some Washington journal of the day....

What do you think of Speaker of the House, republican John Beohner calling fringe outside conservatives like you "not credible"?

Gotta hurt....

"Frankly I think they're misleading their followers. I think they're pushing our members in places where they don't want to be. And frankly I just think they've lost all credibility," he told reporters at his weekly press conference Thursday.

"There comes a point when people step over the line. When you criticize something and you have no idea what you're criticizing, it undermines your credibility."

"Are you kidding me?"

A new look at NASA satellite data revealed that Earth set a new record for coldest temperature ever recorded. It happened in August 2010 when it hit -135.8 degrees F in Antarctica.

Then on on July 31 2013, it hit -135.3 degrees F in Antarctica. So that is definite proof the earth is warming.

So 100 years from now the record low in Antarctica should be a balmy -118.6 degrees F.

What a freakin calamity!

Wow. It got cold one day in Antarctica, therefore we must extrapolate that single weather event to climate?!?!?

Again, the fringe right can't tell the difference between weather and climate.

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

Today, NASA released 2013 data: Web Link

"NASA Finds 2013 Sustained Long-Term Climate Warming Trend

NASA scientists say 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures.

With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the warmest years on record.

"Long-term trends in surface temperatures are unusual and 2013 adds to the evidence for ongoing climate change," GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt said. "While one year or one season can be affected by random weather events, this analysis shows the necessity for continued, long-term monitoring."

Scientists emphasize that weather patterns always will cause fluctuations in average temperatures from year to year, but the continued increases in greenhouse gas levels in Earth's atmosphere are driving a long-term rise in global temperatures. Each successive year will not necessarily be warmer than the year before, but with the current level of greenhouse gas emissions, scientists expect each successive decade to be warmer than the previous."

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

Or you can just put you foil hat on and listen to the think tanks funded by the exaction industries. And have a nice cool glass of West Virginian (coal cleaner) water as it heats up.

This thread last comment - 2014.

2014 then closed as the hottest year in recorded history.
2015 was hotter than 2014.
2016 was hotter than 2015.

But listed to the Alternative-Fact guy, who claims that facts are just fake-news. A perfect Trump voter.

////////

"2016 is Earth's warmest year, culminating in a remarkable 3-year streak of record warm years for the globe

The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2016 was the highest among all years since record keeping began"
Web Link