NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years

In their “hottest year ever” press briefing, NOAA included this graph, which stated that they have a 58 year long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph.


NESDIS Strategic Communications

Here is why they are hiding the rest of the data. The earlier data showed as much pre-1979 cooling as the post-1979 warming.




I combined the two graphs at the same scale below, and put a horizontal red reference line in, which shows that the earth’s atmosphere has not warmed at all since the late 1950’s


The omission of this data from the NOAA report, is just their latest attempt to defraud the public. NOAA’s best data shows no warming for 60 years. But it gets worse. The graph in the NOAA report shows about 0.5C warming from 1979 to 2010, but their original published data shows little warming during that period.


Due to Urban Heat Island Effects, the NOAA surface data shows nearly one degree warming from 1979 to 2010, but their original radiosonde data showed little warming during that time. Global warming theory is based on troposphere warming, which is why the radiosonde data should be used by modelers – instead of the UHI contaminated surface data.


NOAA’s original published radiosonde data showed little net troposphere warming from 1958 to 2010, when the data set ended.


The next graph shows how NOAA has altered their 850-300 mb temperature data since 2011. Another hockey stick of data tampering.


2016 version : RATPAC-A-annual-levels.txt

2011 version : global.dat

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

760 Responses to NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years

  1. Ben Palmer says:

    Interesting ….

    • Brian G says:

      Liberals made up the religion of global warming so they can PRETEND to be the savior of the planet. Just as they PRETEND to be the savior of the poor, the blacks, the gays, the feminists, the unions and dozens of other special interest groups too lazy, ignorant and weak minded to think beyond the media lies.

      • JohnFtLaud says:

        Spot on Brian!!

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          Pure ignorance.

          • HumanLiberty says:

            I’m not sure how to interpret your comment Vendi – would you please elaborate a bit?

          • LDG says:

            Yes, Dimmocrats are ignorant…you are right. Anyone who believes the myth is low-information.

          • TomJB says:

            That’s some deep thinking right there! Exactly what we have come to expect from the science-deniers on the left

          • RJ says:

            LOL… you sure do get around. I’ve seen you spewing your nonsense all over the Internet.

          • anti-antiwhite says:

            “Diversity” is code for No-White-Anything-Anywhere. Antiracist is code for antiwhite.

            Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans, White places for Everybody! Notice that and you’re a racistwhitesupremacistkkknaziprivilege.

            When has a “diversity activist” ever campaigned to bring white people to any global place or institution that is non-white? Or even to bringing other non-whites into their own non-white place? When is anywhere “too black” “too yellow” etc.?

            Isn’t there a term for the targeted cultural and demographic displacement of an ethnic group? Hmm. Sounds like a G word.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Vending Cart de Carrion. Pure ignorance, as always.

          • Nexialist says:

            Pure ignorance. The consensus among Climatologists is now well over 99% affirming the reality of AGEW. Every professional Scientist’s Organization on the Planet affirms the reality of AGW. There are no such organizations that deny AGW.

            Then to keep the fire burning among the ignorant a misleading pseudo-analysis is presented in the above article. Then the results of this pseudo-scientific analysis is “reported” in a IBD editorial.

            Who is paying these circle-jerking morons for their head-on affront to Science?

          • tonyheller says:

            Moron alert

          • Tionia says:

            So right Vendicar! How sad is it that people can’t see what we have done to our planet. those people just don’t care what they are leaving behind!
            Pure selfishness!

          • Nexi: of 1000 scientists asked, “Is there a human component to global warming?” 300 replied. 288 of them said “Yes.”

            That’s 98%.

            What wasn’t asked was, “How much influence do humans have?”

            Regurgitating climatetard catchphrases does not counter actual science, which those graphs portray.

            Unless you want to claim the NOAA’s figures are incorrect…in which case, you’ll have to find new figures to base an argument on.

            Science is not about “consensus.” There was “consensus” about aether. There was “consensus” about the mass and age of the Sun, assuming it was made of pure coal.

            Both were complete crap because the data the models were based on were inaccurate.

            Now, since you know so much, would you care to show the equations for sea level rise? I can calculate them. Can you?

          • JJ says:

            This debunks the troposphere argument. The data that Tony used is flawed, here’s why: and
            And here is real surface temperature data since 1880. I’m not sure of the correlation between this and the NOAA data but you’re all welcome to do your own searches. I try to get my info from neutral sources. I know it’s very difficult to identify what a neutral source is but I find usually that spin and neutrality are inversely proportional. I don’t care about being right. I care about my kids’ future, whether it’s related to conspiracy or the environment. [don’t shoot the messenger] I’m here for truth and truth alone.

          • tonyheller says:

            “Skeptical Science” is paid fraud

          • JJ says:

            One more thing, and this is directed at the moderator: I’m taking screenshots.

          • Dr. Better says:

            Pure fact. As recorded by thermometers, not predictions made with computer models.

          • Bruce Irving says:

            Are you talking about pure ignorance in paying carbon tax to a bunch of elitists to enrich them even more because paying carbon tax will lead to paying to breathe.
            Educate yourself look at who owns the carbon credit companies. The true problem is the synthetics but I’m sure you use air conditioning and hairspray and plastic bags.

        • peter says:

          double that John

          • Bensfather says:

            Vendi won’t explain his comment because he can’t. Lind rather just make an emotional statement. Simple as that.

      • Ken says:

        Thank you well said.

      • Los says:

        Brian G, you’re the shiznit!

      • stevek128 says:

        actually…you are almost all the way there, my friend. It is about MONEY!!!!!! Buying and trading in Carbon credits was the main reason the whole Climate Change Ponzi Scheme was dreamed up. Al Gore, Lord All-Father of Global Warming conspiracies is a multi millionaire from that phony trading scheme. Kyoto was a huge grab at Uncle Sam’s wallet that was all too transparent of it’s lies. That’s why no new type of treaty can be voted on . It spells out the money grab!!!

        • Tempus Fugit says:

          Money and control..

          • Gypo O'Leary says:

            And one world government

          • Beau S. says:

            Control is almost always about the money and power, so yep.

          • sean o says:

            You can produce your own energy at home with no government or utility inference and at a cost that is competitive which what the utility provides. Most governments will pay you to do it.

            If you remain on fossil fuels, you are at the whims of the Fossil Fuel industry which involves numerous governments and trading ponzi schemes.

        • MeezaThinkin says:

          Correct! Redistribution of wealth by what we used to call Communists to all of the tin pot dictators in the UN who have stolen every penny they can from their people. They have to buy their loyalty somehow…

          • Tom says:

            Watermelon: Green on the outside, red on the inside.

          • Davemon says:

            The census bureau has three main published gauges of income inequality. All three have historically gotten worse under progressive administrations. The most telling is their average deviation from the mean that measures how incomes have moved to the ends of the expected bell curve.that means the rich got richer and the poor got poorer under Obama, and Clinton, and the middle class shrunk the faster. Take away incentive to work through extended welfare programs and that’s what you get.

        • James says:

          Here in beautiful Tennessee he is lovingly refered to as Spotted Al Bore!!! You know the guy that is a trust fund baby that made his fortune from his fathers stake in the strategic oil reserves!! Oh but enough about that lets talk about the constantly leaking zinc mine in Carthage,Tn that pollutes the caney fork river. Or that his house here uses more power than at least 20 normal size homes!

          • kuhnkat says:

            and his Senator father got rich by being the bought servant of Armand Hammer a Soviet agent… I believe Al still holds the Occidental Oil Co. stock given to his dad by ole Armand.

          • albaby says:

            At one time, Gore had five homes he jetted between. I’m assuming all were heated and cooled.

          • William says:

            Well put James, the same guy who rammed Ethanol down are throats because it was good for the environment, however when algore was pressed on the issue that ethanol actually made the environment worse, he replied I know, I lied about that because I needed the votes from the corn belt mid-west states.

          • Joseph P. Toad says:

            Do they ever talk in the Volunteer State about his dad’s work as a paid operative of the Soviet agent, Dr. Armand Hammer? Or about why Al left Vanderbilt law school and divinity school without graduating?

          • PR says:

            Never trust an anthropomorphic global warming zealot who still lives in a mansion and has his own plane. If it so important, why don’t these people change their lifestyles?
            Do as I say, not as I do.

          • RAH says:

            Well said!

          • RAH says:

            Well said James. Al made a lot of money and now is quiet in his big home.

        • vmijct says:

          Go a little further. It’s about power. He who has the money has the power.

        • Attilathehun says:

          Most climate research is aimed at proving the earth is warming and that man caused it? Why and where is the research proving otherwise? Well…………here is the answer.
          Researchers respond to RFP (research funding proposals) from politicized federal agencies BECAUSE that is where the money is. There are no RFPs from anti warming agencies.
          AND, academic researcher’s promotion, tenure, and merit salary decisions are based on publication record (in “refereed journals”). These journals send papers out for peer review and the process is incestuous. If you pan a colleague’s research methods or conclusions you risk getting your own paper torpedoed.
          AND, researchers have to pay “page” charges to get published resulting in lucrative business for scientific “journals”.
          AND, research to prove that global warming does not exist is next to impossible to do. You can not prove a negative. A positive can be proven with one instance of increased temperature. A negative conclusion would have to be based on every date point in history and would still be subject to criticism for not seeing into the future.
          AND, look at the politics involved. Every “victim” of global warming has their hand out hoping for cash for remediation. No warming denier is expecting to get anything but must pay for it all.
          Billions of dollars are being spent on fraud and waste. And many industries are thriving on the hoax.

          • somjennings says:

            Wow. Well said Attilathehun!

          • Red Eagle says:

            That does it! I am cutting up my Banc of Algore Carbon Credit Card…

          • Rudy says:

            I became a GW (now Climate Change) sceptic way back in the 90s when the mean global temps. were being reported and all the hoopla began. Of course there would be an increase. The numbers failed to take into account the dissolving to the Soviet Union 1991 resulting in the closing of almost 150 weather monitoring stations in Siberia and other cold areas. Notice the spike during that period.

          • Karen says:

            Very well said. Most scientific ‘research’ is done for whatever funding is available and the results are biased. Bruce Lipton is a great example of someone in the bio-science field who would not
            ‘cave in’ to his fellow scientists who were bought out by the science ‘industry’.
            Thank you for the well thought out reply Attilathehun!

          • Jim says:

            You can prove that global warming theory is false. The theory is based entirely on computer models. These models predict an ever increasing temperature with increasing CO2 concentration. Over the last 18 years the CO2 has increased while the global temperature has remained flat. Therefore the theory is wrong. A fundamental principle of science is that a theory only has to be shown to be wrong and it must be discarded. I rest my case.

          • John Wilson says:

            Hello Atilla. In my experience RFP mean “Request For Proposal”. I’ve responded to many of them.

            John W.

          • Ken Gage says:

            Excellent post and, I believe, right on the money.
            (I refuse to say Spot on because I’m an American not a Brit)

          • Kaiser So Say says:

            Attila the Hun, I do believe you are right on the money. (Refuse to say Spot on which is for Brits, not Americans) Excellent post.

          • cspanjunkie says:

            It may be interesting to overlay surface and ocean temp data with undersea and surface volcanic activity over, say, the past 75 years. Then again, I’m just a simple-minded Drudge reader, dropping in to add my two cents.

        • Rally says:

          Ummm, can you still mr. gore money for carbon credits anyway?

          • Bud says:

            Why can’t i print my own carbon credit certificates and sell them? It not like they’re real anyway.

          • Tom James says:

            I just printed five of Gore’s Carbon Credit Certificates for myself, and I now feel better about myself than after my last colonic cleansing.

        • Fred762 says:

          Nope, it is all about deindustrializing the western (developed) countries however they can.. I mean, you cannot merge the high flying USA into the 3rd world NWO, bks happy, employed folks with guns make crappy slaves.

        • John F says:

          Let’s not forget the Billions awarded in grants and funding from the U.S. Gov’t to political cronies disguised at “Infrastructure” investments.

          • Scott says:

            All those groups who did research and falsely claimed GW was real , should be prosecuted for fraud and forced to pay damages.

        • Donald Sullivan says:

          Exactly correct! If you could get to those who would benefit from all that money you would find some familiar names…

        • Fedupdeb says:

          A http://www…don‘t pick on Algore. He didn’t get to be president so he had to think of another way to fleece the public and make himself rich.

        • Fedupdeb says:

          Awww…don’t pick on Algore. He didn’t get to be president so he had to think of another way to fleece the public and make himself rich.

        • Donald Sullivan says:

          Exactly correct! If you could get the names of those who would benefit from all that money you would find some familiar names…

        • Phillip Noonkester says:

          Brilliant. its a tax scam on those that fail science

        • Steve says:

          2 things AL Gore invented now… the internet, and global warming/cooling/climate change… lol

        • Dick Gozinia says:

          Bingo! Enough said. Total money grab and shows you how corrupt and who corrupt!

          • Mike1020 says:

            Well done with the National Lampoon yearbook name. My fav from the time Rufus Leeking.

          • Troy G says:

            Sadly the whole scheme of AGW is predicated upon stupidity and on people being gullible.
            I believe that enemies of P.T. Barnum phrased it best..
            “There’s a sucker born every minute”.

            This is what you get when you allow your children to be babysat by a clown in a purple dinosaur suit who sings about loving you…..sigh

        • Glenn Quagmire says:

          No way….you mean Democrats and liberals like money??

        • Mantis says:

          Yes! you are correct! I’m been saying this for years and its nice to see that others have figured this out. “Climate change” or “global warming” are nothing but tools governments can use to raise money (taxes). The best part of this scam is to make people believe the world will end if they don’t act and willingly pay money so the government can stop it.
          Scientists love this scheme too, as they can manipulate the data to help perpetuate the scam and thus be awarded grant money. Most scientists work from grants, that’s how they get a paycheck, so YES, of course they’re going to exploit it along with the government!
          This isn’t some big conspiracy theory, its just merely the perfect scam. Much like when you hear of “oil shortages” and then fuel prices soar, its a scam and done so more money can be raised.

        • Pete says:

          Money and control. I think control is the bigger one. Liberals mostly want to control our behaviors.

          • philincalifornia says:

            …. but they need to be paid to do this public service.

            You need to understand this, because this is how it is going to end.

        • Don Roberts says:

          Algore warns of the oceans rising and then he buys a $30 million oceanside mansion with his global warming con job cash. Makes you think he knows he is a fraud. There is a special hot place in hell for people that know they are lying when they lie.

          • That is amazing. Where is Gore’s oceanside mansion? I would love to check this out and spread the truth worldwide!!! Climate warming believers ignore the fact that scientists are influenced by government grants in coming to their conclusions about world temperatures.

          • Mike L says:

            Part of Tipper’s divorce settlement was a $9,000,000 California home on the Pacific Ocean in Montecito.

        • truthordie says:

          No, a Ponzi scheme rewards the early investors with the money from the new ones. The global warming scam was only to make AlGore and the fraudsters rich.

        • LDG says:

          Gore is actually going to be the first “carbon billionaire.”

        • Kevin says:

          You know, you raise an interesting concept….
          If AlGore made millions by fleecing people based on a phony scheme, how is that any different from any other conman… and could he be sued to recover money spent on carbon credits based on a phony scheme?
          Any lawyers out there?

        • Mark T says:

          I think the bulk of his personal fortune came from the sale of his not-terribly-successful TV network to the oil money from the middle east (for $500 million) that turned it into Al-Jazeera America. Which seems be kind of a flop too; they want subscribers from Comcast top to pay a premium for it and that looks like it’s going over like a lead balloon. Who really wants to pay extra for propaganda from the Muslim Brotherhood? (you can that get for free from Obama’s State Department!)

          Chillingly Big Al now sits on the Google board along with Clin-Tong henchwoman Jamie Gorelick (web search for HER career path and see what we’re up against–in particular note her little-reported plea bargain she did for Larry Page and the Google execs, check it out here (web searching for this using Google is fruitless!)

        • DJM says:

          Anyone remember Enron? Carbon traders!

        • Louis Rondone says:

          Bingo, stevek128!

        • sealdoc says:

          Big Al is laughing all the way to the bank!

        • ATM says:

          stevek128 – it isn’t about money. It’s about CONTROL. There are the few charlatans who use the global warming fear mongering for personal benefit, but it is the end result that the Totalitarians are after.

          And that is control of your energy usage, your property and ultimately your life.

        • r says:

          please get back on your meds.

        • Tionia says:

          So why do 99% of climate scientists say that Climate Change is real and humans have caused it? The ignorance in some people is amazing!

          • AndyG55 says:

            They don’t. You have fallen for the propaganda of a fabricated survey.

            DOH !!.

          • Dr. Dave says:

            Actually, the percentage of reported scientists is 97%, and the survey was real. The problem is that a LOT of gymnastics had to be done to arrive at that conclusion. The 2008 survey was originated by Margaret Zimmerman, who sent out 10,000+ surveys to Earth Scientists of all disciplines (climatology, geophysics, astronomy, anthropology–you name it), asking if they believed in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). She got less than 3,200 responses back, and the percentage of believers was not terribly impressive. Well, she couldn’t have that, so all of the non-climatologist surveys were thrown out. The new percentage of believers was somewhat higher, but still not high enough to impress anyone. Basically what happened next was that all responses by climatologists who were not on record as having a belief in AGW were thrown out, leaving behind only those responses by climatologists who expressed a belief in AGW (for a grand total of 77 responses out of over 10,000 sent out). So in essence the survey asked “Do you still believe in what you once believed in?” The surprise isn’t that the survey showed 97% agreement–the surprise is that it didn’t show 100%. What it DID show was that 3% of the climatologists who had once expressed belief in AGW no longer believed in it–but it wasn’t quite reported that way, was it??

          • Duster says:

            They don’t. Any honest climatologist will agree that the planetary climate has in general – apparently – warmed since roughly the 1850s. I say apparently since the uniform effect of data “adjustments” to NOAA and NASA climatological data has been to warm the recent (post-1950) and cool the past.

            The methodological explanations offered for the former are somewhat reasonable, except the adjustments seem to be reiterated, which “rewarms” already warmed data. The justification for cooling historical data is beyond obscure. It is nonexistent beyond the fact that culling problem records by hand is so difficult that machines are tasked to “look” for “dubious” records and “correct” them or interpolate over the existing data. The biases in the “corrections” are so strong that you cannot read and reconcile historical and modern climate studies. They data employed is incommensurate, even though it is derived from the very same records. This has lead to an outright revolution in New Zealand’s climate community and pitched battles over absurd changes to data in Australia’s historic record where station records in profoundly different environments are “homogenized.” So, sadly at present no critical reader of climatological work can actually assert honestly that he or she knows whether the climate is presently warming or not; only that the data is. I am less inclined to blame politics and economics so much as incompetent coders and confirmation bias. The “Harry Readme” file in the original Climategate tranch is quite revealing about how hard processing “climate” data can be.

      • Follow the money. It is mostly about crony government subsidized businesses getting free money.

        • jp says:

          @dave & Steve they even scrubbed all info on the web of their great CCX exchange they were going to make billions trading in Chicago.

        • Scott says:

          Al Gore made over 200 million from the Global Warming hoax.

          This NOAA report is the final nail in the coffin of the GW hoax. The science is now settled !

          To those who purchased a smart car,Prius, solar panels etc – blahahahaha ha feeling stupid ?

          • Daren Mathews says:

            Actually, I do not feel stupid for buying solar panels, heat pumps or LED bulbs or installing additional insulation in my houses or anything else that you all consider part of the green hoax……. not because I believe any of this CCBS necessarily but rather because the A-holes and Libtards do. Leave them with it long enough and they will completely destroy the system while in the meantime the cost of energy to the consumer goes through the roof . You don’t want to be a slave then stop being a slave reduce your dependence on the system and anything the idiots do will have a minimal effect on you is my thing……. I was thankful that Obama so totally cocked up that whole Solyndra thing, it really cut the bottom out of solar panel prices ……

      • Randy Frank says:

        I could not have said it better.

      • Clay Heming says:

        Could not have said it better myself!

      • Faux radical says:

        Did you know majority of American media is radical right wing telling you it’s left? What college did you get Masers at? None.

        • Dino in Miami says:

          Wow! At least you got the FAUX part right!

        • Mike Hawkslarge says:

          Faux radical – I don’t know of a single college that offers a Masers?…except maybe the one you failed to graduate from.

        • Real Clear says:

          Nonsense. Also, your statement is not even well written. Go to MSNBC where you will feel “safe”.

        • Scott says:

          Are you able to summarize the agenda of this radical right wing without political talking points and emotional fear tactics?

        • Chip Mustafa says:

          That’s a nice little trick to try to stop the Right from responding. I see what you did there.

        • Jim Kress says:

          I believe it is illegal for colleges to give away masers. They can be quite dangerous.

          A maser (/ˈmeɪzər/), an acronym for “microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation”, is a device that produces coherent electromagnetic waves through amplification by stimulated emission. The first maser was built by Charles H. Townes, James P. Gordon, and H. J. Zeiger at Columbia University in 1953.

          • philincalifornia says:

            It’s also a term used for a Maserati.

            Seriously. I owned one once. Carbon footprint almost one hundredth the size of Leonardo Di Caprio’s.

      • sly311 says:

        Spot on! This is how socialism gets a foothold. We’re living 1984-style and these buffoons are more than happy to be told the who, what, when, where and whys of their insipid lives. Just keep filling those outstretched hands and empty heads.

        • HumanLiberty says:

          Re Socialist/Communist footholds: have you ever heard of Major Jordan’s Diaries? If not, look it up – you’ll like it. Ed Griffin has a speech about them posted about them on Youtube.

      • A. Romeo says:

        Well said, Brian!

        Even if there was some warming, increased CO2 does not imply planetary disaster as the Chicken-Little Left would love for us to believe.

        CO2 is the KEY ingredient that aids vegetative growth and the plant respiration CO2 to O2 cycle. This cycle is of course the basis of all life on earth.

        • McGyver says:

          All the carbon in all the biomass in all the world comes from CO2 in the atmosphere. 40% of the mass of cellulose (wood, cotton, corn stalks, etc. etc…..) is CARBON from CO2 in the atmosphere. No CO2 –> no food. Every carbon atom making up your average clueless brainwashed lib is from CO2 in the atmosphere.
          Some farm crops can suck 30,000 kg of CO2 from the atmosphere PER ACRE.

        • It Guy says:

          What the climate jihadists are really trying to hang us with is essentially a half CO2 molecule increase in ten thousand. It’s just a simple matter of using and changing of scale from parts per million to parts per ten thousand.

          So a 340ppm increase of CO2 to 400ppm is the same as 3.4pptt (parts per ten thousand) increasing to 4.0pptt. That’s a .6 molecule increase in ten thousand.

          It’s absolutely ludicrous to think that the planet is so finely balanced that a half molecule will make such catastrophic difference with climate. Especially since CO2 levels as proven in geologic history has been as high as 4000ppm, and considering that at 150ppm or 1.5pptt of atmospheric CO2 levels all plant life dies. If all CO2 absorbing and O2 producing life dies, all O2 breathing/CO2 exhaling life dies.

          The planet is essentially hanging by a CO2 life or death thread of only 250ppm or more sobering, 2.5 molecules pptt.

        • C.M.Vandenberg says:

          Not to mention it’s 4th grade science.

      • Ron says:

        I’m with you on Man made global warming which is ridiculously idiotic. But with that being said, why do we see that many animals rarely seen up north are now migrating north? The oceans are getting warmer and we see it in the change of migration patterns of whales. What is causing this change? Looking at global weather change over a period of 50 or 100 years is as useless as computer modeling. We need to look at climate change over a period of no less then 20,000 years. The main factor of climate change has always has been the sun. Why do we not see more stories from climate scientists explanation of the real cause behind climate changes, the sun.

      • Barry Farnum says:

        The truth means nothing they will continue to preach global warming / climate change as long as they have suckers to fleece.

      • William Ransom says:

        so sad. you’re an idiot. I would guess you’re voting for Trump.

        • Adam says:

          So sad that you think real conservatives vote for Trump.

        • Tim Hartman says:

          Argumentum ad hominem.

          Do you have anything substantial to contribute to the conversation? You may wish to brush up on logical fallicies prior to commenting again.

        • Troy G says:

          You know, it is quite okay to tease someone about who they are going to vote for.
          I want you both to know something, something important.
          I am a Vet, one or both of you might be too.
          I served so that every American could have an opinion, and could vote on/for that opinion. Just because someone doesn’t think the same way I do, is not a good, or valid reason to mock and denigrate them, you both should remember that. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, mockery isn’t in anyone’s best interest.

        • Chip Mustafa says:

          It’s hilarious knowing you’re running scared.

      • Dave says:

        Talk about hitting the nail on the head Brian. Well done!!

      • Abu Nudnik says:

        Not as simple as that. It’s a true mass hysteria movement that has more causes than can be counted. Religion, it’s demise, is only one of them. NB, they took Christian ideas: “We’ve been bad, therefore we’ll burn.”

        But it also exists to avoid intractable problems that are taboo: Islam, immigration, race, debt. This is what causes mass hysteria: the closing of the mind and debate; seeing that all solutions will lead to problems.

      • Dammitol says:

        Brian has spoken…wisely.

      • William Ransom says:

        I guess that’s why NYC is about to spend a few billion on a flood control system to hold back the rising ocean. Do you remember Hurricane Sandy? Glaciers around the world (Greenland, North Pole, Alaska, etc.) are melting and oceans are rising.

        • Jon V. says:

          The oceans have been steadily rising since the last ice age. Please produce a credible source that shows that the rise is accelerating.

        • Don Smith says:

          Do some research and don’t let the climate “scientists” and blowhards taint your own thinking. Go to ANY beach on Long island and look at the pilings and any beach there. The same water levels have been consistent for 100 years. You can see the marks. Sure beach erosion from storms and hurricanes but those extreme weather events have been happening to the planet for as long as there has been a planet. But politicians and other useful idiots will say “we must erect a storm wall”, “At the cost of Billions”. Its all about money and the making thereof. Period.

        • John F says:

          Ummmm….better check your facts William. Ice is actually INCREASING, not melting.

        • Dan McC says:

          So tell me, when the ice melts in your glass of tea, does it rise and run over the sides? Just curious.

          • Dan says:

            What a brilliant comment except for the fact that the ice in your glass doesn’t sit on top of the water as glaciers do. This is the kind of idiotic science republicans believe in to explain away climate change? Yikes. And don’t be such sheep and believe the anti-warming studies aren’t done by the oil and gas industry. Check your facts people. I hope you all live in low lying areas and drown in your own stupidity or water, whichever comes first.

          • tonyheller says:

            The 1990 IPCC report said no evidence of an increase int the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century. But thanks for the BS

          • ChipMN says:

            Ah, most glaciers are on land. So it would make some sense that adding that water to the oceans would increase the net level, baring any other activities. Arctic ice mostly not on land and would little if at all affect sea levels. Now if we truly are seeing a trend toward colder climates — and the jury’s out still for that — then we’d see a reduction of ocean levels. Wouldn’t we?

        • tjb357452 says:

          I suspect that there have been a number of changes in the Earth’s surface over the recently passed thousand years. What’s unique, is comments blaming the currently living human beings for those naturally occurring changes. Some glaciers are expanding, while others are in retreat. It’s been the nature of the Earth to change since it’s inception. None of those changes have been instituted by man, or even flatulent Dinosaurs. The sky’s not falling Chicken Little, and if it does, there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.

          • Kathy Morgan says:

            Lol love your way of putting this…..ive been saying that forever, just not quit so eloquently!!!! Bravo! May I share this, when I have people who bring this up?

        • FrancisChalk says:

          Here some actual math for you that you won’t like, or likely understand either:
          1. Antarctic ice has been growing by about 100 billion tons of ice per year. Google it.
          2. Antarctica holds 90% of all ice on earth. Agin, Google it.
          3. Arctic sea ice accounts for .01% (that’s right, one one-hundredth of one percent) of all ice.
          4. Greenland Glaciers account for .17% (17 one-hundredths of one percent) of all ice.

          So when the Leftists/Marxists you listen to talk about “losing ice to Global warming” why do they only talk about North Pole sea ice and Greenland glaciers? Because if they talked about what’s happening where all the ice actually is, fools like you might even start to question their “science.”

          • Red Eagle says:

            For them Francis it would be like me getting a haircut and them worrying that I am going bald and suggest that I spend money on their “miracle hair grow” snake oil. Just be patient con man worriers…it’ll grow back…

          • ChipMN says:

            @FrancisChalk: Taking away Antarctic ice (you state 90%; I don’t know either way if that’s correct), and Greenland only contains 0.17%, where in the world is the other 8.02%? Given the large area of Greenland, I can’t fathom how all the mountain ranges in the world will contain ten times the amount in Greenland.

          • Duffy says:


            Just to reinforce your argument: The arctic sea ice is melting and will not affect ocean levels. Antarctic ice is mostly on land therefore its increase will actually decrease ocean levels.

          • dragonpaw says:

            Francis C.; All of which mind-boggling figures (for those who might have a mind)simply beg the question:
            When will the increased mega-tonnage of the south pole result in hemispheric imbalances leading to a shifting of polarity of the north and south poles…and consequential earth-altering tectonic alterations……and so the prospect of “global warming” is relegated to the level a fart in the midst of a hurricane……….
            I’m (hopefully) only kidding about the shift……….but maybe not………………!!

          • dragonpaw says:

            In response to ChipMN:
            Greenland is 836K square miles
            Russia is 6.4M square miles
            Canada is 4.9M square miles
            Chip…ya’ got learn to Google-it………

        • Troy G says:

          Oh, you might want to consider that ever more people want to be near the ocean, river, whatever. They build in recognized flood plains. They have for decades, but now there are so many more people wanting that flood plain to build on.

        • Chip Mustafa says:

          Why is it we keep asking the Hoaxers for the truth but they never provide it?

        • jl says:

          Seeing as we are in an inter-glacial period, glaciers are supposed to melting, fool. And they started melting long before your SUV ruined the planet.

        • Rob says:

          Are you claiming that warming has caused more hurricanes, or made a particular hurricane worse? Where is your evidence? The GW crowd claimed that hurricanes were going to be more frequent as a result of gw, however, that has not been the case. What is your explanation?

          • Bloodstar says:

            You do realize there never was a consensus that there would be an increase in the number/intensity of Tropical Cyclones. In fact there are a number of hypotheses that the frequency of TCs will decline in certain regions as a result of increasing wind shear at different levels of the atmosphere.

            TC’s don’t form that easily, there are quite a few factors involved in their development, without going into detail, during the initial formative stages of any TC, there needs to be some level of vertical stacking taking place in order for the system to develop. large changes in the direction/speed of the wind over changes in height will disrupt that stacking and prevent systems from forming.

            What most people don’t realize is the direct atmospheric forcing from the increase in heat in the surface and oceans is relatively small, Other signals such as ENSO, NAO, PDO, or PNA, etc. can easily overpower the subtle shifts that could have resulted from any sort of increased heat content. That’s not to say changes don’t happen from increased heat content. There is very strong evidence that there has been a poleward shift of the subtropical high pressure systems in response to an increase in the dimensions of the Hadley cell. How much of an inpact a movement of 50 miles would have, well, that’s not known. but there’s difference between saying you don’t know what will be the result of something as oppose to that something happening. And I’m illustrating the above to make a point. That lack of understanding of the consequences of something doesn’t mean that something isn’t happening.

            Long story short, just because we don’t know what the results of the increased heat forcing to TCs doesn’t mean the increased forcing isn’t occuring.

          • Latitude says:

            Long story short…..just because no one has ever seen the Easter bunny…doesn’t mean the Easter bunny doesn’t exist

        • Jim says:

          It’s because of Fur Seals passing gas on icebergs causing them to melt! Tell Al you have some Carbon Credits you want to sell him and see what he does!

        • John says:

          A good part on NYC was built on ocean fill, much of it belongs underwater similar to New Orleans. If you look at really historic ocean levels you can find sea shells just outside of Las Vegas in the desert.

        • Gail Combs says:

          NYC like Boston and Wash DC is built on FILL. FILL compacts over time and sinks.

          Second is the problem of a he Proxigean Spring Tide, a very high tide occuring when the moon is both unusually close to the Earth (at its closest perigee, called the proxigee) and in the New Moon phase (when the Moon is between the Sun and the Earth).

          You get slightly less high tide during the full moon.

          Now add a hurricane and you get Sandy.

      • Jeff P says:

        Are you stereo typing poor people, blacks, gays, people who work for unions, and feminists as all being lazy, ignorant and weak minded? Global Warming maybe a scam but you are a scum. I am none of the above but you need to finish the 6th grade and wake-up.

        • debee corley says:


        • Brian G says:

          I am not stereotyping ALL of those people, just the ones who vote Democrat. The key to Dems winning elections is to promise extra special treatment to as many groups as possible and, with the help of their co-conspirators in the media, keep their constituents ignorant, week minded, selfish, and too lazy to learn the truth or to care about Americas future.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Jeff P,
          The race card has expired.
          Quit using it.
          All it singles is that you lost the argument and are reduced to throwing ad homs and temper tantrums.

          P.S. I am an educated non-white female.

      • Don Smith says:

        The reason liberals make up the religion of Globl Warming is TO MAKE MONEY. That is the only reason that it is in existence today. Believe me if it werent generating Billions of dollars for the AlGores, universities, foundations and other useful idiot organizations, you would never hear anything about it. The alarmists in the climate change movement already have the politicians screaming the Chicken Little mantra but the reality is there is no there there. No warming, no dying polar bears, no rising ocean. Its easy to get a picture of a bear on an ice cube or feet standing on a beach and call it a result of global warming but the truth is…its just not happening.

      • finnigan says:

        nicely put Brian- its like a scheme to tax the very air we breathe!

      • Silv says:

        When you build electoral strategy all around being a savior of (x), you need a lot of (x) around, all the time. If you’re the savior of the downtrodden, but there ARE no downtrodden, how do you win elections?

        It’s not just that the left doesn’t help the coalition of victims that forms their base. They go a lot further than that– they make sure the victims never stop being victims. They do whatever it takes to ensure the victim pool is always enlarging (illegal immigration, anyone? If there are not enough victims here, let’s import some from Latin America! They will come here and have lots of baby victims, who will naturally join the party that makes sure they remain victims forever), and their accomplices in the media make sure the blame is always placed on the party that has no vested interest in keeping anyone in a permanent dependent underclass.

        That has been the most impressive sleight of hand trick I can imagine. The Dems pursue policies that expand the permanent underclass at every turn, then they point the finger at the other side for doing exactly that… and it works.

      • jeff says:


      • chuckles8888 says:

        They didn’t make it up to look like saviors, but to take your money. You forget the carbon tax and the carbon trading that they tried to set up. This was going to make billionaires out of big Dems like Al Gore, Clinton, and Obama. Buffet and other Wall Street types had it set up to trade on the CME. We have been fortunate to dodge that bullet with the Repubs denying it. All this was discussed on CSPAN years ago and was openly admitted. This system was designed to transfer wealth from Europe and America to the 3rd world.

      • Bill says:

        You nailed it.

      • Mary Jo says:

        Thank you Brian G., for stating this SO WELL!

      • Steven says:

        True, they want to be the saviors, but they want even more the MONEY…………………

      • Ron says:

        Very well said. But the group of people described will no less destroy quality life as we know it in the US and the rest of the western world but I guess that is the purpose .

      • Robert Thomas Young says:


      • Diogenes71 says:

        Excellent commentary. Thank you!

      • Guillermo says:


      • Dave thrush says:

        The religion of global warming is based on radical ecology theory, which has been around since the late 60s And is actually ancient, it’s pantheism. The worship of the ancient Greek/Roman god Pan. Pan meaning nature and theism meaning worship or worshippers. The global warmists have rejected the judeo Christian God who the bible says is SEPARATE from his creation, and have chosen to worship nature or the planet instead. And they will resort to anything in order to protect their god, including population reduction as Bill gates and Ted Turner have already advocated for.

      • William Thompson says:

        Brian, your verbal hammer hit the Liberals on their heads ( a dead zone with little feeling) !

      • Sam Pyeatte says:

        Yes, the far-left is 100% Saul Alinsky political agenda 100% of the time. Fabricating data and lying is always rationalized if it supports the agenda.

      • Mike says:

        Global Warming has never been about the weather. It’s the laying of the ground work for the U.N. to be able to bypass our Constitution. We’ll hear some speech from the President, “We have to sacrifice our rights in order to save the planet.” There is a one world government coming, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. Notice how the powers that be keep moving right along, passing new laws and treaties, no matter how lame the data or how many see through the fraud. Nothing is going to stop them.

        • albaby says:

          Right on!

        • Slava Kozlov says:

          Yea you’re right…..and wrong. First, you’re wrong that there’s nothing anyone can do to stop it. There are definitely many things that could be done to change and stop it. Unfortunately here is where you’re right. The overwhelmingly massive majority of the American voting base on both sides of the aisle are best described as one step above mildly retarded chimpanzee. Logic, reason, rationality, and simple common sense intelligence is instantly abandoned when discussing politics. Hence the fact that Congress constantly runs a single digit approval rating, yet we continue to elect the incumbents back at a laughable rate of like 95%. It’s always “my guy is fine. It’s the rest of them”. We are too fucking stupid to even replace the people we say we hate so much lol. An entire society of retarded fucking monkies running around trying to find a fucking safe space because they were triggered by something oh so offensive (probably because toilet paper is white which is racist as fuck).

      • Eric Liscom says:

        Exactly…one of several “vehicles” used by the Socialists on the left to dupe the average citizens, who have been turned into morons by corrupted public education….the whole purpose being to centralize all political/ gov’t power under liberals….thus making the people into slaves to their gov’t…with no hope of ever changing things back…

      • cbpelto says:


      • Tim says:

        Reynolds wrap, is what I recommend for you Brian.

      • John G says:

        I concur with my brother.

      • vinko says:

        Plus it a billion dollar a year consulting business

      • eddie too says:

        i do not think AGW is a conspiracy by liberals. i think it is more likely that some rich and powerful people have a scheme to enrich themselves by flaming the fears of low information types so that a new financial product (CO2 credits) can be produced and sold.

      • Oregon Coaster says:

        Well said, spot on, you win the internet for today Brian!

      • AJD says:

        No, no, no. They didn’t do it to pretend to be saviors. They did it because Green is the new Red. They did it for CONTROL. By the 1960s it was clear that America didn’t want Communism, so it re-branded as Environmentalism. Because who wants dirty air and water? (Besides Republicans, I mean.)

      • Dan says:

        Nicely said.

      • chad says:

        well said

      • David Bobe says:

        You should be Donald Trump running mate. I like you.

      • Joe says:

        “be the savior” This is where I disagree. Look at all Lib pet projects, they don’t want to save anything. they just want to stick their hand into this pot and use it as another excuse to create taxes and launder money to dictators around the world calling them poor.

        This is the lib M.O. – welfare, dept of ed, ss, etc. All are a failure but so long as the gov runs them, they are happy. If they were private, libs would prosecute the fraud.

        Also, with the warming from the late 70’s to 90’s, They just see this as an opportunity- again seeing a problem that doesn’t exist. Just like recently some politicians wanted to take over oil when it got up there.

      • ScottW says:

        Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner! Great post!

      • Sterling Alexander says:

        well said

      • Eddie Daigle says:

        They are not saving anything, just lining their pockets, including the scientist who benefit by government grants. Follow the money,.

      • Edward Plitt says:

        No, they did it in order to steal more money from all of us in the name of preventing Global Warming and now Climate Change.

      • JimWhitt says:

        I believe the real motive behind the global warming (now called anthropomorphic climate change) agenda is wealth redistribution to third world countries through carbon trading.

        • Elio Paul says:

          No, that is the utopian lie by Marxists, who are really just thug criminals pretending to help the “proletariat” but are really just skimming at high rates to enrich the oligarchy and enslave us all. You do not even need to be Communist to join this club.

      • Bill says:

        They are the party that every two years comes out blaming everyone else .. Wearing their white coats claiming they have the cure. Heard this analogy on the radio … Love it.

      • Jason says:

        Couldn’t have said it better myself Brian G.

      • Dawn H. says:

        Yep, NOAA caught using faulty “Al-Gorithm” again…

      • Michael L says:


      • Doug says:

        I’m not sure it really matters very much anymore what the data demonstrates. The government bureaucracies, politicians, and “green-energy” interests are far too invested in “climate-management” to ever consider reversing their position on “settled-science,” objectively compare their dooms-day models with the observed data. As with this NOAH report, any data NOT supporting the orthodoxy is expunged, disclaimed, discounted, or asserted as obfuscation by “deniers.”

      • Jay Jay says:

        Actually, scientists made it up because they knew the best way to get government funding was to create a taxable scientific fiction. So much for the integrity of researchers.

      • albaby says:

        Exactly. Liberals never let a crisis go to waste. If there is no crisis, they will create a fake one.

      • Don says:

        Lol turning this political but ignore all the money robbed from the corporatists. I’m not a subscriber to global warming necessarily but I have been to China. Let me tell you I’m happy for the regulations, China makes Los Angeles seem like aspen lol. Also think it’s dumb to have our economy so fragily reliant on oil. I don’t want America being an oligarchy through cc or big oil.

      • Walt Pryor says:

        I agree with you Brian. Communist must create a crises in order to make money off the taxpaers, and control people.
        If we did not have global cooling, oops, they changed that. If we did not have global warming, the Progressive Democrats would invent another crises. The ironic point of all this is; Progressive Democrats never see any danger in World affairs. Never see other countries or people’s, as a danger to us.

      • Peter Piper says:

        The name of the game on global warming is not pretending to save the planet… it’s MONEY in the form of carbon taxes. If you want to know the truth of a matter, follow the money.

      • Golden says:

        Also consider: what caused the last ice age; what melted it? Next, what caused the many ice ages and what melted them all? Next: Google Milankovitch cycles. The earth’s orbit is not super stable, the planetary wobble is not precise, the relation of Earth/Moon changes, the sun actually changes outpout – and the mangnetic storm changes and the local magnetic field changes. I could go on. There is no such thing as a norm on earth. Terra is constantly warming and then cooling and then warming, etc. Gaia is a false religion. Look at Mars.

      • Robert Rivera says:

        Spot on Brian G!

      • Paul Morton says:


      • Bill S. says:

        Don’t forget wealth redistribution. That’s the end game; “caring” is just the cover.

      • Angelicus says:

        Sounds credible to me. Be suspicious of do-gooders liberal retards.

      • David L says:

        The Church of Climatology, sums it up nicely. Coined by Climate Depot.

      • Styrophome says:

        Liberals intend to use the global warming threat to collect billions from industrialized nations, funnel it through the UN and then distribute it like welfare to dozens and dozens of poorer countries as a form of global welfare enslavement to ensure reliable socialist votes in the new world order.

      • jenna paris says:

        Global warming is a hoax supported by the naive, gullible, feeble minded, dim witted and mentally challenged. Global warming is complete and total nonsense.

        Satellite temperature readings which are the only accurate global temperature readings show no evidence of global warming for the past 20 years. Global temperatures peaked during the 1998 El Nino and 2016 El Nino. Between these El Nino’s global temperatures plummeted and showed to evidence of global warming.

        Global warming owes its existence to religious/political fanatics who fabricate,falsify and ‘adjust’ temperature readings

      • Martin says:

        I can’t even keep up with these Chicken Little scientists anymore,.is it still Global Warming, or is it Climate Change or is it Global C02 overload,..or is it cow farts? Gosh, I wish they would at least stick with one delusion.

      • Astraea says:

        Exactly! Find someone or something to made a fuss about, pretend that you care and the World does not and get the silly “masses” all riled and and upset – and then talk about and then present TheSolution – their solution, of course – and make things MUCH worse all round, MUCH more miserable for everyone concerned, except TheChosenites, of course.

      • Thereisa God says:

        Well said and well put. The ‘liberal’ agenda is really the Frankfurt School Cultural Marxism that is being imposed across the western world …..tyranny via phony narratives of ‘equality’, ‘diversity’ and all the rest.
        Strange, is it not, that this version of ‘equality’ never addresses the fact that the super-rich continue to get exponentially richer while the poor are ever more mired in poverty and serfdom.

      • William hinson says:

        Too bad the Liberals don’t give this type of attention to all the babies murdered every day…

      • Teatwaffle says:

        Exactly Brian, but you won’t see this expose’ in the MSM.

      • DanShays says:

        Some would call this conglomerate, The Coalition of The Fringes…

      • Consitution First says:

        The Elite isn’t asking for much, just:
        Power. Money. & Societal Control.
        So just keep moving along quietly, slave.

      • JohnD says:

        The NOAA is just another corrupt agency. The liberals are all liars and goons that will say and do anything to control our lives.

      • B-rad says:

        Plot a line through the data points reprsenting the “global cooling” from 60-70s and all the other low points for that matter. The line you will obtain is positive, or increasing… the lowest recorded temperatures have increased over the last 50 years….
        Ignorant because Brian said nothing about the content of this article only spewed more hatred about gods creations. God is the creator of ALL things including the groups you mentioned.
        Unfortunately he created you as well.
        That is all. Off to become liberal educated as an engineer.

      • Bo Kipling says:

        its all about control Brian
        And if you don’t drink the Koolaid, your labeled “ignorant”. The zealots are incorrigible.

      • J. Heilman says:

        I disagree Brian. They made it up to destroy our Energy supplies in this country, and in turn our economy. That’s why the UN has lied, and tried so hard to sell this hoax too.
        When we realize that they really are trying to destroy America from within, it all makes sense.

      • G P Willoughcy says:

        I remember when conservatives were claiming that we could dump anything that we wanted into the rivers and oceans and it wouldn’t cause any harm. Those damned liberals wanted clean water and clean air.

        Pumping crap into the air can’t be good for us no matter what the conservatives say.

        Other conservative claims over the years: blacks aren’t smart enough to fly planes, women aren’t smart enough to vote, and you can catch VD from a toilet seat.

        • tonyheller says:

          I fought hard for the Clean Air Act. Take your hateful rhetoric somewhere else.

        • Matthew says:

          Actually it was liberals that fought against the civil act. In 1964 Republicans voted unanimously in favor, while a majority of Democrats voted against it. The 1964 act would have been unnecessary had Johnson not filibustered a crucial amendment regarding federal enforcement of the 1957 act. I’m seeing irony in your post…you’re making absurd claims that it’s conservatives that made absurd claims. But you provided zero sources/citations for yours so there’s no reason to believe your absurd claims are credible.

      • JennyG says:

        So, let me get this straight. The poor, the blacks, the gays and the feminists are all lazy and weak minded? And all of you people are giving this guy kudos? Am I on some sort of white supremacy website? WTH??

        I thought this was about the climate change debate. If you want to make a scientific argument, you might not want to align yourselves with bigots. You immediately lose all credibility, not to mention humanity.

      • Scrimple says:

        I tried to read this entire thread but it made me too sad.

        Y’all are being played. This is not an issue of statistical anomalies. Without an active degree in statistics and studying meteorology, reading or quoting a bunch of papers to willfully blind trolls is not going to enlighten me any further with regard the truth of the facts. That is what I rely on scientific consensus for— to allow other people to devote their time and energy in pursuit of the truth, so I can focus on my own domain of identifying technical security holes and piss-poor business processes in my own line of work.

        Which is why anyone who picks at the details in a shortlist of cherry-picked papers that they think they have a chance at debunking to an audience of commenters are the lowest form of life. They are rooting for attention and their own egos in an attempt to justify turning a blind eye to a literal billion of future displaced persons, whose homes will be underwater or otherwise uninhabitable and will come knocking at their doors to live.

        I’ve gone beyond the need to debate the particulars. The only justification to claim academic consensus is wrong, is that somehow the academics are being (a) bribed, (b) fooled en masse, or (c) actively seeking to undermine the rest of humanity somehow in a bid for … whatever. Choice (b) I can almost see, as we’ve had issues before on some fronts— Thalidomide springs to mind, as does Sokal’s “Hermeneutics”. But historically speaking? These were errors, quickly recognized as such, and just as quickly addressed.

        Climate change has more attention than all of our known scientific errors in the last hundred years ever had combined, and the stakes are highest for getting it *right*, not getting paid.

        Except in the short term. If your income is based on making the situation worse, like mining for and selling coal, or oil.

        You’re actively attempting to undermine and devalue agreed-on facts, facts which are going to displace and kill millions of people. If you don’t have clear research of your own contradicting the overwhelming evidence already on the table, then you are an ethical monster. Get the fuck away from my children.

        • Latitude says:

          The preceeding pubic service announcement…
          ….was brought to you buy

          ELI LILLY….

          ..makers of Zyprexa

          bringing happiness to terminal Misanthropes one day at a time

      • Anton says:

        Hail Satan!

      • Pancho says:

        CFR-controlled Liberals made up the religion of global warming the same way CFR-controlled Conservatives made up the religion of global terrorism. Both religions share the same goal: scare us to death to voluntarily accept the “protection” of the CFR globalist conspirators’ New Gay World Order. The rest is smoke and mirrors.

      • Major Solution says:

        It’s part of a false religion alright and they’re going to force us to pay tithes to their false goddess Gaia mother earth BS. Any who pay up are doomed to ever lasting fire for paying the high priests and priestesses (politicians) of this deception and supporting false religion.

      • JW says:

        Sweet, a bigot!

      • r says:

        temperature does not come from the media.

      • Will says:

        Globalist elites made the story up. It was passed to media through the council on foreign relations, who told them to make it sound real. Then the DoE was instructed to teach it to children on our dime while telling them that deniers are their enemy and don’t care if they suffer, and that all scientists who deny are shills for oil companies. Those elites are thoughtful and thorough schemers.

      • Ricks says:

        Brian ?

        The Marxist, Leftist, Liberals created the “Global Warming” (Now call “Global Climate Change” because they knew and know that there is virtually “0” proof of any change of any kind so then let’s ride the Climate Change thing because obviously the Climate changes four times a year [Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter]) hoax to control the population (And population “growth”), and to control every aspect of the population in each individual nation !

        And most of all to protect their Mother Earth, this is actually a Religion !!

        Seriously !!!

        These are Atheists at the Highest level, and you and me mean nothing to them !

        In fact, the World would be a better place if you and I, and a “Billion +” others were, how do you say, liquidated !

        And in fact there’s really nothing to stop them from doing just that !

        This an occult religion and it’s evil to the core !!!


      • Sue says:

        well said mind if I use your statement ..

      • TheBigCat says:

        Is going back to 1880 not good enough for you?

      • Ranting Mr P says:

        Bit of a generalisation there, mate. I’m black and I don’t buy the climate change bullshit, neither do I fall for the leftist agenda. And there’s lots of us. But just like the silent majority of whites who simply ignore the leftist madness today, we also look the other way and go about our business.

      • Brian, those aren’t liberals–look at any dictionary. The Liberal Party of America ran on a repeal plank when Clark Warburton and others exploded the myth that prohibition had made America prosperous in the 1920s. Dems stole the wet plank, Herbert Hoover lost, and economy-destroying dry laws were repealed. Republicans then adopted the German National Socialist view of “liberals” published in Mein Kampf. Why flatter looters, moochers, socialists or thieves by such counterproductive equivocations?

    • 11Bravo says:

      Just another messy and politically corrupted bureaucracy for Trump to clean up!

    • eric holder says:

      I can hardly wait until this is highlighted on MSM “news” for the next six months! The cult of AGW will come crashing down!!

    • Rocky says:

      Are you going to believe Al Gore or those lying sondes?

    • Doug Clark says:

      “Global Warming” is the issue the Dems use to extend/grow government power over the people/business and the Dems take $$ from the green groups to ensure their re-election. The green groups get govt grants to educate the public.

    • Daniel says:

      yes it is , it shows that at the point the tree huggers and environmentalists made progress, when we reduced emissions from the 60s on through the 70’s the temperatures were slowly returning towards pre-industrial levels, but then we defeated that gain from better gas mileage and cleaner power plants with more population , autos and more energy use.
      Your graph actually shows the correlation between the emissions and the green house effect.
      Funny how you were looking the other way and missed that and insisted the opposite was true when you proved the truth of the climate change source yourself while ignoring the factors driving the graph?
      So I figure, You are selective in your base information, only seeing what suggests your outcome ignoring major factors of influence, do either to ignorance of them or a desire to avoid that which you disagree with and doesn’t support your stance. whether this is because of your funding or your ego is irrelevant, but it is evident you have an agenda interfering with your vision of the world.

      • William says:

        The tree-huggers and environmentalists made some progress, but that’s exactly what has caused the temps to stop descending for now. The reduction of particulates and real pollutant molecules in the atmosphere has led to the reduced capability for the atmosphere to collect and hold the effects of solar warming. The warmists models are ass-backwards.

      • Steve says:

        This might be the most comical post of the century!!! It wasn’t a government agency trying to pull one over on the public, it was the hippies who stopped global warming 40 years ago!!!

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      Baloon release times have changed over those 58 years.

      It’s so funny that now that the errors in the RSS data set has been identified, the loonie denialists are moving on to the Baloon data, which has already been corrected for time of day changes in the temperature measurements.


      • tonyheller says:

        All adjustments make the past cooler and the present warmer. Very credible.

      • George Galletti says:

        And where does Russia stand in all this? I believe they have the good sense to know GW is BS and they happily look at the West as full of useful idiots who are bent on suicide.

        • Ricks says:

          Don’t forget the Chinese, George !

          Both Russia and China are loving it !!

          They get to sit back and watch the Western Governments (Especially the ex-good-ole USA!) kill themselves, without firing a shot !!!

          Obviously the “Left” part of the Brain controls “stupidity” ! ? !


      • Isandhlwana79 says:

        I think you should learn how to spell the word “balloon” before spouting garbage about it.

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      Baloon release times have changed over those 58 years.

      It’s so funny that now that the errors in the RSS data set has been identified, the loonie denialists are moving on to the Baloon data, which has already been corrected for time of day changes in the temperature measurements.


      • Duster says:

        Please, learn to spell:

        Balloon has two “l”s, and “cooks” starts with a “c” and only has two “o”s.

    • Some_Bub says:

      The Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.

    • C. Myers says:

      The next president should make a point to fire all those involved with NOAA who were involved on cooking the books on global warming.

    • David Bollig says:

      Interesting, bullshit, about as interesting as claiming cigarettes do not cause cancer. Many deniers funded by cigarete companies in the 60’s and even into the 70s. Do any of you deniers actually look at the data, or do you rely on a few individuals with no scientific background twisting data and graphs around. How stupid do you have to be to be a denier. Probably bleieve earth is 6000 years old as well.

      • Thereisa God says:

        CO2 is 0.04% (4 parts per 10, 000) of the atmosphere. This is a fact. Predicted changes (from both sides of the argument) in this number are a small percentage of this small percentage.
        How will such small atmospheric changes “destroy the planet”? Never mind the fact that we are labeling as a POLLUTANT the gas that all the vegetation of this planet BREATHE IN TO LIVE.

        Why was there a Medieval warm period in the 1200 to 1400’s when wine grapes were grown on land that is now very cold for most of the year? Why was there a mini ice-age in the 1700’s when the River Thames in London used to freeze solid every winter and people use to skate on it?
        Maybe major shifts are caused by the sun’s behavior much more than by our behaviour (that’s not to say protecting the environment is not important).
        This conclusion makes more sense than the pretexts of the globalists who are trying to impose a global tax system and a one-world government on us using this hyper-extrapolated and barely-understood phenomenon to furnish them with their desired outcome.
        If the reasons for recent small temperature changes on earth is OBVIOUS to you and deniers are therefore “STUPID” maybe you are the one who has not given the issue enough thought about the facts … and about ALL the vested interests in play in this information and propaganda war.

        • Ricks says:

          Thereisa, David is “STUPID” !

          And know matter how many times you show “David” a blue pen, He will say it’s “red” !!

          You can’t “reason” with “stupidity” !!!

          It is a waste of time !

      • Mr Boss says:

        Funny, but the loony left must believe the earth is 6,000 years old in order to claim a 35 year data sample is representative of anything.

      • JohnD says:

        Apparently, you are too ignorant to know the real facts. The GW crowd has been cooking the books for years. There have been many news reports about this. Wise up, dummy.

    • Expat says:

      Interesting, but for real information go to You’ll note the differences between the comments here and there.

    • Longwool says:

      How many billions has this ruse cost us?

    • Mike Loran says:

      Did the Ice Age come to an end as a result of human activity? 4,000 years ago glaciers melted forming the Great Lakes. How many coal fired plants and carbon emitting vehicles existed in 2,000 BC?

      Cooking the books on global warming suits the liberal agenda perfectly. How could their number one threat to civilization be addressed by anything less than more big government. And, as a result, less freedom, lower wages and higher taxes. Let the the liberals be the “deniers” in challenging the link between more government and less prosperity.

      • Ricks says:


        In fact, a “One World Government” !!

        So now they will need a Leader, and His Assistant !!!

        Hmm, I wonder who it could be ?

        ?????? ?????? ??????


    • derrick carlson says:

      this is what collages preach! we are reaping what we have sowed! our kids have been brainwashed for the last 30 yrs! i’ve got a couple of professional students, that are big time in school debt and can’t find work in their field that they have their degrees in! my advice to kids, get a two year degree get out and work you will be further ahead in the long run. and your head won’t be filled with to much of collage garbage! than see what the politicians are really like! All out for themselves!

      • JohnD says:

        The second biggest scam (after Climate Change) is ‘Everyone should go to college”.

        I personally know 4 people that went to college and cannot find a job in their field. My daughter got a BS degree in Wildlife Management and after 2 years of a really low salary with the Dept of Natural Resources , became a science teacher. She makes a lot more money and is happier.

        Most of these kids would be better served by going to trade school. There is a demand for plumbers, mechanics, welders paralegals, dental hygienists and the like. These are good paying jobs that are in demand and a lot of people in these fields end up starting their own companies.

    • Lucius Driftwood says:

      The common sense response to carbon credits.

    • Gregory Armand says:

      What is scary is that the U.S. Government feels so invested into the Global Warming they are willing to bastardize their own agencies and data to sell it. Anybody caught changing data for the soul purpose of satisfying a false narrative should be arrested and allowed a trial for waste of taxpayer money.

      • BillD says:

        Why limit it to the US Government? It’s essentially all of the world’s scientists and all of the world’s governments. Anyone who believes that blog is very gullible.

        • gator69 says:

          Skeptics are the polar opposite of gullible Ms Bill, but thanks again for another classic example of psychological projection.

    • mark watson says:

      Agenda 21,obamacare,uwex16,jadehelm,wwII,liberal agendas all.fema camps in place.

    • John says:

      The amount of dumbfuckery going on here is amazing. Way to go guys, keep your heads in your asses. Seriously. Fucking dumb as shit.

    • BillD says:

      This blog is really a deplorable source of disinformation.

      • gator69 says:

        Only when you are commenting Ms Bill. Thanks for another classic example of psychological projection.

  2. J allen says:

    Thank you

  3. John Hale says:

    Uh oh, that fact is inconvenient for the global warming, climate change and climate whatever folks. Let the refutations begin and tree huggers find new things to hug.

  4. dan says:

    Hmm. No extreme Left rebuttals yet?

    • Billy Bob says:

      Here is one rebuttal.
      “But, But – I thought they were telling the truth.”
      “Why would they Lie? They seem such nice people and appear to be concerned about out health.” Why oh why would they remain silent at a time like this?”

      • usathoughts says:

        The only thing that concerns these nice people is how much they can tax us. First tax Carbon emissions in general, then work their way down to the individual exhaling Carbon gas. It stands to reason does it not. After all breathing is a big contributor to Carbon emissions. If you don’t pay the tax, sequester you in a non ventilated room until expiring from Carbon Gas poisoning. True Socialist justice.

    • meh says:

      There’s no need for a rebuttal. If you’d actually read it, you’d see the data in the slideshow goes back to 1880. The time period in question is accounted for, rendering this cherry-picked conspiracy theory graph utterly pointless. Going back to 1880, the temperature differences are even greater than those in question. The 37 year period that’s highlighted shows the most drastic change which is probably why it was selected. The previous 20 or so years were relatively flat. You people are funny.

      • Will says:

        You miss the point, Einstein. The claim has been that man’s activity has caused global warming, but the vast bulk of industrial growth with its commensurate rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 levels occurred over the last 60 years. Yet the data show no net warming over the same period.

        How can this be? If atmospheric CO2 causes global warming, as they claim, then we should have experienced substantial warming.

        Science is not wishing. Science is not assumption. Science is factual. If the facts don’t fit the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is wrong and it doesn’t matter how many models say otherwise.

      • Robert Austin says:

        meh does not seem to know the meaning of “sherry picking” in the scientific sense. Or obtusely chooses not to know.

      • Nick says:

        Recently, the AGW alarmists tried to revive flagging public respect for their fading message of doom. The occasion was massively overhyped and misrepresented reporting of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project. But all that was new from that project was the departures from the official catechism. Reporting on the recorded temperature history since 1950 from stations on land, which covers less than 30% of the earth’s surface, Berkeley University Earth Surface Temperature project leader Professor Richard Muller reported in a Wall Street Journal commentary on October 21, that after obtaining and reviewing “more than 1.6 billion measurements from 39,000 [land based] temperature stations around the world… the result offered no independent assessment of the question of “how much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects.”
        But that is the whole issue in the global warming debate. Muller also honestly admits that “The [land based] temperature station quality is largely awful,” noting that “A careful survey of these stations by a team of meteorologists showed that 70% have such poor siting that, by the U.S. government’s own measure, they result in temperature uncertainties of between two and five degrees Celsius or more. We do not know how much worse are the stations in the developing world.” He adds that, “The margin of error for the stations is at least three times larger than the estimated warming, and that one-third of land based temperature stations worldwide show cooling rather than warming.”
        These concessions are important to recount because weather satellites measuring atmospheric temperatures worldwide, over land and water, which are not subject to the above troubles of land based weather stations, show no warming since their record began in 1979, and before that there was actually global cooling dating back to 1940. The satellite record regarding atmospheric temperatures is independently confirmed by weather balloons. Moreover, the computer based climate models utilized by the UN’s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the atmospheric theory they rely upon, all insist that if man’s use of carbon based fuels was warming the planet, the atmosphere must be warming faster than the surface.
        In addition, the scientifically recognized temperature proxy data from tree rings, ice cores, lake and ocean sediments, and stalagmites also show no warming since 1940. Note that the warming before1940 is attributable to the global recovery of temperatures from the Little Ice Age, and even the land based records show no significant warming over the last 18 years.
        It is very likely that the reported warming during 1978-97 [from land based weather stations] is simply an artifact – the result of the measurement scheme rather than an actual warming. When a letter to the editor by Prof. Julius Singer was sent to the global warming cheerleading Washington Post, pointing out the above anomalies and his conclusion, he reports the peculiar response that “they were willing to publish my letter, but not my credentials as emeritus professor at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. Apparently, they were concerned that readers might gain the impression that I knew something about climate.”
        But there is more. Even the land based temperature record is not consistent with the theory of man-caused global warming. That record does not show persistent warming following persistent growth of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Rather, it shows an up and down pattern of temperatures more consistent with natural causes. Those include solar flare and sun spot cycles, and the periodic cycling of warm and cold water in the oceans from top to bottom, particularly the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).
        The truth is a vigorous global scientific debate persists over whether man’s use of carbon-based fuels threatens to cause catastrophic global warming, and the media not reporting that is not performing journalism. The most authoritative presentation of this debate can be found in the 856 page Climate Change Reconsidered, published by the Heartland Institute in 2009. This careful, thoroughly scientific volume co- authored by dozens of fully credentialed scientists comprehensively addresses every aspect of global warming, and indicates that natural causes are primarily responsible for climate patterns of the last century. Heartland has just published a follow up 416 page Interim Report updating the debate.
        When you run across an AGW alarmist, ask him for his rebuttal to Climate Change Reconsidered. You will find the response is something derogatory about the Heartland Institute, showing that he hasn’t read the report. Liberals don’t need no stinkin’ facts; their minds are made up. They know that the Heartland Institute’s report is wrong because someone told them so.
        Indeed, the latest and best work actually provides scientific proof that the man-caused global warming catechism is false. Fully documented work by Roy Spencer, U.S. Science Team Leader for the AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, and Principal Research Scientist for the Earth Systems Science Center at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, shows using atmospheric temperature data from NASA’s Terra satellite that much more heat escapes back out to space than is assumed captured in the atmosphere by greenhouse effects under the UN’s theoretical climate models. This explains why the warming temperature changes predicted by the UN’s global warming models over the past 20 years have been proved to be false.
        In August, 2011 came the results of a major experiment by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), involving 63 scientists from 17 European and U.S. institutes. The results show that the sun’s cosmic rays resulting from sunspots have a much greater effect on Earth’s temperatures through their effect on cloud cover than the UN’s global warming models have been assuming. This helps to explain why the historical pattern of temperature changes seems to follow the rise and fall of sunspots, rather than the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This further confirms what Heartland’s Climate Change Reconsidered argues – that natural causes have the dominant effect on Earth’s temperatures, not greenhouse gases.
        Finally, the UN’s own climate models project that if man’s greenhouse gas emissions were causing global warming, there would be a particular pattern of temperature distribution in the atmosphere, which scientists call “the fingerprint.” Temperatures in the troposphere portion of the atmosphere above the tropics would increase with altitude producing a “hotspot” near the top of the troposphere, about 6 miles above the earth’s surface. Above that, in the stratosphere, there would be cooling. But higher quality temperature data from weather balloons and satellites now show just the opposite: no increasing warming with altitude in the tropical troposphere, but rather a slight cooling, with no hotspot, no fingerprint.
        So the scientific foundation for shutting down our modern, 21st century, industrial economy has been obliterated. But that is not stopping religious crusaders, due to the extremist ideology and special interests driving the global warming charade.

        • J. Fontaine Taintbender says:

          I don’t think the assignment of blame, mankind, is really relevant in the big scheme of things, is it? There’s certainly no argument that given the climate changes we’ve all observed during the past ten years foretell definite peril to at least a portion of the balance and overall health of the ecosphere, subsequently causing yet to be quantified ramifications. Correct? Who cares if mankind is behind these changes or not in the long run. Denial that the changes are occurring is plain idiotic if not completely arrogant.

          Are people still contending the dramatic changes in weather patterns, dramatic loss of Artic and Antarctic polar and ice shelf melting, the snowline receding well up into Northern Alaska, shorter winters and increased storm violence and force have little to do with climate change? I’m neither a Democrat or Republican, as I don’t support a system completely caused by mankind. Haha!

          Seriously though.

          • Will says:

            Two record ice Increases in a row? Is that because obama made the ocean quit rising?

          • Duster says:

            Just what “climate changes” would those be? The Arctic “changes” are normal and not “unprecedented” and WHEN and where has the Antarctic lost any ice? Yes, the ice shelves have calved, but again that is a natural phenomenon, and if you actually look at the data record, Antarctic ice has been increasing for years – really. Even NOAA admits that and there is satellite image to prove it. Glaciers – mmmh – really hard to tell. In the western US they have advanced and retreated within the last 15 years. That really can’t be attributed to “climate changes.” The temporal spans are much too short.

            If you really want to worry about something consider that the very LAST time in Geological history that this planet was this cold and had this little CO2 in the atmosphere was at the end of the Permian, 250,000,000 years ago. That preceded the most catastrophic extinction event in the geological record.

            I mention CO2 because we have – again – satellite evidence of positive ecological response to increased CO2. In fact, during the last glacial epoch, the world was a much drier, dustier place. That was probably because available CO2 was so limited that plant (primary) production was near collapse. In short we may be skirting the edges of another Permian-class extinction event and the reduction of CO2 and efforts to cool the planet are probably the ABSOLUTELY WORST things we could do.

      • JohnD says:

        And you are really stupid., Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

  5. Mikey says:

    Globull warming. The biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. Guess the liberals will have to find a new bandwagon to jump on. ;-)

  6. William says:

    Please forward to news services.

  7. Gary says:

    Warming is a good thing. It opens up more land for habitation and farming. Freezing and cold reduces crop yields and could lead to world wide famine.

  8. Tim says:

    There are overwhelming data to show that all the world’s major religions are just BS fabricated by self-serving prophets, saviors what have you. None of the religious adherents are listening and they ignore or deny what’s right in front of their faces. Sometimes they just behead those who ask questions.

    This expose will likewise be ignored and/or denied. Why would the Church of Global Warming be any different than the others?

    • Ben Wilkins says:

      Tim, that’s a non sequitor dude

      • Bernard Curtin says:

        Correct, religion has actually been responsible for most of the wars, death and destruction of our civilization. Climate change alarmists have only cost us billions of dollars, so far.

        • Alan says:

          So, you think Stalin’s 100 million deaths were due to his “religion”? not so much, my friend.

        • Chris Yeager says:

          Religion is also the reason for so many lives being saved from death…. To claim the Ten Commandments support killing and murder would be completely false..

        • Steve Alto says:

          But I don’t want to talk about Global Warming anymore. Lets talk about….hmmmmm. Lets talk about how I know there is not a God. I have proof. Ive never seen him. Have you? See. Can’t be one.

        • Steve johnson says:

          No. It’s all because of Oxygen, the source of and solution to….wars, death and destruction of civilization. We must ban oxygen.

        • jbryant says:

          There is only one religion that I know of that advocates war, and that’s Islam. The other major religions advocate peace.
          It is not religion per se that is responsible for wars, but men who fail to follow their religion while pretending to be loyal to it, who are responsible; evil men who hide behind religion to gain credibility and deceive.

        • Will says:

          You have been lied to, bern. Wealth, power, land and food have always lead the pack in terms of wars and destruction. Islam is trying to catch up but never will.

    • John says:

      Yeah, that whole Jesus thing ended really well for him.

    • Mongol says:

      Not sure what religion has to do with this article…but you’re quite wrong, really. This “mountain of evidence” you speak of is largely spin, and you show your ignorance when you dismiss and mock billions of people’s faith. News flash: you’re not smarter than everybody

      • KD says:

        Mongol, were you writing about religion or global warming? I cannot tell as both sides use your exact words….

        Religion – it’s real, you’re not smarter than everyone else

        Global warming – it’s real, you’re not smarter than everyone else

        Either way you are just believing what others tell you to believe.

        • ChipMN says:

          I think this forum is debating about to what extent global warming is real. And what is the actual root cause of it.

          Has there been global warming? Of course, we have pretty solid evidence. And it’s warmed and cooled in geologic as well as recorded history. To what extent man is the proximate cause — ah, that’s the debate. Having done research (published a paper) about the correlation of sun spot cycles and tree ring growths, I noted the effect of solar cycles to be pretty telling on at least regional tree states. Correlating the two with ice core sample-based CO2 was equally insightful. We all know correlation does not mean causation. But when the factor is greater than 0.95, “there’s something there.”

      • signtalk says:

        We owe reason and scientific method to the Judeo/Christian Tradition.

      • 11Bravo says:

        You could shut him (and me) up. Just prove GOD exists.

        • Terryki says:

          Do you agree with the simple fundamental thesis that nothing (material) can come from nothing? (It’s the basic scientific notion of cause and effect.) How about the thesis that intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence? (Once again, cause and effect.) Since something material exists, and intelligence exists, what then exists must have come from something (or someone) intelligent. Agreed? But if you happen to disagree, then on what basis can you trust your claimed intelligence to disagree with it, when your disagreement had to have come from non-intelligence? Perhaps then all you have is an illusion and
          not intelligence at all.

          • Terryki says:

            An intelligent, all-powerful, immaterial originator (God) not only understandably and logically explains the existence of material things as well as intelligence (and innate moral directions, love, aspirations, devotion, spirituality, etc.), but there can then be affirmative truth. Otherwise there is no established truth, only speculative
            views and accommodations.

          • Joe says:

            Bravo! Well done.

          • Dan says:

            Teriyaki…that’s somewhat profound. I really think you’re on top of it.

        • Darryl says:

          Prove he doesn’t.

        • Reality says:

          Just take a look at a single-celled organism, more complex than the space shuttle. You believe that thing evolved from lightning striking a puddle of goo? There ya go.

        • signtalk says:

          Bravo , Its impossible to prove god exists. When I say, We owe reason and scientific method to the Judeo/Christian Tradition. I don’t mean I believe in the almighty. I mean that we would not have scientific method without the 2000 yr. dialogue between church and state. Where the state claim was divinity. The church countered with only god owns the soul. So the church rescued the common man from being completely owned by the state. He least had his soul that would go to heaven. A lot of people still believe this. albeit you and I are not counted in this number. But it is useful to have a idea of how we get to this point.

          • Nick says:

            “Its impossible”? Another victim of the American Apostrophe Syndrome. The word “its” is a possessive pronoun for an inanimate object. The diminutive of “it is” is “it’s.” Here’s an example of the use of both words: “It’s a good car but its brakes need fixing.”
            And the [Catholic] Church held back scientific research and discoveries for the best part of a thousand years. If you denied the “revealed truth” in the Bible, you could be tortures and burned at the stake. The Church only admitted a few years ago that Galileo, whom they had tortured when he claimed that the sun was the center of our galaxy, not the Earth, maybe was right. Only took them 400 years.

          • ChipMN says:

            To reply to Nick, the Catholic Church really didn’t hold back scientific research for the better part of a 1000 years. Even a cursory Google search of key scientists in the last millenium will find a huge percentage were clerics or directly funded by parts of the Church. And the Church was the keeper, the preserver of classical knowledge, at least whatever was left over after the barbarians and feudal warrior nobility destroyed nearly every center of learning in the West. And after the two major destructions of the libraries of Alexandria, Antioch and Baghdad by our ostensible Muslim friends. Universities in the early medieval times grew from Church entities. I think you overlook the abject lack of literacy and any sort of academic existence in the Dark and early Middle Ages in the minds of the political (feudal) leaders by and large. Charlemagne, for example, was one notable exception.

        • JohnD says:

          Stupid little man. I don’t need to prove anything to you. If I actually had proof in hand, you would deny it.

      • Bernard Curtin says:

        Billions of people’s faith does not make it reality. It was only a few hundred years ago 99.99% of the population believed Earth was flat.

        • John says:

          Bull. People knew the world wasn’t flat several centuries B.C.! You’ve got to be really trying hard to be that stupid to say people thought the earth was flat “A few hundred years ago”. smh

        • Nick says:

          Peoples’ (plural possessive), not people’s.

          • Nick says:

            And although the ancient Greeks, who were pioneers in many mathematical fields like algebra, geometry and trigonometry, worked out a couple of millennia ago that the Earth was circular [they even calculated its diameter surprisingly close to what modern science found it to be], Bernard was right that the common people believed it to be flat certainly up to 600 years ago, and less educated ones until probably a couple of centuries after that. Once again, the Church was mainly responsible, telling the faithful that Earth was a flat plate and the sky a bowl covering it, studded with diamonds.

        • Realist says:


          Most people (sailors, scientists, Christians, etc) knew the earth was round. The idea that most thought the earth was flat is a modern myth.

    • Ilma says:

      Even the Christian churches have fallen under the clutches of the global warming religion, which as a Christisn, I find desperately sad. Rather than putting earth first, they should be celebrating God’s “good” gift of fossil fuels, coal, oil, gas and even methane hydrates for the betterment of mankind. Even the abundance of Thorium for safe nuclear power generation should be a cause of celebration.

      • ChipMN says:

        God calls us to be stewards of creation, of the environment. It is quite true that in the 19th and 20th century western industrial interests were not, in part from lack of understanding/knowledge, but mostly stemming from “self-interest” (aka, greed & profits). Urban pollution was abysmal, horrid. Fresh water pollution just as bad. But we have “grown up.” We ‘can’ exploit natural resources in a more reasonable manner, and ensure renewable ones, well, renew. We can be stewards. I credit the early environmentalists for the role they did play…a role that has gone to seed since in the pursuit of power and influence IMHO.

      • Will says:

        Thank You. For your faithful witness And the plug for thorium.

    • chuckles8888 says:

      I hear from God and I speak to Him daily. His work is all around you, but you are in denial. Why is it that non believers worry more about believers than they do about themselves not hearing from God? They pridefully declare there is no God as if they have experienced everything that can be experienced. I was one of you until God healed my mother in law immediately in front of my eyes with just a prayer. She was dying with aplasitic anemia and in less than 1 hour she was cured and in 5 days she was home, never to be sick from aplastic anemia again.
      Since then, I have personally witnessed many more miracles in my life.
      Now I believe, but you will say I’m crazy or a sucker, because you haven’t seen or heard from Him. I would worry more that you haven’t heard Him and literally billions have.

      • Nick says:

        You can see people conversing with invisible people wandering the streets of any city. The only way to avoid being locked up to protect yourself and others is to say that the being is called God. And the most obvious reason your mother was “cured” of the fatal disease aplastic anemia (the inability of the bone marrow to produce red blood cells) is that she never had it in the first place. It reminds me of one of the “miracles” Mother Teresa was supposed to have performed in order to achieve sainthood [the Catholic Church requires two verified miracles] was “curing ” a woman with a cancerous tumor. In the hearing before the Vatican council, the woman’s attending doctor said she had never had cancer, just a harmless cyst that disappeared by itself as they almost always do. He might as well have been talking in Swahili. Pope John Paul II, who created saints in a frenzy during his papacy that was almost demented (more than the previous five popes combined) had declared M. Teresa was to be a saint, and that was that. “Don’t confuse us with facts; our mind is made up.”
        Be happy in your fantasy world. I personally left that childish stuff behind along with the Tooth Fairy and Santa, and in the 70 years following have never felt the slightest need to believe in the superantural.

      • Bernard Curtin says:

        People die of diseases everyday. You must have a very personal, and selective God.

      • Will says:

        It has to do with fear that their position may be wrong, and that judgment just might wait for all men. In order to calm their fears, they must attack, ridicule and convince themselves. At least that was why I used to do it.

  9. Leon Taylor says:

    Why am I not surprised? Thanks for posting!

  10. MichMike says:

    The personal behavior of 1% of the U. S. population results in their CO2 footprint being 50 TIMES the average of the other 99%. Not surprising to anyone. What surprises people is when they realize this means this small group is responsible for more then 33% of ALL (that’s right, ALL) U. S. CO2 emissions and were this group to only emit 25 TIMES the average, OVERALL U. S. CO2 emissions would immediately (not over decades) decline 17%. What enrages people is the fact that all the plans being implemented and proposed will allow this small group to continue to spew CO2 unabated while financially hammering the lower income and middle classes, just for being alive. Just a different way to see the obvious scam of AGW.

    • Eric says:

      Please remember that CO2 is oxygen to plants, which absorb it through their leaves, then use water, minerals and sunlight to engage in photosynthesis, which gives them energy to live and grow. Oh, and the byproduct? They exhale oxygen. In short, CO2 is not the problem. I wish the environmental movement would get back to basics: pollution, especially chemicals, in our land, our water, and air.

      • Bernard Curtin says:

        Put your plants in your garage with your car running and see how long they live.

        • Latitude says:

 learned that in common core…didn’t you?

        • Mindy says:

          If there is no sunlight in the garage, they will die. If there is, they will be just fine. Areas of cities where the roofs are covered in plants have less pollution than those areas where there is nothing growing.

        • Anton Chernov says:

          Don’t you know the difference between carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide? Carbon dioxide (CO2) is necessary for life (it’s what triggers your breathing response, and what enables plants to grow and produce oxygen); carbon monoxide (CO), the stuff that comes out of your car exhaust, is a poison.

          Unfortunately, tens of millions of humans, including our idiot president, and you, too, confuse them. Hence Latitude’s funny “common core” response to your post.

          • Will says:

            Carbon monoxide is ‘converted’ by a cataclysmic converter by adding an oxygen molecule to be emitting carbon dioxide. That’s the little goody that was added to automobile exhaust systems for the last forty years.

        • Nick says:

          There is no – zero – empirical evidence of a connection between atmospheric CO2 and global climate. How could it, when that gas is present in parts per million, and the total growth in the past 100 years has been the equivalent of one molecule of CO2 for every 10,000 molecules of air.
          So what has the increase in atmospheric CO2 been PROVEN to have caused? Glad you asked. The 2006 United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report warned of mass starvation from global warming caused by high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), and predicted with “virtual certainty” that crop yields would plummet unless industrialized nations immediately adopted stricter limits on CO2, which the IPCC said was causing “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, by 2020 yields from agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%”
          But in 2014 a record level of atmospheric CO2 (over 400ppm) coincided with farmers reaping record-breaking harvests worldwide. In fact, 2014 signified an all-time record grain production. Oops.
          According to a report released by the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization, “world cereal production [wheat, corn, oats, barley, rice, etc., the staples that 95% of the world population depends on for survival] in 2014 is at a new record of 2,487 million tons, 7 million tons above the previous peak.” That includes a record level of wheat production worldwide, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The study stated that the CO2 “fertilization effect is now a significant land surface process” and has created “a greening of the globe over recent decades.” That greening effect includes a growth spurt among trees, including redwoods and giant sequoias in California [don’t tell the AGW featherbrains in Hollywood] and the rain forests in Brazil, Indonesia, Madagascar etc.
          Claims that global warming and more atmospheric carbon dioxide are harming crop production have been proven preposterous by the real-world, objective data. We know that in recent decades, we’ve seen an actual tripling of production of the most important staple crops. There’s been a record production of wheat in the past year in much of Asia and Africa, and throughout the world where the wheat harvest is important. Instead of diminishing crop yields, high levels of CO2 actually help to increase them.
          As we add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, it can be expected that that’s going to benefit crop production because carbon dioxide is not a “pollutant,” as the IPCC and AGW loons say, but aerial plant fertilizer. Horticulturalists pump CO2 into greenhouses to boost plant growth. Replicating the greenhouse experience that plants that are artificially fed more CO2 grow more rapidly and are more productive, the same happens in the natural environment with more atmospheric carbon dioxide. This link between higher levels of CO2 and record crop yields worldwide was never discussed at the UN’s climate change conference in Lima (surprise!) To the extent that agriculture is discussed at any United Nation meetings, it continues the claim, despite all the evidence, that global warming is wreaking havoc on crops.
          Understand that the IPCC is a government body with government appointees. Some of them are scientists, but most, including the bureaucrats in control, are not. And even those who are scientists tend to work for environmental activist groups such as The Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, etc. (The IPCC has even been exposed as including, verbatim, propaganda handouts from one of these environmental groups in its reports, with bogus claims of snow disappearing from the Himalayas and destruction of rain forests because of global warming – then having to retract them when exposed.) They have an agenda to push. It’s very little objective science. It’s 99 percent politics from an environmental activist agenda. And the Summary for Policy Makers that the IPCC non-scientist bureaucrats issue every few years is often in total contradiction to what their own scientists have reported. Unfortunately, in that environment, the facts simply don’t come out if people aren’t doing their own research. If we’re just listening and reading the UN press releases, we’re going to believe that a world exists that is exactly opposite from what the real world really is.

          • Will says:

            It certainly seems that fog and chemtrails would hold in more heat than a clear gas. It seems odd to me that the rabid globalist warming adherents would be much more concerned with barium being intentionally dumped on us than treated exhaust fumes.

        • JohnD says:

          What an ignorant comment. Car exhaust isn’t Co2.

          Did you finish the 5th grade?

          • Will says:

            What is it that you think the converters on your pipes convert? let me help co to co2 and oxides of nitrogen to nitrogen and oxygen. Not to drag you kicking and screaming into the 1980’s or anything but please catch up.

        • Peter J. Hoffmann says:

          And remember that part of the CO2 to O2 equation is SUN LIGHT, or a reasonable facsimile there of.

          • worried says:

            Reasonable facsimile? I wonder if being forced to have unpleasant and useless lightbulbs without full spectrum in them might be having a bad effect on life, including us, which evolved to need proper light.

    • Thomas R. says:

      Who cares what the top 1% emit? There is no warming.

      • Rick Hamilton says:

        right on Thomas! MichMike is one more mind numb robots that spews out this memorized dribble regardless what the actual data says. Maybe he could put his education to work producing something rather than spending his life being envious of others. The only Inconvenient Truth is that this scam to redistribute wealth is built on a house of cards that is finally being exposed. MichMike, why don’t you manup and just admit this….I would respect you much more.

        • Rick Hamilton says:

          Oh….and one more thing. Why not be man enough to use your real name vs. hiding behind a curtain!

          • Andante3 says:

            Are you trying to compensate for something? With all the whack-jobs out there anyone who uses their real name in this environment is an idiot. That includes you Mr. Internet Tough Guy.

        • Rocketman says:

          I think you are not understanding his post. He says AGW is a hoax, what did YOU read??

        • MichMike says:

          How odd. It is not memorized drivel for I developed the facts on my own. I took about 3 hours of simple research. I also ended my post by pointing out I am aware of the scam. Lastly, I could care less about the 1% but am making the point that those who wish to force these costs upon us are actually the large CO2 emitters. You are quite the tool.

    • 11Bravo says:

      Just so happens that 1% (energy producers and our industrial base) makes life livable and comfortable on our planet for 99% of humanity. Sounds like a great trade off. What is your plan for the 1% – and the rest of us?

    • Edward Collins says:

      So actually, according to the ex-head of Greenpeace, we are about 200 ppm shy of a healthy CO2 level for plants. Also, he said, the earth is greening and deserts retreating all thanks to our slightly higher CO2 levels. The deserts receding is due to plants more efficiently using water at higher CO2 levels. The greening is helping the earth reforest itself. Don’t you environmentalists remember how important you said that was?

    • signtalk says:

      Michmike. Are you familiar with the term. “Useful Idiot” our universities are turning them out by the thousands.
      Its not a complicated issue. CO2 is essential for life / warmer weather means more moisture in the atmosphere/ more crops.
      Read about the The Roman maximum. and the Little Ice Age.
      Al Gore is a scary dude who has a hedge fund which stands to benefit from AGW his politics are self serving to say the least.

    • signtalk says:

      Sorry michmike I misread.

    • Daryl says:

      First thanks to Drudge for rooting this out and giving it exposure . Second much appreciate the erudite opinions and thought provoking philosophical observations of many of the replies. Finally facts and figures gathered over many years have been manipulated to “prove” a desired points which have subsequently been shown to be false, so why would anyone ever accept the fundamental precepts that 1 % (???) produces 33%(???) of all(???) US emissions(??) ?’ What reliable and trustworthy agency has produced such believable figures that are scientifically verifiable and repeatable. Clearly MichMike is unquestioningly repeating the GW mantra. Congratulations liberals for undermining what started as a good education system…


  11. Arminius says:

    “But but but: Drowning polar bears, and starving orphans, ‘n stuff! And Leonardo deCaprio says climate change is real—so, there!”

    Climate Change. The biggest international bureaucratic scam EVER to deprive people of their rights. Limit building. Limit vehicles. Limit industry. Limit power. Limit EVERYthing. Its the bureaucratic way.

    Fascinating to see NOAA withold data that the American people PAID for—‘because, y’know, those simple flyovers aren’t sophisticated enough to understand all the nuances of the data that SEEMS to show we’re lying’.
    The game is up, Climate Change Peddlers.

    • Helen Highwater says:

      If Retardo DeCrapio says so, it must be true. After all, he is an actor.

    • Marra says:

      Unfortunetly this report means nothing to the kool aid drinkers.
      The media will never report this and the lie will live on.
      As long as our govt and other govts see profit in this scam climate change is here to stay no matter how many reports and facts are revealed.

  12. Steven O'Guin says:

    This is what happens when you mix ‘practical politics’ with science. Science is the search for truth. “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H. L. Mencken

  13. Arminius says:

    “But but but: Drowning polar bears, and starving orphans, ‘n stuff! And Leonardo deCaprio says climate change is real—so, there!”

    Climate Change. The biggest international bureaucratic scam EVER to deprive people of their rights. Limit building. Limit vehicles. Limit industry. Limit power. Limit EVERYthing. Its the bureaucratic way.

    Fascinating to see NOAA withhold data that the American people PAID for—‘because, y’know, those simple flyovers aren’t sophisticated enough to understand all the nuances of the data that SEEMS to show we’re lying’.
    The game is up, Climate Change Peddlers.

  14. Justin says:

    Great work. Another subjective part of this is that the zero-line for the charts is wholly arbitrary. You could make the zero line at +.04 degrees and it would change the perspective a bit more.

  15. pat says:

    You guys don’t get it. Global Warming/Climate Change/Whatever has zero to due with weather, and everything to do with reparations and redistribution of wealth on a global scale. It is the excuse not the reason. So you could show 60 years of anything you want and they are still going to redistribute.

    • Mark M. says:

      Hello Pat,

      Your statement is so profound! +1
      These folks don’t care about people who live in flyover country. They don’t care about Earth. They don’t care about creator granted and constitutionally guaranteed rights for all.

      They care about power and their ability to live as 1 percenters, even though they don’t have the brains or tenacity to become one (well, become one using ethical means).

    • Randall the vandal says:

      Who’s wealth is getting redistributed? Big oil? Boohoo

  16. Patrick Winter says:

    Inconvenient Truth, eh, Mr. Gore?

  17. Seraphim says:

    Eventually, a warmist will make the claim that since there was no temperature before the beginning of the Universe, the fact that there is now, and the earth is around 287 Kelvin for an average temperature (14C / 57F)… not only is global warming real, but so is UNIVERSAL warming, and it is all our fault, and we must pay a tax for the restoration of a null Kelvin value to the Universe at large…

  18. J.H.G says:

    Thanks for the info.

  19. Seraphim says:

    Perhaps, the warmist will even determine that Universal Warming is God’s fault, and then attempt to do everything possible to remove God, or sue him out of existence…

    oh, wait.. that’s already being done.

  20. Michael Jericho says:

    You people are all talking about real numbers and facts and stuff, you should be ashamed of yourselves!

  21. spawn 44 says:

    It’s like pouring gasoline on a fire.

  22. Gator Navy says:

    You mean to tell me that fluctuations in solar activity is what determines the earths temperature and not the activities of humans. Who would have thunk it?

  23. One of the worst effects of the Globull warming (good one Mikey) scandal is the growing acceptance in grant-hungry scientific circles of the politicization of study results. These “sky is falling” cries are making John Q Pubic loose faith in professional science which will result in the citizenry ignoring true public good issues from vaccinations to STD’s to exercise/diet, etc. I am a democrat and I truly lament what my party is doing.

    • Helen Highwater says:

      I thought I was the only democrat that saw what was happening.

      Long way from McGovern to the verge of a totalitarian state, and it only took 40 years.

      • John says:

        Maybe you should no longer be a Democrat, like I am no longer a Republican. Time to be Freethinkers.

      • Nobama says:

        As Brian noted at the top of this string, the preferred method of the left is to characterize someone or something as a “victim”, and then pretend to act on behalf of that victim, but really using that situation as cover to pursue a completely different agenda. Their immigration stance, multiculturalism, and other “diversity” efforts aren’t about compassion or fairness- but about diluting the culture of our society with varying ethnic groups, and then pitting them against one another, fragmenting any organized resistance to a takeover. It is a path to conquest.

        • signtalk says:

          Its called the march through the institutions.
          aka the Italian communist Grimsky,
          Americanized by Saul Alynsky

  24. Jennifer says:

    This cannot be true. We have an Oscar winning movie produced by the demoRAT-COMMUNIST party operative and colossal fraud, algore. What about DiCaprio? He says global warming is real, so there you go.

  25. Leonard says:

    Only one problem with all of this. There is not a shred of evidence that CO2 causes the Earth’s temperature to rise. It’s just another theory that’s proving to be untestable, unproveable and unlikely. The global warming frauds have to create a narrative in which the people who will pay energy taxes will have to be told that it’s their own fault, because they continue to breathe, and their cows continue to fart.

  26. Howard f says:

    when giant icebergs melt, they contract 4% ! One degree in warming will cause 1.76% of ocean water to evaporate extra! GW is going to DROP water levels universally!

    • John says:

      I’m not a GW believer, but I respectfully think your hypothesis there is incorrect. As giant icebergs float, you need to be comparing their water displacement against the amount of water actually in them. I don’t have the numbers necessary to run these calculations, and I have no desire to look them up, but I suspect the percentage of ice melted to water would dwarf your 1.76% evaporation. Since you seem to like numbers maybe you can look at your hypothesis using displacement and see if it (forgive me for this) holds water.

      • Curt says:

        Archimedes demonstrated the fallacy of the argument. It would be true if ice didn’t float, but it does. The mass of water displaced is equal to the mass of the floating object. Additionally, by the same fact, the entire Arctic icecap could melt and it would not effect ocean levels. Now, if ice on top of land, say in Greenland or the Antarctic melt, that could effect sea levels.

    • DaveGinOly says:

      Icebergs displace the same amount of water they contain. Because ice is expanded and frozen water, it’s less dense, so it floats. Put water and ice cubes in a glass and mark the water line. When the ice has melted, the water level will be the same.

      Ice bergs aren’t the potential problem (and nobody, to my knowledge, claims that they are). Increasing global temps (whether they are real or not at this time) cause glaciers to melt. Glaciers are full of ice that is NOT in the oceans, so when they melt, sea levels rise because the water moves from the land into the oceans, increasing the total amount of water in the oceans. Ice bergs are part of a cycle of calving, melting, and evaporation that all comes out in the wash. Glacier melting is not the problem, specifically. They melt all the time. Sea levels rise when glaciers melt at a faster rate than that of the deposition of snow on them, so there is a net movement of water from the glaciers into the oceans.

  27. Timothy Lucas says:

    58 years of facts untainted by tax payer money leading to the question of why would liberal democrat politicians march forward a agenda they know as a lie and cover up facts like these. Like obamacare the subject of control comes in to the issue that once they control your life they control your vote , freedom and take their power from your liberty. All you have to do is lie down and take it. It also makes Al Gore and Obama rich through control. They are invested in this and one bank sells the carbon credits. The ability to measure the carbon purchased for $10,000 from a democrat widow by Al Gore and needs Obama invested which he is and pushed by Obama which he is doing to nearly the point of executive order. When this is done poof, you are in the bag.

  28. Glenn says:

    What was that Algore was saying about an ‘inconvenient truth’? …. just asking …

  29. pg sharrow says:

    any model that represents less then 60 years of weather is a deliberate lie. it takes 180 years to represent any changes in climate…pg

  30. huhWHAThuh says:

    Wait wait the Pope said we humans are causing all this warming and he’s seriously infallible right? Oh wait it’s been cooling the last 60 years. No wait wait he’s the guy who condemned Galileo and set the world straight about the sun orbiting the earth isn’t he? Geezee who’s a guy to believe these days.

    • John says:

      Agenda much? Reminds me of Gore.

    • ChipMN says:

      Ah, huhWHAThuh, the current pope isn’t quite old enough to deal with Mr. Galelei. And popes only invoke infallibility specifically in matters of faith doctrine — and pretty darned rarely at that. He is also the political leader of a state and, incidentally, a human being — both of which permit him to speak (and get quoted out of context in the press like any other political leader). The pope listened to AGW activists and repeated what they say, much like just ’bout every other western political leader’s been doing for a fair amount of time. Your point?

      But your last statement “Geezee who’s a guy to believe these days.” is spot on. Definitely!

  31. Dale says:

    Control, Control! They must have Control! This is just ANOTHER reason why the Leftest, Socialist wanting Communism Democrat politician, professor and media won’t ever have a fair debate with the truth. There’s is a party built on lies and deception, stealing and cheating to get their power. Man made global warming or climate change has just been another manifestation of their power grabbing principals.

  32. jerry snaper says:

    Thank you: But no more grants for you. If the truth is embarresing it must be changed!

  33. Harry says:

    Climate change/warming whatever you call it, is just like 0bamaCare, nothing more than a tax, only it’s a global tax and redistribution of wealth, nothing more. Once that is fully understood everything makes sense, including the unconstitutional and criminal acts by the Barry Soetoro administration.

  34. Genghis says:

    Wasn’t the Radiosonde data predicted to show the greatest amount of warming? The AGW fingerprint? The best predictor of CO2 effects?

    Great catch!

  35. Ron Sherman says:

    Obama & Leonardo & an alleged 90% of scientists surely cannot be wrong. The wole deal is a political scam…..period.

    • signtalk says:

      Thats like saying 99% of religious people can’t be wrong.

      • ChipMN says:

        If applied to one event just ’bout 2000 years ago, and a group of people based in a Jerusalem temple, 99% of religious people in that situation indeed could be wrong. Just saying…but things did change, didn’t they?

  36. Lyle says:

    You do realize the basis for the 1950s graph is different? You can’t just smoosh them together.

    • D Schwarz says:

      Enlighten us, please.

    • Amy says:

      Yes, exactly. You can’t just cut and paste temperature anomalies together. “Anomaly” time series have the mean removed. But these datasets have different means removed.

      As an example…. let’s say you have the full dataset [1,1.5,.8,1,10,9,9.5,11]. If you plotted the entire time series there would obviously be a big jump from the beginning of the dataset to the end. The mean of the whole time series is 5.5 and if you removed that from the full dataset the anomalies would be: [-4.5,-4,-4.7,-4.5,4.5, 3.5, 4, 5.5]. So the trend in the data is retained.

      Now let’s say you break the dataset in half. You remove the mean of the first four points (1.1) to get the anomalies: [-.1,.4,.3,-.1]. Then you remove the mean of the second four points (9.9) to get the anomalies: [.1,-.9,-.4,1.1]. Smoosh these time series together and it looks like no trend. This is ignorant and very poor math (and zero science).

      • tonyheller says:

        If you read the blog post, I show the entire NOAA radiosonde 850-300 mb data set. But don’t let actual facts interfere with your propaganda.

        • steve ridge says:

          The two data sets are using different mean values for the baseline. The first set was during the cooler period and the second set during the warming over the last 40 years.

          Information after 1977 cannot have gone into generating the earlier mean value. Similarly, the post-1977 mean value was generated with average temperatures after 1977.

          The merging of these two the central point of everything else in this blog post, including the supposed NOAA treachery that you’ve exposed and that later assemblages of the “entire NOAA radiosonde 850-300 mb data set” differs from that spliced graph.

          • tonyheller says:

            All the raw data sets show very little warming. Do you have anything better to do?

          • steve ridge says:

            You wrote…”All the raw data sets show very little warming.”

            Not true. The highest balloon sets (30,000-40,000 feet in elevation) shouldn’t be warming, as per the mainstream science on climate, which anticipates that the stratosphere would experience less warming.

            The lower elevations show quite a bit of warming in that data set.

            The point, however, is that it’s dishonest to merge the two images since their baseline “zero” values are significantly different.

            And then point to this as evidence that the NOAA is up to some sort of treachery?

          • steve ridge says:

            In fact, here the NOAA is using the same baseline for the entire time series. This puts the matter into proper perspective.


  37. D Schwarz says:

    The sheer dishonesty of the scientists pushing this global agenda is on clear display here. If they can’t even be honest enough about presenting the data, how do they expect anyone to believe them about anything. THAT’S THE POINT! They are conducting research (selective) to confirm their theories, but toss out anything that creates an obstacle. True scientists want to know the truth good or bad, make their data public so it can be reviewed and replicated by others, especially skeptics. Once thoroughly vetted and the data reviewed, then conclusions can be drawn. We just aren’t there yet. There is plenty of evidence, including this that throws the whole theory in disarray that simply cannot be explained away. Furthermore, if it is proved that these scientists deliberately massaged data and biased their results (which many think they have done), they should be brought up on charges of defrauding the public and be forced to pay back the millions of dollars of public funding that they wasted. Take the damn politics out of science.

  38. D Schwarz says:

    The sheer dishonesty of the scientists pushing this global agenda is on clear display here. If they can’t even be honest enough about presenting the data, how do they expect anyone to believe them about anything. THAT’S THE POINT! They are conducting research (selective) to confirm their theories, but toss out anything that creates an obstacle. True scientists want to know the truth good or bad, make their data public so it can be reviewed and replicated by others, especially skeptics. Once thoroughly vetted and the data reviewed, then conclusions can be drawn. We just aren’t there yet. There is plenty of evidence, including this that throws the whole theory in disarray that simply cannot be explained away. Furthermore, if it is proved that these scientists deliberately massaged data and biased their results (which many think they have done), they should be brought up on charges of defrauding the public and be forced to pay back the millions of dollars of public funding that they wasted. Take the d#%$ politics out of science.

  39. TMark says:

    The alarmist rationale is that current human activity will result in future human suffering, even wars. Yet this human activity that is SAVING millions of lives annually. Take worldwide famine/hunger, a leading cause of warfare.
    During 50 years, from the 20s through the 60s, famine killed 5.3 people per 1,000 globally. But in the 45 years since, famine has taken just 0.5 lives per 1,000. That’s a 91% reduction. It’s not because of UN grain bags; those relief shipments have also reduced.
    Thank improvements in transportation, packaging and technology (mocked as pollution). Thank pesticides, preservatives and crop yield techniques (mocked as agribusiness). Thank the spread of these measures to the developing world (mocked as globalization). But especially thank free markets, as the deadliest famines occurred under socialist regimes such as Mao’s China, 20s-era USSR, and 80s-era Ethiopia.
    This human activity we call industrialization has SAVED over 60 million lives; dwarfing an Alaska village perched on an eroding cliff or the island population of tiny Tuvalu (elev. 3). Now, instead of famine leading to wars, the only famines are caused by wars.

    • John says:

      Other than the fact there are no “free markets” (on a global level they are highly manipulated to spread wealth, and nationally they are manipulated by speculators and market makers), you are spot on.

      Regardless of my comment, the trade that has gone on indeed spreads the improvements in food production.

    • ChipMN says:

      Two thumbs up, TMark!

  40. Jim says:

    NO NO NO!!! Polar Bears are getting sunburn! They are building submarine bases in Nevada! The Ozone Hole is causing genetic damage to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat! Dogs and cats are living together!

  41. Vinny says:

    Go on AccuWeather they have a meteorologist who does the Canadian weather you will not find a bigger proponent of AGW no matter all the stories of the lie he will never talk about it. NOAA says the hottest year on record he is the very first to report that story.

    All I can say to an clear thinking people if you are the type who sleeps with one eye open wondering if the ocean will be lapping at your feet when you wake up nothing we say will convince you. But, if you know an issue like AGW is a red hot political button pushed by politicians, believe nothing and educate yourself otherwise, might as well go to sleep with one eye open.

  42. Simon Knight says:

    The connection of the graphs is purposely misleading. From a quick glance it looks like the inclusion of the graph from 1977 gives a trend of no warming, but you can’t just put graphs with different axes scales together. It gives you an altered picture of what is actually going on warming or no warming. How come the author didn’t remake the entire graph from the freely available radiosonde data?

  43. Elwood says:

    Interesting that those temperature graphs follow the solar cycle almost perfectly (accounting for lag time of course).
    Maybe the Sun has something to do with the Earth being warm???

    Nahhhhhh……. SUV’s cause the world to warm up.

  44. Catcracking says:

    Check this URL, it has some weak explanation as to why the method is not good to compare data long term. Perhaps someone more experienced than I can clarify.
    “The temporal homogeneity of many radiosonde time series is questionable due to historical changes in instruments and measurement practices. This may make them unsuitable for the study of long-term climate variations, such as through trend analysis.”
    But tree rings and core samples are more accurate??

    • Taphonomic says:

      Of course tree rings are more accurate, as long as you hide the decline.

      • BobStewartatHome says:

        It also helps to throw out 90% of the tree ring data that doesn’t support the predetermined conclusion. And as Steve McIntyre just demonstrated, it is also helpful to align the mean values of the older tree ring datasets with modern datasets. Failure to do this demonstrates that the Medieval Warm Period was experienced in the North American continent as well as Europe, which is a Class 1 Heresy. But by leveling the data, the distinction between previous data and current data is removed, and then by selecting the “right” data, the hockey stick can be reproduced.

  45. John l kiwl says:

    Liberals and Al Gore! Read this, then eat S..T and die!

  46. Ben Palmer says:

    Just a thought. Maybe, just MAYBE they limited the scope of the data to the record of the other troposphere data? Which happen to be… 37 years? No! It can’t be.

    Nice cherry picking though.

    • Curt says:

      You have a point. Clearly the data is included to show that the sattelite data correlates with the radiosonde data. It is meant to give further validity to the sattelite data, so matching the two time lengths would seem to be reasonable. But consider,
      1. They don’t claim 37 years of correlation with radiosonde, they claim 58 years of data but then don’t show it. Either they are falsely claiming a better dataset then they have or they are suppressing data. If you claim 58 years, why not show it unless it doesn’t match with your narrative.
      2. If radiosonde are a good substitute for sattelite data, then why are you not using it for pre-sattelite time periods? An additional 21 years would seem to be a good thing. Just to the naked eye, the data looks pretty well correlated, why not use it to show the temperature trend before satellites,…. Oh wait, never mind.
      3. If the data exists, plotting it would not take a whole lot more effort or cost. Citing it to strengthen your argument by appealing to greater experience than not plotting it raises questions. When the part you exclude contradicts you general thesis, it makes it look like you are trying to cover it up with the assumptin by the reader that it doesn’t show anything interesting. If the data is bad, why include the last 37 years but claim 58 years of data?

      So you are right, nice cherry picking.

  47. melanerpes says:

    Ah, but the SECOND derivative of the temperature appears distinctly positive.

  48. Cd says:

    There is one thing for we have a ” Good Crop of L!ar’s ” this year.

  49. PFWAG says:

    The are lairs, damn liars, and AGW statistics.

    Mark Twain

  50. jimfact says:

    Just need a big eruption and things would cool down. Too bad they didn’t have data going back to 1935 or so when it was really hot.

  51. Parr Wiegel says:

    Wow, No Temperature rise, US 1% at fault, No God, US to blame for all the non warming to keep the low income folks low income. I am betting none of these commenters have been to China or India. If they had they would understand just how bad pollution can get. But Hey is you can yell and scream about things why let science slow down you anger.

    • Latitude says:

      Why would you go to China or India….you can’t see CO2

      I’ll bet you don’t know the difference between CO2 and pollution….do you?

      • ChipMN says:

        I thought some Federal agencies and the SCOTUS all agree that CO2 “is” a pollutant. (Not that I particularly agree, as I exhale every so often — I wouldn’t want to be a polluter, or environmental felon, would I?)

    • John says:

      So now we are to believe in GW because you have been to China and India and can’t breathe? The numbers are shown to lie and you come back with anecdotal evidence? Then you question people’s acceptance of Science? One word – Delusional.

      Science on this chart is showing there has been no warming for 58 years. Other charts I have seen show that throughout history, temperature rises have preceded CO2 increases, which does not support the assertion that CO2 causes warming. It supports the opposite.

  52. Yaspar Kyashred says:

    Oh Lawdy, let the butthurt flow!

  53. AdrianS says:

    Has anyone bothered to tell Dope Francis?

  54. BobretEOD says:

    I do my part, I eat the cows …

  55. Bombastic says:

    Modern governments use ‘science’ to enforce agendas just like Medieval governments used ‘god’ to enforce theirs. Same tax, different day.

    • John says:

      Makes sense, seeing as Science has been turned into a religion anyhow. Funny how little we seem to know about both, and how many experts there are in both fields.

  56. Victoria says:

    But so what? Wait and see. The powers-that-be will still try to mandate the current restrictions anyway….just because! Carbon credits were never offered to farmers and landowners with their crops, orchards and oak woodlands, and these are the common folks who actually provide the vegetation that exchanges Carbon into oxygen. The cities were given the opportunity to claim their “urban forests” in town to off set their factory and tailpipe emissions, and the federal government is claiming millions of acres of park lands to cash in on the carbon credit market. Our political and environmental leaders have duped and manipulated us all. Most of the ones who are believers of climate change are the ones who either benefit financially or because they can tout and market their so-called favorable to climate change rhetoric.
    Here in California, we need dams to grow the nation’s food and to provide the cleanest power of all, hydro power.

  57. Kris says:

    Even if Donald Trump or Ted Cruz could get elected it would be hard to put a straight edge on this global warming crap. The people can change things if they pull together and focus. I’m sure all of you (so far) can see how important this election is to at least slow down this out of control direction the libs are perpetrating.

    • Catcracking says:

      Cruz is the only honest politician that completely understands the hoax and will cancel all the Presidential regulations from the EPA and others. Shame the debate organizers will not let him talk on this important subject. Who knows Trump position?

  58. freeland _dave says:

    Wow! I have been saying exactly the same thing for roughly 25 years now. I am certainly no expert in global warming but am pretty good at collecting and analyzing data. When the first global warming scares came about I checked into the years of data that I had been collecting and compared it to what NOAA was releasing to the public. Sure enough there were wide discrepancies. But you can’t howl about it until you have collected more data and compared it to NOAA’s data. Then it became clear to me they are ‘adjusting’ their data and since I was pretty clear on how they collected their data in the first place, I set about to determine how and why. The how was done at a computer to fit a per-determined model. The why was for money. The weather pseudo-scientists got their money and NOAA got its money. The World Population who have had to live with this costly lie for well over 25 years simply got screwed.

    • Bombastic says:

      Yep, but can you just imagine the ‘grant parties’ these fuckers have? Big blowouts with Gaia girls wearing nothing but thin moss vag coverings. Beware the Government-Science Complex. Party on, dude!

  59. Michael says:

    What!! No “climate change”….how will we get along without a Boogeyman on our heels!!

  60. Psalm137_9 says:

    Ugh…it’s crap articles like this that prevent me from believing anything climate change skeptics have to say. This is “radiosonde” data, i.e. atmospheric measurements, not surface measurements. If global warming were happening, you would expect warming at the surface, but COOLING in the upper atmosphere because heat that would normally escape into space is being trapped at the surface. That’s why it’s called the greenhouse effect. This is basic Climatology 101.

    And the smug attitudes of the people making these comments are just nausiating. They seem to build up their obvious low self-esteem by insulting “those dumb liberals”. The ignorance on this message board makes me want to vomit.

    • tonyheller says:

      Global warming theory is based on troposphere warming. You have no idea what you are talking about.

    • Latitude says:

      thank you Psalm…for completely disproving global warming theory

      …on your way out…pick up a parting gift

    • B1111 says:


      NOAA itself is the one that suggested Radiosonde temperature charts suggest that global warming exists, or did you miss that?

      If its relevant for NOAA for 37 years of data, why isn’t it relevant for 58 years?

      • Latitude says:

        because 58 years shows the 3rd and 4th warmest…
        ..which means it’s been warmer 3 and 4 times

        which means it’s not getting warmer, it’s cooling
        ..and there’s no global warming

    • Curt says:

      You haven’t actually read any of the theories have you? Just saying, because if you had, you would have known that the atmosphere would be expected to warm first since that is where all the carbon dioxide and other gas resides. Much like the greenhouse you use as an example which heats the air first and. Then the ground. Don’t believe me, walk into a greenhouse sometime. That is why the sattelite data was initially cited as the most reliable data or marker. When it didn’t show what the theory said, then they switched to ground temperatures and started looking for the cause of the pause. As opposed to doing the scientific thing and saying, “Well scrap that hypothesis, let’s think of something new”.

    • Sunsettommy says:

      No, you are the one who is badly mistaken,Psalm.

      You never kept up with the IPCC’s own statements about a warming Troposphere:


      What is the Troposphere “Hotspot”?


      The IPCC 2007 report in this SECTION,shows a charted set of modeling runs that purports to examine the level of warm forcing in the Tropical Troposphere.

      It was taken from Santer et al. 2003.Where they show based on their AGW hypothesis beliefs.That it is Well mixed greenhouse gases that would cause the “Tropospheric Hotspot”.

      True the IPCC did not use the phrase Tropospheric HOTSPOT.But they sure imply it strongly and based on their Greenhouse forcing hypothesis.”

  61. Dale says:

    While hiking in the wilds of the High Uinta Mountains in Utah one day, I noticed a large weather monitoring station on the way to Kings Peak. It used to be shaded by trees but since the EPA forced Utah to quit spraying for the moth devastating the pine forests, it is no longer shaded…do you think that just might effect the data…at least a little bit?

    • BobStewartatHome says:

      The specifications for the monitoring stations included level ground and clearance from trees and other things, which ensured that they would be exposed to sunlight, although the thermometer was inside the white box and not exposed to sunlight. Only a tiny fraction of the stations used to support global warming studies satisfy these requirements. In fact a large number have been relocated to paved parking areas, etc., and are surrounded by tall buildings, which is to say they are totally inappropriate based on the original experimental design. So your example might not have been accepted by old school government scientists when it was shaded by healthy trees. But I have a suspicion that the station now has all the right properties to be included in modern studies performed by the new breed of government scientists. And those properties, of course, are that it shows an increase in temperature with time.

  62. Tom says:

    Hang them ALL PUBLICLY. ..FOR CAPITAL FRAUD….this ends NOW!

  63. Jackson says:

    These bureaucrats are so full of crap. I’m no scientist and I’m a pretty old man but I knew this was a scam and so many of my friends were completely fooled by this scam! I just hope now they can see the truth .

  64. Lee says:

    The real Hoax is the term Honest Politician and they can’t be found.

  65. ted122 says:

    As with everything, capitalist, socialist, communist…… just follow the money and the truth will be hidden by the folks reaping the benefits…. At present, academically, there is no money in global cooling, not so in the 1970’s. Can you just imagine what they are doing with the 60 cents a gallon, carbon tax in California? Gas $1.37 in Tuscon Arizonia, gas $2.57 in Los Angeles. That must be because Arizona is a giant producer of oil, they have ports to easily import oil, they have great refineries to make gasoline. Or perhaps their politicians just haven’t been filled in, with how to rob the consumer.

  66. LookUp says:

    Justin Trudeau is trying to drive this lie down the throats of Canadians at the financial risk of our children’s future.His meeting with Obama should worry the entire planet. Two politicians that have never had a real job in the real world. God is are only Hope!

  67. cb says:

    the science of climate change is nothing more than a tool! it is used to move us bit by bit to a world government where countries sit at the table and one person rules it! like sheep we are allowing it. until the people of the world demand for them to prove it we are just be herded like sheep to this impending take over world government!

  68. BG says:

    Global Warming is a construct of the Environmental Industrial Complex. It uses the same model as the Military Industrial Complex. And it is designed to provide jobs and monetary gain for those who could not otherwise find jobs in the private sector. Fear Mongering is how you get money to flow from government for academic studies, environmental jobs, activist funding, and manufacturing of high cost energy sources. All of this activity consumes the wealth of this nation while not creating any wealth. It moves us closer to that eventual reckoning point when our economic system will collapse. Hope people will wake up before then.

  69. Nate says:

    No … you don’t say ? You mean NOAA is cooking data just to appease the organizations funding their witch hunt? I refuse to believe that! Pardon my heavy sarcasm.

  70. Vindi says:

    There is a reason why the Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption scammers use 1979 as the basis for their proof that GW/CC/CD is happening.
    In 1979 the Arctic Ice was at HISTORICAL highs in both area and density. The highest EVER measured.
    So that when it started to return to normal, average levels they could cry out.
    Just ask any of them why they don’t show before 1979 in their data.

  71. George Humphrey says:

    The power elite do not care what we the average people think or believe. In fact the only reason they pay any attention to us at all is because they need our money. Other than that they could give a rat azz what we think or believe. They don’t think we have enough sense to pour piss out of a boot. They just want us to hand over our money and keep our mouths shut, only speak to our betters when we have been spoken too .GOT IT

  72. Mason says:

    Who cares what the weather is like 5000+ feet up? I don’t know about y’all but I live on the surface. None of this data is about anything below 5000 feet, and most of it is for 100mb, or 50,000 feet up.

    • tonyheller says:

      Global warming theory s based on troposphere warming, and your mostly 100 mb claim is complete BS.
      The theory requires an upper troposphere hot spot, which does not exist.

    • Latitude says:

      Who cares what the weather is like 5000+ feet up?

      every global warming scientist….

      You really don’t know what you’re talking about…do you?

    • B1111 says:

      Mason, “Who cares what the weather is like 5000+ feet up? I don’t know about y’all but I live on the surface. None of this data is about anything below 5000 feet, and most of it is for 100mb, or 50,000 feet up.”

      Ask NOAA, they are the ones that said that troposhere is relevant, not this author. All this author did was say if troposphere is relevant, then why cherry pick 37 years? Seems like a very legitimate question.

      Did I miss something?

    • ChipMN says:

      Ah, I live at 6450 feet elevation, in Colorado. I care!

  73. ossqss says:

    Next up for full dataset Karlization, radiosondes!

  74. John Campbell says:

    Why does this look more like the scan is unraveling so now someone is looking for cover? I don’t know who all the players are, but the fact that this global warming is a scam is still fact. This needs to be investigated and those behind it brought to justice.
    How long has this information been out there and yet all of these alleged scientists somehow didn’t know about this? The science by consensus bunch?

    The people have been defrauded and it’s time for very lengthy prison stays.

  75. John Sameolechit says:

    AlGore says thank you, thank you.

    You made him a very very rich man.

    He conned all the Gorebal Warming enthusiasts.

    AlGore says he’s gotta go, so he can invent the internet. Very Busy Man.

    He is laughing his Arse off all the way to the Bank.

  76. jack coyote says:

    I sold all my winter clothes!

  77. VillageViking says:

    Confirmed, Leonardo Deicaprio is the dumbest recipient of an Oscar in history…

  78. Ali Von Goldberg says:

    Quote: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

  79. DavidL says:

    You climate deniers just don’t understand the data. And you are poo poo heads. Haha, I won that argument!!!

    Signed – A brain dead liberal idiot

  80. Global What? says:

    Hundreds of years ago, the ancestors of the global warming believers believed the world was flat. They controlled that thought. They believed the world was the center of the universe. They hated anyone who disagreed. Eventually, they were proven wrong. But, they never gave up the struggle.

    They learned they need to take over schools and slowly bring an end to their enemy – science (truth and fact) – and tame it. They learned over the past hundred years to lie better and obfuscate the truth.

    Dumbing down education is vital. They want their world flat again. Most all the “isms” sing the same tune. Communism, Marxisism, Socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism…what’s in a name. Always, it’s about the great lie. Countless hundreds of millions have died. So now they try again – and hopefully, with fewer obvious casualties. It’s all the same lie…

    Funny, the same amount of carbon on and in earth has never changed. Just power politics picking on carbon to add noise to the goal.

    Once this global warming hoax has run out, their struggle will still continue.

  81. BangStick says:

    When growing up it was always a joke that the govt would tax the air for breathing if possible.

    Global Warming and Carbon Taxes are exactly the means to that goal.

    Don’t be fooled by their BS!

  82. Mark Ritchie says:

    OMG! This can not be true! Our politicians would not lie to us just to pass draconian laws that restrict growth and freedoms; they would not lie to massively increase taxes and penalties on us.

    What about all the stuff they told us was going to happen? Melting polar caps, polar bear extinctions…? They just got the dates wrong, that’s all…..

    lol…………………. NOT! Stupid Liberals!

  83. Teddy Novak says:

    Global warming (aka climate change) is the religion of the stupid.

    Sheep, lemmings, inbreds, and Leftists are easily manipulated.

  84. Can Youguys Think says:

    Ummmm, you guys DO REALIZE that this guy is comparing data from 52,000 feet up vs. much lower heights, don’t you? You need to comapare it with the light blue line, which is lready shown to be highly variable.

    But I guess you’re too busy comparing hand sizes.

  85. D. Dan "Dan" Westeman says:

    Is this where we now hear from some marxist douchebag about how the “data is being misinterpreted?” After all, the left says that simply saying something is true or not true, magically makes it so.

  86. Uncle Bri Bri says:

    Just wait …. 100 years from now when the average global temperature has risen 1/2 a degree (well, almost) then we will see!

  87. WLSmith says:

    Serious question…does the SEC regulate the trading of carbon credits? When do we get to witness the perp-walk?

  88. Chris says:

    The best and cheapest way to solve global warming is to create a 10 billion dollar grant fund to study global cooling.

    Problem solved.

  89. John Connor says:

    The government has forgotten that they derive their power from the people. They are lying to us and do not thin that we are smart enough to figure it out.

  90. curmugjohn says:

    When the alarmists and the prefabricator scientists start buying
    land fifty feet above current sea level inland from the coastlines,
    I’ll start to worry.

  91. Olaf says:

    Man-made global warming = “Made-up” by man?

  92. John Tudder says:

    By John Coleman
    January 28, 2009 (Revised and edited February 11, 2009)

    The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax us citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way: the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming. A majority of American citizens are now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints, resulting from our use of fossil fuels, are going to lead to climatic calamities. But governments are not yet listening to the citizens.

    How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government to punish the citizens for living the good life that fossil fuels provide for us?

    The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle obtained major funding from the Navy to do measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting post war atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago. Suess was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle co-authored a scientific paper with Suess in 1957—a paper that raised the possibility that the atmospheric carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. The thrust of the paper was a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.

    Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1958 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels. These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

    Back in the1950s, when this was going on, our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution left by the crude internal combustion engines and poorly refined gasoline that powered cars and trucks back then, and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution. As a result a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action.

    Government heard that outcry and set new environmental standards. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed, as were new high tech, computer controlled, fuel injection engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer significant polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. New fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced as well.

    But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. Roger Revelle’s research at the Scripps Institute had tricked a wave of scientific inquiry. So the concept of uncontrollable atmospheric warming from the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels became the cornerstone issue of the environmental movement. Automobiles and power planets became the prime targets.

    Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants flowed and alarming hypotheses began to show up everywhere.

    The Keeling curve continues to show a steady rise in CO2 in the atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. Carbon dioxide has increased from the 1958 reading of 315 to 385 parts per million in 2008. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. The percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 3.8 hundredths of one percent by volume and 41 hundredths of one percent by weight. And, by the way, only a fraction of that fraction is from mankind’s use of fossil fuels. The best estimate is that atmospheric CO2 is 75 percent natural and 25 percent the result of civilization.

    Several hypotheses emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. As years have passed, the scientists have kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

    Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meetings.

    Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations—a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC). This was not a pure, “climate study” scientific organization, as we have been led to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels.

    Over the last 25 years the IPCC has been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, it has made its points to the satisfaction of most governments and even shared in a Nobel Peace Prize.

    At the same time Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

    He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students. This student would say later, “It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!” The student described him as “a wonderful, visionary professor” who was “one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming.” That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book “Earth in the Balance,” published in 1992.

    So there it is. Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

    The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause célèbre of the media. After all, the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us “the sky is falling, the sky is falling.” The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

    But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, “My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways.” He added, “…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer.”

    And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain, and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge, negative impact on the economy, jobs, and our standard of living. Considerable controversy still surrounds the authorship of this article. However, I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer and he assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

    Did Roger Revelle attend the summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore on this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, “Apparently.” People who were there have told me about that afternoon, but I have not located a transcript or a recording. People continue to share their memories with me on an informal basis. More evidence may be forthcoming.

    Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam. He might well stand beside me as a global warming denier.

    Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s mea culpa as the actions of a senile old man. The next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate. From 1992 until today, he and most of his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when asked about us skeptics, they insult us and call us names.

    As the science now stands, the global warming alarmist scientists say the climate is sensitive to a “radiative forcing” effect from atmospheric carbon dioxide which greatly magnifies its greenhouse effect on atmospheric warming. The only proof they can provide of this complex hypothesis is by running it in climate computer models. By starting the models in about 1980 they showed how the continuing increase in CO2 was step with a steady increase in average global temperatures in the 1980s and 1990’s and claim cause and effect. But, in fact, those last two decades of the 20th century were at the peak of a strong 24 year solar cycle, and the temperature increases actually may have been a result of the solar cycle together with related warm cycle ocean current patterns during that period.

    That warming ended in 1998 and global temperatures (as measured by satellites) leveled off. Starting in 2002, computer models and reality have dramatically parted company. The models predicted temperatures and carbon dioxide would continue to rise in lock step, but in fact while the CO2 continues to rise, temperatures are in decline. Now global temperatures are in such a nose dive there is wide spread talk from climatologists about an impending ice age. In any case, the UN’s computer model “proof” has gone up in a poof.

    Nonetheless, today we have the continued claim that carbon dioxide is the culprit of an uncontrollable, runaway man-made global warming. We are told that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint. And, we are told we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists for this sinful footprint. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US Congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

    We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by the prohibiting of new refineries and of drilling for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that, the whole issue of corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies, which also has driven up food prices. All of this is a long way from over.

    Yet I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

    Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is high-jacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.

    • Jos Schmitz says:

      You’re right!!

      Manmade Global Warming iscthe biggest hoax EVER! This hoax was presented by no one else than Margareth Thatcher, former UK PM.

      Why? Politics and power. Maggie made the UK a nuclear power ( Trident rovkets) and gave a devadtation blow to Labour’s nr 1 suppoters, the coslminers.

      How? Read this. It will open your eyes.

  93. Sharpshtik says:

    Government run by leftists is nothing but organized crime designed to grow the government industry by depriving individual rights (freedom). The fabricated “man made” “global warming” “crisis” that can only be “solved” by more organized crime theft, skimming and redistribution of private property by leftists is but another means to a socialist end and leftists freely admit it:
    Emma Brindal of “Friends of the Earth,” said, “[a] climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.” On 8-11-09, UN Sec.Gen. Ban Ki-Moon said “developed countries must provide . . . financial . . . support to developing countries. . . . billions of dollars.” On 8-11-09, 10 African countries demanded $67 Billion/year to “mitigate” “man made” “global warming” “damage.” On 9-7-09 Barry Aminata Toure said, “It isn’t even aid we’re asking for. We simply want a fairer distribution of wealth, that’s all.” Obama said ” when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

  94. goerge pultir says:

    This afternoon was much hotter than this morning .. so don’t give me any of your conservative wishy-washy facts….

  95. Proudly Unaffiliated says:

    Burn locally, warm globally.

  96. Jeff Hartzo says:

    As I said from the start —it’s all about the money!!!

  97. Proudly Unaffiliated says:

    I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a carbon credit today.

  98. LoL I Pity You Drumper's says:

    What is this? You are comparing two data sets that have been normalized to two different time period means. Could you at least ask a freshman community college statistics student to validate your “smoking-gun” evidence before you publish it and get the low-IQ Drumper’s all hot and bothered. What you have done in that “combined” graph is complete nonsense.

    Mr Heller, what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

    • tonyheller says:

      Perhaps you should read the entire post before making a fool out of yourself.

      • LoL I Pity You Drumper's says:


        Seriously bro, I know that oil dosh is mad tasty but think this through. “I combined the two graphs at the same scale below, and put a horizontal red reference line in, which shows that the earth’s atmosphere has not warmed at all since the late 1950’s”.

        What is that horizontal red reference line. What does it mean friendo? It is a NORMALIZED mean for the data displayed on the graph. You took the mean temperature from 1957-1977 and assumed it was exactly the same as from 1977-present. In order for this “graph” to mean anything that would have to be true and as well all know, it isn’t. Even if global warming were a total myth those means would still not be identical. There is no world in which this graph makes any sense.

        Now I know Drump is super popular with stupid people, so none of these old-timers can figure out what normalized data means and since they are you only audience I guess that’s fine but brosif, come on this is some mad weak trollin’.

  99. Ra Conteur says:

    The Real Reason behind this Warming Hoax is like most things – money and control. Let’s be clear – if the eco-ideologues who demand attention and their policy objectives implemented had their wishes – numerous people would be eliminated – to enact what they wanted in the 1st Earth Day – ZPG: Zero Population Growth. Man is bad for the earth to them and must be reduced using the Progressive mainstay – by any means possible, because the ends justify the means. Nows here’s the kicker… Algore and his acolytes thought they could wrestle control away of the trillions spent annually on petroleum fuels. That remains the objective and why this issue despite being a proven fraud/hoax/scandal refuses to die. They still want the money as does the UN, solar and wind equipment providers – and, importantly, the US Congress and others want to control the behaviors and a chunk of the incomes of the citizenry.

    • Mark T says:

      But note how the loudest green screamers are the same people behind unlimited immigration. Look up Bill McKibben’s letter in the LA Times where he argues that we need to let the 3rd world pour in because they’ll breed slower here than back home (which is turning out not to be true when you look into data such at the teen pregnancy rates in the highest-immigration locales).

      First they want to achieve absolute one-party rule by sheer weight of number.

  100. Battlespeed says:

    Global warming is the biggest scandal in the history of science, but what’s really frightening is that it has now taken on ALL the characteristics of a religion (faith superceding reason, an established creed, behavioral control of believers, etc) – and we all know what’s happened throughout human history in the name of religion.

  101. jimspice says:

    Do you seriously consider splicing together two images, which by the way, illustrate two entirely different things, to be an example of valid scientific inquiry? Seriously?

    Further, no one is “hiding” anything. NOAA/NASA makes the data publicly available; the referenced article only examines 1979 onward because the topic is comparing satellite to balloon, i.e. radiosonde, measurements, and satellite data only goes back that far.

    If you’d like to look at an actual representation of the full time series, here’s troposphere ( showing warming, here’s stratosphere ( showing cooling, and here’s the boundary zone ( showing chaos. These observations are perfectly in line with expectations. I’d encourage you to read the article from which these graphs originate for a more sincere attempt to actually understand what’s happening (

    • tonyheller says:

      Perhaps you should read the entire blog post before making a fool out of yourself

      • jimspice says:

        I did. Not sure what you’re getting at.

      • chershey says:

        I’ve read the entire post to this point, and I don’t see where jimspice has made a fool out of himself. Is anyone allowed to politely disagree with you, or was his statement, in your view, impolite? Like so many other headline issues, this one doesn’t appear to be one that the two sides can discuss in a civil manner. Which is a pity, because it’s a very important issue, if it’s true, and a very important issue, if it’s false. Your hoax argument reminds me of the book “The Trouble with Physics” and the politics of string theory grant solicitation ( An excellent book that I highly recommend.

        Your post at your site ( indicates that 88% of meteorologists surveyed believe global warming is occurring. The breakdown as to the cause of the warming ranges from “mankind caused” to “don’t know” with the percentages for each group displayed.

        While I agree with you that the carbon-credit is a bad idea, an idea with “I financially win – you financially lose” profit motives at its foundation, I do not see how you can be so emphatic in your belief that global warming is not occurring.

    • jimspice says:

      p.s. Gotta love a data set called RATPAC.

    • Brian B says:

      “These observations are perfectly in line with expectations.”

      Jeebus. Not even Michael Mann is saying that anymore.

    • fscottkey says:

      Shame on you. If you have done even the most modest actual RESEARCH — you know for a Fact, as the sun shines; as you breathe– That GLOBAL WARMING IS A HORRIBLE HOAX- it is as monstrous and unquestionably a LIE as is Evolution. Evolution which required by the very author himself the presence of transitional forms (which would have been in the Trillions if not Quadrillions) and NONE were found EVER! The scientist using the most advance networked super computers have proven that no life evolved on this planet- it simply Never happened and any astronomically impossible scenario by which the computer models could advance for the absurdity of Evolution would (in its most expansive definition of “would”) have happened on another planet. SUCH IS THE CASE WITH GLOBAL WARMING
      Mankind — men and their machines, industry, and effects — have not changed the weather climate conditions for the Entire Earth. Local effects upon a discrete locality area — are and can be effected — but only temporarily and with very defined parameters. Scientists (not hacks or whores as defined by those that will do anything say anything and be anything for money or power) but Real Scientists know that man-made Global Warming is a LIE — designed, promulgated by the most vile humans that walk on this planet– for power — power to corrupt; tax into utter bankruptcy; and enslave the masses. It is the mindset and process of Tyranny. And your foolish and ridiculous efforts to denigrate the author and cast doubt in the minds in support of Global warming — places you sir into the same kingdom with the despoiling troglodytes
      that take perverse pleasure in Destruction.
      This is Shameful.
      Truth will out.
      There will come a time that each person will know the Truth
      and you sir will face the consequence of supporting this LIE.

  102. terry says:

    The part of the scam that is not will understood yet:

    1. Flood California with illegal immigration far beyond the water resources needed to support the population.

    2. When the state goes dry declare an environmental emergency.

    3. Under the so called slogan of saving the poor people of California, flood the rest of the country with environmental refugees.

    4. Paid for by the carbon tax.

    5. If this is allowed to happen, it will end the USA as we know it, just as Europe is disintgrating.

    • Mark T says:

      There is this fellow who has been on the “CoastAM” late night show arguing that the California drought was engineered:
      this story does go all the way back to the 90s when original host Art Bell starting talking about the funny contrails that turn into cirrus-stratus looking things.
      At that time I did notice airplanes were responsible for the entirety of the weather on otherwise clear days over the SF Bay Area. Residents of the region may wish visit the Altamont Pass area on any clear day–most likely you can see jetliners at similar altitudes, some making conventional contrails that dissipate in a few minutes, others that make trails that turn into clouds that spread out.
      There must be about 100 youtubes about this.

    • Csense69 says:

      All part of it.

  103. R. L. Hails Sr. P. E. (ret.) says:

    The article points to a larger problem. America has destroyed a life sustaining industry, coal fired electric generating plants. The entire fleet is far beyond its design life, has gotten creaky. Millions of jobs have been offshored because of the higher costs for alternate schemes of electric generation have weaken US heavy industry. And all of it was based on this cherry picked analysis of atmospheric temperature data?

    There must be a debate among the candidates on one topic: How do we restore integrity to government science? Laymen can not do science, but they can and have been destroyed by it.

    • Battlespeed says:

      You’d have to find a way to separate science from (a) money and (b) power – money as an input and power as an output. I’m danged if I can see how to do that because modern research requires substantial investment, which the players are unwilling to put up on the usual terms that proper science imposes on investment, i.e. that no guarantees can be made regarding the outcome. Now, to get the money, it’s pretty much on a wink-and-a-nod agreement between the scientist and the source of funds.

      • R. L. Hails Sr. P. E. (ret.) says:

        How do you fix corrupt science? I have pondered this for years. It has happened in many countries in the past and always ends badly. I have only pieces of the notion.

        The obvious first step is defunding. Power comes with money so defunding ten thousand employees is an obvious step. Some innocents will be hurt but that was also true on Omaha Beach.

        Reductions in Force (the government term for firing) corresponds to funding. It must go several levels below the Department Head, to Division and Branch levels, even senior employees. Their replacements should come from both business, the professions and academia. There is very little business experience in government agencies. The professions have ceded power to the government. These trends must reverse.

        Washington D.C. headquarters should be decentralized and disbursed to regions and states, both in location and authority. In many government functions authority should be returned to the states.

        This would be a start.

    • Csense69 says:

      Not just a $$ grab but also a power grab as fossils are well known for supporting the consrvatives.

  104. Joe says:

    The truth does not matter. You need to be silenced!

    Oppenheimer predictions, June 13, 1988,2161299&dq=sea+level+rise+oppenheimer&hl=en

  105. Tim Lazenby says:

    You know dude, whatever! The writing is on the wall we don’t need DATA to know its only a matter of time before ALL coastal cities start to flood. So what will be will be, best enjoy the life you have for as long as it lasts and be happy.

  106. Semi-employed White Guy says:

    Thanks for publishing these facts against the left-wing loon warmers and their bogus religion of Global Warming with High Priest Al Gore.

  107. Michael says:

    Any farmer or rancher could have told us all this…but ranchers are government clay pigeon targets, and farmers are like the rest of us…wait our turn in the ovens…

  108. Patriot says:

    Climate Change: The instrument by which the early 21st century frightened herds were driven into giving up their national sovereignty and personal freedoms in exchange for Unity and the saving power of centralized global government. See also global warming …

  109. Apeon LastnmUnk says:


  110. libertarian4freedomisback says:

    and NOAA not to be outdone by GOD said
    ….Let there be Global Warming…..or Climate Change….of whatever gets the fools money with the best stats.
    with their miscalculation (if you want to call it that) of weather data and their little data input formulas… was so.
    hey….maybe I can make a movie and call it something like….noah.

  111. Vince says:

    Well, there goes your federal funding.

  112. mrsharfer says:

    All you dolts that swallowed the man made global warming horse pucky, should be proud that you made al gore a VERY rich man! Other than that your imaginary crusade was a complete failure.

  113. tc says:

    The earth has tilted on its axis,they have changed the magnetic numbers on airports all over the world. The arctic circle is getting more sunlight now so you are going to get the earth warming and thawing the permafrost. How do you change the tilt by reducing carbon emissions? ………doh! Saw this of all places going green,the weather channel but they never mention this fact. They are part of the gov cabal now.

    • Mike1020 says:

      Thats magnetic deviation, it’s a natural phenomena, since the earth was born.

      But if you want something to worry about google and read “geomagnetic reversal.”

      Be aware, because that could be a SHTF moment, at a minimum it will be a moment where politicians try and take more money and liberties from you.

  114. WayneTheSeine says:

    The hole in the ozone got boring.

  115. Jasonn says:

    Gee, talk about your inconvenient truth eh?

  116. Steve Wenner says:

    You guys are talking to each other within a sealed echo chamber. Maybe this will give you a peephole to the outside:

    • Latitude says:

      Steve, no wonder you believe this crap… are severely reading challenged

      The peper the Guardian quoted talks about temp increase since 1979….puts up two charts with an even shorter time frame…

      The subject of this blog post is…

      In their “hottest year ever” press briefing, NOAA included this graph, which stated that they have a 58 year long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph.

      Here is why they are hiding the rest of the data. The earlier data showed as much pre-1979 cooling as the post-1979 warming.

    • Mike1020 says:

      Two echo chambers at war.

      Which one do you believe in?

  117. pullgees says:

    Interesting, but the Earth’s surface is part of the troposphere yet they are arguing there is the unreliable surface temperatures as opposed to reliable troposphere temperatures.???

  118. Mike Herman says:

    Until the Globull Warmers show that they’ve ruled out the null hypothesis (natural variation) to at least a 4 sigma level of confidence, ignore them.

  119. STEVEN says:


  120. Rexxx says:

    If Democrats could not tell lies or call names, they would be silent.

  121. Bob Smith says:

    The rate of global sea level rise has not significantly increased during the past 50 years; an even greater condemnation of the “man-made global warming”, I mean “man-made climate change”, I mean “climate change”, fraud.

  122. Jim K says:

    I have found all comments entertaining and informative. I retired as a senior data analyst. So you might be able to imagine the fun I have when I ask GWAs/GWTs if they can prove GW/AGW/CC due to GW/ACC. It actually takes them a while to realize that they can’t.

  123. Dan says:

    I’ve concluded my research. Today it is exactly one degree warmer than it was yesterday at this same time. Using this trend as a forecast, the Earth will warm by 365 degrees Celsius per year in perpetuity. If the surface of the Sun is 5,505 Celsius, we are going to exceed that here on Earth in exactly 15.09 years!

    Al Gore is a genius and a prophet. We are unworthy of him.

    P.S. I’m so going to use this research in my on-line Doctorial Thesis from Devry Community College.

    P.S.S. Don’t be stealing my theory, I feel a Nobel Prize coming. If Obama can get the Peace Prize during two wars, anything is possible.

  124. Cy N. Tist says:

    This scam was busted shortly after it began to be perpetrated.

    But it’s a government oppression of citizens and power ‘thing’ now, so you’re stuck with it.

  125. Mike1020 says:

    Global warming… a scheme made up by liberals and politicized scientists. The former for politcal influence, the latter for cushy grants and sitting around a cozy lab without expectation of production or truthful science.

    Science was predominantly trusted, then they started getting political and loosened up peer review. It was global cooling in the 70’s, then global warming, then when they realized the bind they were in: they changed the mantra to “man made climate change.” That way they can say “see” no matter which way it goes. Not expressing the fact that the earth’s climate has constantly oscillated for 4.5 billion years.

  126. Professor Fate says:

    Global warming/cooling/climate change and other drivel is a product of the NWO Globalists and the UN in an effort to deindustrialize the industrialized countries and convert the entire world to one big Third World hellhole (think Calcutta or Buenos Aires) that is easily controlled by the few. Gun control advocacy is another tentacle of this octopus, as are the Middle East illegal immigration hordes in Europe and Central and South American illegal immigrant hordes in the USA.

    Charlatans like Owl Bore are pushing the Climate Change scam for all its worth and making millions from the gullible, while thousands of workers lose their jobs due to draconian environmental regulations worldwide. Coal, oil and nuclear power are all bad, wind and solar are good. Do you suppose that working until it gets dark, using windmills to power factories, riding bicycles and horse carts and reviving sailing ships will ‘protect the environment’?

  127. Jonny Eastcoast says:

    Earf not hotter. More moneys makes earf seems hotter. Good slave ask not any more. Worship holy image of the Global Dumbing and dance to tune that Climate Dullard whistle. Do not beats me oh wise Global Dumbing overseer! Takes my money in exchange for empty sense of social one upmansship in game play between Dullard Do Nothings. All Hail Global Dumbings. Save our earf.

  128. Alan J. Perrick says:

    “Anti-racists” say there’s a RACE problem. They say it’ll be solved when non-Whites pour into ALL & ONLY White nations and “assimilate” to get a brown mixture.

    They say only White nations have this RACE problem; they say non-White nations are fine.

    If I object to my own genocide these “anti-racists” say I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

    They say they’re anti-racist. What they are is anti-White.

    Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White.

  129. Brigette says:

    Geee…. it only took 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 to figure that out . Wow, Demonrats are smart !

  130. John says:

    The loss of ozone in the upper atmosphere is allowing more Solar radiation to reach the surface of the earth thereby increasing land and air temperatures. Releasing chlorofluorocarbons CFC’s was caused by civilized man seeking air conditioning and a bunch of shoot-from-the-hip (short sighted) scientists not thinking or testing the consequences of releasing CFC’s into the atmosphere.

    Overpopulation is the 8 billion ton death tsunami coming at us on a fast track that will kill all of us humans that only global cooperation can stop.

    • ChipMN says:

      I think, John, I’ve heard about overpopulation before. And the total use of petroleum reserves. Seems we’ve found alternate methods to handle both, again and again.

      But if our scientists and engineers become procedurally bankrupt, then perhaps overpopulation will indeed occur and we’ll need a reset.

  131. Kathy Dowling says:

    These useful idiots of the left shouldn’t be allowed to have guns. They are scary stupid.

  132. Alan D says:

    What is REALLY happening is a cooling trend. We may have stalled cooling a tad with things like manufacturing, deforestation, building, and related activities. Cooling buildings during the summer and warming them during the winter may have had an effect. Without our interference, the cooling trend perhaps would have been more apparent by now. It will make itself more apparent by the end of the the century, especially if volcanic activity increases or a nuclear war happens.

  133. I believe that the main reasons why so many people seem to want the global warming theory to be true is that they both don’t want the poorer countries and people of the world to have abundant access to cheap energy in the form of coal, and oil etc.. (these obviously being energy resources which have and can continue to lift many millions out of poverty) and is because they wish to pretend that they have control over the weather which does not involve their moral actions. The Bible plainly states that those who are morally upright will be blessed with good rains and those who are evil will be punished with poorer climatic outcomes to their detriment. Jesus Christ, also, says that at the time of the end there will be natural disasters, and I think that that is obviously another reason why some want to blame poor weather events on the global warming theory instead of on their poor moral character and the judgements of God. I would add that many in the West may also want to weaken the power of non-western countries which have a lot of oil resources compared to the West, and they may hope that having more of the world shunning the use of oil resources and the development of oil extraction in the name of fighting “Global Warming” could be used to gain the economic upper hand over their competitors.

  134. Richard says:

    The problem with the computer models is that if you run them backwards they can’t even predict the past climate activity. So how can they be expected to predict the future activity? They expect us to destroy our economy based on lameass computer models!!! It’s all a giant hoax.

  135. Ron Warrick says:

    An article showing that radiosonde data is rather sporadic prior to even 1995, so who knows what that earlier data in this article means. Radiosondes were never intended for the purpose of generating data on climate change until recently anyway. The earlier data is made available only because it happens to be available.

  136. Dave Samson says:

    OK..NOW it’s settled science.l

  137. Kirby (BA Chemistry) says:

    Global warming based on CO2 is fraud in its very inception. Any basic text on Organic Chemistry will show that CO2 is incapable of absorbing any significant amount of infra red radiation (linear, no dipole moment, two double bonds). The cowardly chemists in academia should be ashamed of themselves for not speaking out.

    • Sunsettommy says:

      Yes it is amazing that warmists seem completely unaware that around 95% percent of OUTGOING IR doesn’t get absorbed by CO2 at all.

      Written by an Atmospheric Physicist,

      “As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the “heat” passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don’t account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits – so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.”

  138. Brian PL says:

    Holy shit, you bible thumpers are stupid.

  139. Steve Haas says:

    Follow the money honey. Now that the coffers from the Unions are now drying up and people are beginning to see how they are being ripped off, Democrats need a new steady stream of ponzi money. This is the new scheme dreamed up by the left to swindle the American Tax Payer. Everyone with brain one knows that the majority of Democrats have no money. If they had to depend on their contributions they would be forever broke. They pay out millions in Government subsidies to these liars and they in return resend it back as campaign contributions.

  140. GUNNYG says:

    I believe in climate change. Spring to summer to fall to winter.

  141. Arthur says:

    Thank you for pointing this out.

    I wish you had also pointed out that it’s a lie that sea levels are rising, that it’s a lie that flowers are blooming earlier, that is a damned like that we’ve had more extreme climate events.

    Personally, I believe the Earth is COOLING, and that the seas are RECEDING, and that flowers are bloomer LATER.

    That’s what I believe, and NOTHING is going to change my mind.

    Thank you again for your great work!

  142. CrazyHungarian says:

    The historical record has been adjusted, re-adjusted, hidden and monkeyed with so much that it is entirely possible that there has been no world-wide warming or cooling over the last 50 years. We just don’t know with any credibility. Start over.

  143. Osamas Pajamas says:

    Geez. So my anti-AGW rant, below, is a wee bit out-of-date.


    The planet has been “cooling” for at least the past 18 years, or so — the recent cook-the-books massage job by NOAA notwithstanding. And the so-called “experts” have never “once” demonstrated, recorded, or proven human causation for “any” global warming — it’s all been projections based on computer models subject to bad historical data, divergent / incompatible or inconsistent instrumentation, exaggeration and the-sky-is-falling alarmism, and manipulation-for-profit — for taxpayer-paid government grants, carbon-credits schemes, and studies required by environmentalist wacko government regulations.

    The anthropogenic [“man-made”] global warming religion has proven very profitable for those who own the religion and who drag around by the rings in their noses the useful idiots, airheads, and drooling, googley-eyed, bobble-headed sycophants who have an intense itch to be followers, “a part of a cause bigger than themselves” — who project an arrogant condescension onto those ignorant, unwashed dissidents who, unlike themselves, remain…. unbrainwashed.

    Contemplate Gaseous Al Gore — that lying fascist sack of shit and doomsday cult Chairman Of The Apocalypse — who sold his failed global-warming alarmist TV station to Al Jazeera — a propaganda arm of some murderous oil dictatorship, somewhere out there in Kaboomistan.

    Now, didn’t Al Gore buy a 6,500 square-foot, $9 million, very-high carbon-footprint mansion in Montecito — “only” 480 feet above sea level where it is sure to be inundated by the HUGELY TOWERING WAVES of polar ice cap melt celebrated in scare-em-silly fictional environmentalist quack movies — if his bullshirt theory of man-made global warming actually proves true to reality? And this is in addition to his 10,000 square-foot mansion in Tennessee, another huge carbon footprint! And hasn’t OhBummer already bought the ocean-front Magnum-PI property in Hawaii? His bloody “rising seas” ought to swamp and drown him — else he is a lying hypocrite.

    I have no problem with people becoming fabulously rich in the capitalist system, but the stink of hypocrisy of Gaseous Al Gore — that lying fascist skunk — is annoying. He must be laughing up his sleeve at all the idiots who have enriched him through his scam, his hoax, his fraudulent religion — man-made global warming.

    So desperate now are the profiteers of his nutty religion that they are resorting once again to Hollyweird for scary big-screen movies and TV shows to carry their lunatic propaganda.

    They turn scientific method on its head, demanding that skeptics prove “that there is not” any man-made global warming, but no one is obliged to prove any such thing — for the same reason that we are not obliged to prove that the moon “is not” made of green cheese.

    It tells me something useful about opposing the OhBummer dictatorship when my reference to the moon and the green cheese in the past year was hijacked for an OhBummer speech. Possibly his speech was written by Biden The Magnificent, that lobotomized serial plagiarist who serves as OhBummer’s principal criminal accessory.

    The ecofreaks and enviromaniacs? Destroy them. Let’s just focus on ensuring clean air and clean water.

    Replace asterisks with periods, below. ~:<)




  144. Larry Croft says:

    And Al Gore cries.

  145. Richard Yingling says:

    Al Gore claims he invented the Internet.
    The Internet requires computers for users.
    Computers require Servers for data to pass from users computers.
    Massive data over the Internet requires lots of Servers.
    Servers and computers run on electricity.
    Electricity is generated by rotation of mass in a magnetic field.
    Rotation of mass requires energy, much of which comes from burning fossil fuels.
    Fossil fuel combustion leads to Green House gas creation.
    Green House gases cause Global Warming.
    Therefore, Al Gore has created a major cause of Global Warming.
    Shame on you Al.

  146. Defiant says:

    Global Warming…just another lie from the Left.

  147. Bre says:

    You completely screwed up the graph alignment. Yes you aligned the zero y axis but you didn’t scale the y axises to each other. You have basically compressed the pre data that was excluded so it is incorrect. You can’t draw any conclusion from this until you fix the data. Additionally the data is a range, but for what range, it clearly shows a min, Ave, max but you need to map that to the proper elevation on the later released graph. Very very poorly done any real scientist would be ashamed.

  148. ron hyatt says:

    proving once again that all LIEberals are morons who should be shot on sight.

  149. Art Carney says:

    remember Mrs. Clinton said, proof there is climate change, there was snow in the Rockies Mts in Jan.

  150. Xango says:

    Paging,Leo DiCaprio,please pick up the white courtesy phone..Paging Leo DiCaprio..please

  151. starzzguitar says:

    From what I can tell, the temperature fluctuations are happening WITHIN one degree, nothing to get excited about.

  152. Randall the vandal says:

    Actually their data goes back to 1880s and we’ve had the hottest year 10 times in last 16 years. Real graphs coincide with industrial revolution. Do you not want any regulations for companies? Do you think you’d be ok with a company polluting in your local water?

    • Latitude says:

      I see, so you’ve been brain washed into the “all pollution” thing…..

    • Rich says:

      The data is faulty. It has been invented, manipulated and frankly, simply altered. The computer models do not work. That has been admitted to. The hockey stick graph was arrived at in part by cleverly lowering existing older data to make it appear as though it has actually warmed in the interceding period and the sensors have been deliberately placed next to heat sources to bias the readings upward. All of this too has been admitted to and exposed in the e-mail scandal.
      I know that hearing these truths is equivalent to telling a religious fanatic there was no God or some other such thing, as this global warming scam is regarded as a religion by the left but I am sorry to say that while there may be a God indeed, there is no global warming caused by mankind. Sorry, and we’ll see you in court. You have much to answer for.
      Rich in New Mexico.

  153. Mark T says:

    I have three simple questions I like to ask those in “panic mode” who believe everything the corporate media complex (this includes PBS and NPR) says about this:

    1. Why did the glaciers start melting thousands of years before we burned any coal? (I noted the networks having Obama pose by a dripping glacier completely without comment or context).

    2. If these elites really believed in this why are they flying around in private jets? Is there anything MORE gratuitous than having an entirely separate aircraft for one or two people? Couldn’t they set an example by flying in the same plane with the rest of us? I mean there is always First Class.

    3. If it’s such a crisis why don’t they even talk about the meat? Animal agriculture is 20% of the gas output; if it’s really an “existential crisis” like the Empress-in-Waiting says–well people could go out tomorrow and change what they eat. Tax meat? I guess it doesn’t “focus group” too good.

  154. Frank says:

    Just remembered after reading comments about arctic ice the article I read about a
    small group of military aircraft that where landed on the ice in Greenland when they ran low on fuel. Thinking the military would recover them in the near future they where closed up and the pilots rescued, but after a blizzard they where abandoned altogether. Fifty some years later they where located and dug up from laying beneath
    over 250 feet of ice that formed over them. Some warming

  155. Skeptic says:

    All one has to do is take a look at the Great Lakes. Rumor has it they were formed when the glaciers retreated northward, leaving those depressions. Hmm, not many automobiles around during that time nor factories spewing forth all the ozone killing chemicals. Come to think of it, nor many people either. Sure wonder what caused that!!

  156. Rich says:

    It seems the liberal alarmists and the left will do anything to obtain their Holy Grail of unlimited taxation and unlimited regulation and tyranny. They will lie to the people, scare the children, falsify data and spread disease through their scare tactics resulting in useful pesticides being banned and food production being slashed.
    To think any of these people are concerned with the well- being of anything outside of their wallets and their power is simply ludicrous and tragic. What they want is wealth and the power to lord over the rest of us little people, telling us how to live every facet of our lives while they live in mansions, get driven in limos and jet all over the world, at our expense.
    We need not only to stop them, we need to punish them via the courts and the prison system. They have richly earned such treatment and are fully deserving of it. What say we get on with it?
    Rich in New Mexico.

  157. dp says:

    Interesting how there is so much stereotype “right-wing trash talk” in this thread. Might this be shenanigans by left-wing activists to make a Drudge-linked page look like a haven for bible-clutching, gun loving omniphobes? Sure looks like it. Most topics here get very few comments, rarely hyperbole like that seen here today, many of which lack any science content. That last being uncharacteristic of this blog. People should not go off this page thinking this prattle is typical.

    • BMcPhe says:

      Thank you for your stereotype “left-wing trash talk” in this thread. You have added much to the conversation—especially your scientific comments. Your hyperbole though is well worded. Maybe you have made scientific remarks that I did not read and if so, why this post. Unnecessary.

      • dp says:

        Thanks for not calling me a concern troll – I especially despise that one. I am, actually, a life-long conservative and I’ve experienced this reverse trash talk ploy several times in my 70 years.

    • KTM says:

      It’s simple, really.

      Brian G hijacked the comments by hitting a little too close to the truth, and libs had a meltdown. Since they are outnumbered by conservatives due to the content of this blog (evidence based science), hilarity ensued.

  158. Polly Urethane says:

    In the old days if you found out the government had wronged you, stolen from you, they would have been tarred and feathered and or hung from the neck until dead.

    I miss the old days.

  159. jose says:

    Global warming is for liberals what Satan is for fundamentalist Christians.

  160. Gerald Gibbons says:

    I sent every person from North America to the shore of Hudson Bay and had them all urinate at the same time, while the tide was coming in. Not understanding scale or the science behind the tides, a mayfly (which only lives one day) came to the conclusion that the humans were causing the the water level to rise, and that in 20 generations (of mayflies) the whole land mass of earth would be under water. Of course the mayfly hadn’t been alive long enough to observe the natural rhythm of the tides, and that the tides were bringing in about 80 million times the water volume from tidewater than all the water emanating from humans, so it is understandable that it came to that conclusion. He convinced other mayflies that the humans had to be eradicated else disaster would follow. A couple mayflies questioned whether all observed conditions had had enough sample observations, and they were called ‘deniers’ by the other weak minded mayflies. And their opinions were drowned out by the majority of gullible mayflies, kind of like when the majority told Columbus that he would sail off the edge of the earth, or when they told Galileo and Copernicus that they would be put to death or imprisoned if they didn’t rescind their theories and observations of a heliocentric solar system. Nobody can truthfully state for certain what is an ideal carbon dioxide level for human habitation. And nobody can state that human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is harmful or even significant–like the mayfly tries to do regarding sea level.

    • Brendan says:

      Wow. Didn’t think so much complete gibberish could be jammed into one place. Congratulations on that. Unfortunately for you that comparison has nothing to do with climate change in human society. It does sound good to you people living in some alternate reality where all science is only true when it’s convenient. Too bad you guys can’t join us in the real world

  161. Brendan says:

    Wow, you really nailed it pal. Really well thought out argument here. They simply cut the data off early and completely disregarded the well understood Urban heat island effect which only occurs in “Urban” areas… That’s the crux of it. Incredible.
    I wonder why litterally thousands of PhDs from every country on earth. Just. Didn’t think of that. Brilliant. You’ve completely exposed it. Maybe take a look at the other thousands of lines of evidence and not don’t just cherry pick data that support your warped view of reality
    Real science LOL

  162. Russ says:

    We had global cooling until the Left and the control freaks realized there wasn’t anything they could do to tax or control us over ‘cooling’… lots of things (so they say) cause warming and that works for their goal of tax and control.

  163. Dorrigo says:

    1 minute of research conclusively disproves this whole blogpost

    This shitty blogpost references the paper entitled “Global Temperature Variation, Surface-100 mb: An Update into 1977” where it compares temperatures from 1958 to 1976, to the NOAA data from 1979 to 2015. The NOAA data is based on data from around 800 stations with radiosondes released regularly at the same time each day. The “Update into 1977” paper on the contrary based their data on 63 stations, which didnt release balloons at regular periods as it wasn’t protocol at the time. Apples and oranges. Simply comparing the 2 graphs on the same scale without adjusting for a massive variety of factors, as the author of this blogpost has done, is not scientific.

    The comments on this article illustrate the level of scientific intelligence that these blog authors pander to

    • tonyheller says:

      The 1977 paper was from NOAA’s top expert and used all of the available 1958-1977 NOAA data, which NOAA still uses, and NOAA was referring to in their recent report.

      So take your dishonest FUD somewhere else.

      • Dorrigo says:

        “NOAA’S top expert” that is irrelevent.
        “NOAA still use the data” that is irrelevent.
        You didnt address my point at all.

        When weather balloons data is collected it’s not just input into a computer and graphed. Transformations are applied to the data to correct for all sorts of factors. By just plucking a graph from a 1977 paper and comparing it to a graph in a 2016 paper, you’re assuming all equipment monitoring accuracy, transformations of data, levels of error, sample size, spatial statistics etc etc etc were exactly the same on different papers published 39 years apart. Clearly they are not. As such you are comparing Apples and Oranges, any conclusions drawn from this comparison are completely meaningless

  164. John R says:

    I think global warming is something that is being caused by humans. It’s the fact that there are too many humans who are getting hot under the collar listening to all these so called experts spuing falsehoods about climate change. Just think of the billions of people who are pissed not only at the remarks about climate change but about the fact that people are making money while their looking for ways to feed their families. That alone is enough to change the temperature globe.

  165. Mary M Roe says:

    As the saying goes, follow the money.

    • sean o says:

      Correct. Follow the money of the FF industry. Then follow the money of you being free from the strings of the FF industry and the government. Most governments will even -help- you free yourself, because they are getting hurt by the FF industry as well.

  166. Bob G says:

    Our local weather records show the exact same trend lines in St. Cloud, MN. The most recent 25 years is the exact same temp as 1900 to 1924. A bit cooler in between those two 25 year sets.

  167. John says:

    The entire thread above is a very sad commentary on what we’ve become…willfully ignorant, intolerant and generally silly. Too bad for us.

  168. Mr. F. says:

    Krankenstein II says boo to you.
    The weather changes and we’re heading into an ice age.

  169. Marko says:

    Graph all you want. Shape statistics to your liking. Just tell me…… why are the glaciers receding at an astronomical pace? We have photographic documentation of glaciers in pictures extending back well over one hundred years and local histories of the reach of the glaciers down the valleys and in their formerly larger sizes. Plain and simple, unassailable evidence. The glaciers are disappearing. According to island nations, the waters are rising. Now, I understand that the shape of the earth may change through tectonic action and altering the depths and continental rising or sinking, but its also possible the waters are rising in the oceans due to the glaciers melting. We do know ocean levels are changing. Historic and documented fact.

    • Latitude says:

      …… why are the glaciers receding at an astronomical pace?

      Marko….at the top right of this page…there is a space called “search”

      …try putting ‘glacier’

  170. Anton Kushkovi says:

    Science tells us that life developed on Earth 3.5 to 5 billion years ago but only emerged on land 500 million years ago. Science (Paleoclimatology) tells us that since life emerged on land the climate has cycled between 2 phases on 4 different occasions; a Hot House Earth phase for 400 million of those years & a Ice House Earth (the Ice Ages) phase for 100 million of those years. The Ice House Earth phase is characterized by 15º lower temperatures and lower humidities with the presence of Polar Ice Caps and land/mountain based Glaciers with lower sea levels due to all the water locked up in the ice, ergo; we are still in an Ice Age. As during the 4 Great Ages of Plants, Insects, Amphibians and Dinosaurs (and with or without any influence from man) we will inevitable return to a Hot House Earth phase when it will be 15º warmer everywhere and much more humid and ALL the Polar Ice and land based glaciers will disappear and the sea levels will be 300 ft higher from the accompanying ice melt. Of course it will eventually get warmer, it’s cyclic, it will happen, it always happens. This is all easily researchable online.

  171. Mitch Thurmer says:

    Does anyone remember when Newsweek said we were entering a new ICE AGE ? I remember it well

  172. 2PetitsVerres says:

    Do you realize that you aligned a plot of the measurement at 100mb (the one from the old article) with a plot including different height measurement, but not the 100mb level? (they go from 200mb to 850mb)

  173. Astraea says:

    Has anyone mentioned the little matter of the chemtrails and the filtering of our Sun. OUR Sun! Our Sun, whihc is our Life and Light, which brings Life to Our Earth – OUR earth. It does not belong to the coorporations or the Chosenites or “Royalty” – it belongs to all us creatures who live here on Earth.

  174. vette66 says:

    The climate scam artist (the global cooling/warming/change “scientists”) made millions on the “Al Gore Climate Scam” and they are very, very proud of it. The Feds stole the taxpayers money (grants) and we didn’t have a choice either. Just took our money and used it to feed their friends a very good living.

  175. FrankTrades says:

    Since NOAA measurements began in the 1800s in the USA, why hasn’t sea level (and so melting of polar ice caps) increased at an accelerating rate, consistent with world population growth and burning rate of hydrocarbons and atmospheric CO2? If warming is taking place due to man, warming, and so melting of ice caps, should be manifestly increasing — atmospheric mixing is very efficient on earth. It most certainly isn’t:

  176. Kevin says:


  177. This man made global warming theory is a fabrication of governments. Governments want total control and more power over their people. The best way to achieve this is thru government regulations and passed laws when possible. This is all leading to the one world government order they want. This is controlled by the elite establishments of both parties. It doesn’t matter which party has the white house as long as the elites maintain control over their respective parties. This was the rich get richer and the ranks of the poor swell leaving record number of Americans depending on government for their very existence. Today we have a record high number of Americans on food stamps and a record number living in poverty. Real unemployment is over 12% and over 25% in the black community. This is no accident and not the resonsibility of one party. The elites are the establishments of both parties and they have more in common with each other than the average American.

  178. Jake says:

    Who thinks Obama will become the American ambassador for the global green initiative?

    • Ben Dover says:

      Barry could be the ambassador to Zimbabwe, closer to where his real roots are, than to carpetbagging and CIA grooming in a yeshiva his whole life after Jakarta.

      the dude is a shameless pile of putrid dog crap, but hey, you all voted for the turd. :)

  179. John Steever says:

    I’m going to with what I’ve learned from the world of “Concerned Citizens”. DO NOT try to confuse me with FACTS, my mind is made up.

  180. Jack Odell says:

    Hey tonyheller.

    Why mix data sources? The NOAA data goes back all the way to 1895. Why not build a chart using only their data?

      • Dorrigo says:

        And just like that, this whole blogpost was disproven…

        • Smokey says:


          See an eye doctor. Tony’s chart reinforces the fact that gov’t surface stations are being manipulated.

          Doesn’t it cause even the least bit of suspicion that those ‘adjustments’ always seem to show more & scarier warming?

          • Dorrigo says:


            My eyesight is fine. The reason I know it’s fine is because I’ve been to see an expert in the field of optometry who gave me his educated opinion based on years of research and study at educational institutes combined with practical experience.

            Imagine if, when I wanted an opinion on my eyesight, I went to an online blog written by a journalist with no formal optometry education and blindly believed their opinion on my eyesight instead of consulting an actual eye specialist! That would be ridiculous!

            Well this is exactly what you are doing by choosing to blindly believe the ””science”” on this blog. Peter Heller is a journalist. He hasn’t had any formal climate science education, he hasn’t undertaken any serious research of climatic data, and most obviously (from this post and many others) he has no idea about data transformation. Data transformation is an inherent part of spatial statistics yet from this blog you could be forgiven for thinking that Data Transformation is a conspiracy by the Liberal media (or some other tinfoil hat idea).

            Data transformations are absolutely necessary when dealing with spatio-temporal data that contains structural inconsistencies.

            Here’s a few things Peter deliberately excluded to mention in his blogpost that are relevant to this:
            1. The number of worldwide stations in the 1977 paper = 63, the number of worldwide stations in current data = more than 800
            2. The locations of a lot of existing (pre 1970) stations changed
            3. Of the 63 stations in the 1977 paper that Peter pulled that graph from, 32 are in the northern hemisphere, 9 are near the equator, and 22 are in the southern hemisphere. This indicates temperatures are going to be overstated due to a sampling bias in the warmer northern hemisphere.
            4. Between the 1977 paper and the 2016 paper the instrumentation used to measure atmospheric temperatures changed dramatically (as well as GPS allowing more exact location data)
            5. The time of day that radiosonde balloons were released changed in many stations post 1970

            The bottom line. If the ‘raw’ and ‘final’ data graphs looked the same it would be of WAAAYY more cause for alarm considering all of the inconsistencies listed above. The reason that adjustments ‘always’ seem to show more warming is due to your selection bias (in only noticing when data transformations result in increased warming, and not realising that graphs that show limited to no warming have also had data transformations applied) combined with the undeniable fact that increasing CO2 concentrations are increasing global temperatures.

  181. Mark says:

    Let’s not just look at some arbitrary 20 years of data from a research paper published in 1977, nor just 37 years or 58 years, but rather what does the official record since 1880 show?

  182. MARK POLIS, M.D. says:

    Rut roh – NOW what? There’s gotta be some other governmental hoax the government can come up with which would mandate more regulation, no?

  183. Samoth says:

    Complete Nonsense mate. You cobbled together the NOAA 2015 graph for the TROPOSPHERE temps with the SURFACE temps from an old study.
    Now why don’t you show the readers what the actual temp series graph on page 5 of the NOAA report looks like? Does the reality conflict perhaps with your belief systems?

    Your site is Real Crap, not Real Science.

    Now stop confusing the gullible.

    • tonyheller says:

      Complete bullshit. Both graphs are radiosonde.

    • Latitude says:

      Samoth…I can see how it can be very confusing…..
      The graph that’s posted…..that you confused with surface temperatures….has a link under it
      If you click on that link… states that the measurements are radiosonde


  184. AL HAHN says:

    I ALWAYS KNEW IT WAS A BUNCH OF BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  185. T P Cowberry says:

    “Global Temperature Temperature Variation, Surface-100 mb, An Update into 1977” can’t be tacked onto NOAA’s graph for 1979 through 2015 in such a fashion, because they don’t represent data collected for the same range of altitudes. “100 mb” refers to barometric pressure of 100 millibars, which converts to an altitude of nearly 52,000 feet. The NOAA graph measurements only go up to 40,000 feet.

    What we’ve got here are two sets of measurement for two different altitude ranges.

  186. Doug Nusbaum says:

    ptterh recognition: 35 to 40% of republicans support trump. I am going to make a guess that here about 60% of those at this site who deny the existence or seriousness of AGW are supporters of trump. Another 10% are some combination of anarcho-capitalists, or libertarians or surivalists. Another 10 to 20% are into serious conspiracies such as

    9/11 was an inside job and the towers were brought down by cia trained flying unicorns carrying micro nuclear weapons

    JFK was killed by the illuminati

    We Jews run everything (We do actually. We design the hardware and software that runs your cell phones and we know who you are and where you live)

    All mass shooting in this country like columbine and sandy hook are actually staged events and not only were there no dead children, but the alleged parents are really the passengers from MH370.

    etc. etc.

  187. Sam101 says:

    Hmmm…. First why is this article coming out about a data set that came out 5 years ago. Second NOAA doesn’t hide anything. If anyone did their due diligence and actually researched what you were being spoon fed to make sure it’s accurate, you’d have seen this argument was already brought up by noaa and dealt with in 1999. NOAA talks about the discrepancy between surface tsmps and trophospheic temps. They did this 15 years ago and multiple research was conducted on it. What they found wasn’t as diabolical, a grand scheme meant for trickory at their amusement, as you are being led to believe. This was handled in 1999 and the author thinks he is OK with recylcing an argument that, he assumed, no one would remember and knowing that you wouldnt do your own research and take it as the word of God. Due diligence is important in establishing credibility over anything as important as the environment we live in.

    • tonyheller says:

      Does Sam believe they recently went back to 1958 and collected new data?

      • Bloodstar says:

        Actually, you could collect more spot data if you’re willing to do some work with coral growth related to O18 concentration when you take drilled core samples of the coral. you can use these ratios as proxies to determine global temperatures down to a monthly scale. So yes, you can go back to 1958 to collect more data in a way.

  188. Harold Lucas says:

    Wellsaid my friend.

  189. BobbyC says:

    Scientists Respond to the Obama Administration’s National Climate Assessment – 2014

    The National Climate Assessment – 2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts. With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm.

    As independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of Climate Change however scary, is not proof of anything. Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration’s version of “Global Warming,” “Climate Change,” “Climate Disruption,” or whatever their marketing specialists call it today.

    We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth’s climate by burning fossil fuels. The problem with their theory is very simple: It is NOT true. Here we address the administration’s basic thesis and the essential evidence that they claim support extreme concern.

    The theory of ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’ (CAGW) is based on a string of inferences that begins with the assumptions that carbon dioxide is a ‘greenhouse gas’ and that we are slowly driving up the atmospheric concentration by burning fossil fuels. It is therefore claimed as self-evident that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) has already risen significantly and will continue to do so. Higher GAST is then presumed to lead to all sorts of negative consequences, especially Extreme Weather. They promote their ‘Climate Models’ as a reliable way to predict the future climate. But these models dramatically fail basic verification tests. Nowhere do they admit to these well-known failures. Instead, we are led to believe that their climate models are close to perfection.

    This document is structured around a “fact-check,” where we quote a number of the government’s key claims in the NCA and show each to be invalid. The first three claims involve their three crucial scientific arguments (Three Lines of Evidence or 3 LoE), which, if valid, would satisfy a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for making their case. But each is easily shown to be false; and because each is crucial, their entire theory collapses. That means that all of the overblown “Climate Disruption” evidence that they mention, whether true or not, cannot be tied back to man’s burning of fossil fuels. Hence, efforts to reduce or eliminate Extreme Weather by reducing the burning of fossil fuels are completely nonsensical.

    NCA CLAIM #1: “First ‘Line of Evidence’ (LoE) – Fundamental Understanding of GH Gases”

    “The conclusion that human influences are the primary driver of recent climate change is based on multiple lines of independent evidence. The first line of evidence is our fundamental understanding of how certain gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in these gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate.” (NCA, Page 23)

    RESPONSE: Many scientists have provided ample evidence that the government’s finding, used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is grossly flawed. In its Endangerment Finding, EPA claimed with 90-99% certainty that observed warming in the latter half of the twentieth century resulted from human activity. Using the most credible empirical data available, it is relatively straightforward to soundly reject each of EPA’s Three LoE. This U.S. Supreme Court Amicus brief contains the details:…2.pdf

    EPA’s Greenhouse Gas ‘Hot Spot’ theory is that in the tropics, the mid-troposphere must warm faster than the lower troposphere, and the lower troposphere must warm faster than the surface, all due to rising CO2 concentrations. However, this is totally at odds with multiple robust, consistent, independently-derived empirical datasets, all showing no statistically significant positive (or negative) trend in temperature and thus, no difference in trend slope by altitude. Therefore, EPA’s theory as to how CO2 impactsGAST must be rejected.

    Below is a graphical comparison of their Hot Spot theory versus reality, where reds denote warming and blues, cooling. Clearly, the government’s understanding of how CO2 gas traps heat is fundamentally flawed.

    NCA CLAIM #2: “Second LoE – Unusual Warming in recent decades”

    “The second line of evidence is from reconstructions of past climates using evidence such as tree rings, ice cores, and corals. These show that global surface temperatures over the last several decades are clearly unusual, with the last decade (2000-2009) warmer than any time in at least the last 1,300 years and perhaps much longer.” (NCA, Page 23)

    RESPONSE: “Global Warming” has not been global and has not set regional records where warming has occurred. For example, over the last fifty years, while the Arctic has warmed, the tropical oceans had a flat trend (see e.g. NOAA Buoy Data: NINO 3.4, Degrees C, available at http://www.cpc.ncep.,) and the Antarctic cooled slightly.

    The most significant warming during this period occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, north of the tropics but that ceased over the last 15 years or more. Also, as the figure below shows, over the last 130 years the decade of the 1930’s still has the most U.S. State High Temperatures records. And, over the past 50 years, there were more new State Record Lows set than Record Highs. In fact, roughly 70% of the current State Record Highs were set prior to 1940.

    See NOAA NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CTR., State Climate Extremes Committee, Records,

    If the observed warming over the last half century can anywhere be claimed to be unusual, it would have to be where it was greatest – in the Arctic. Both satellite and surface station data show a warming of about two degrees Celsius since the 1970’s. But the surface station data (see the Figure below) show that warming in context. Recent warming was very similar to the previous warming from 1900 to 1940, reaching virtually the same peak.

    This refutes the government claim that recent warming (which occurred when man-made CO2 was rising) was notably different from an era when man-made CO2 was not claimed to be a factor.

    It also points out an essential feature of most credible thermometer records that cover many decades. Our climate is highly cyclical, driven in fact by ocean and solar cycles, not carbon dioxide.

    Using only the upward trend of the most recent half cycle to suggest relentless warming is very deceptive.

    NCA CLAIM #3: Third LoE – “The Climate Models”

    The third line of evidence comes from using climate models to simulate the climate of the past century, separating the human and natural factors that influence climate.(NCA, Page 24)

    RESPONSE: The Administration relied upon Climate Models, all predicated on the GHG Hot Spot Theory, that all fail standard model validation and forecast reliability tests. These Climate Models are simulations of reality and far from exact solutions of the fundamental physics. The models all forecast rising temperatures beyond 2000 although the GAST trend has recently been flat. See the figure below. This is not surprising because EPA never carried out any published forecast reliability tests. The government’s hugely expensive climate models are monumental failures.

    NCA CLAIM #4: “Extreme Weather – Temperatures”

    “global temperatures are still on the rise and are expected to rise further.” (NCA, Page 8)

    “The most recent decade was the nation’s and the world’s hottest on record, and 2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental United States. All U.S. regions have experienced warming in recent decades, but the extent of warming has not been uniform. (NCA, Page 8)

    RESPONSE: As mentioned in the response to CLAIM #2, most of the warming in the second half of the 20th century occurred north of the tropics. But as shown below, this warming stopped over 17 years ago. Furthermore, the Hadley Centre (upon which the government and the UN IPCC heavily relied) recently announced a forecast that the GAST trend line will likely remain flat for another five years.

    See Decadal forecast, MET OFFICE,

    As for claims about record setting U.S. temperatures, please see our response to CLAIM #2 above.

    See National Space Sci. & Tech.Ctr., North of 20 North Temperature Anomalies UAH Satellite Data: Lower Troposphere Degrees C, available at t2lt/

    The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was critical of the draft National Climate Assessment, saying that “An overly narrow focus can encourage one-sided solutions, for instance by giving an impression that reducing greenhouse gas emissions alone will solve all of the major environmental concerns discussed in this report.” The NAS has also criticized “the lack of explicit discussion about the uncertainties associated with the regional model projections,” saying that “Decision makers need a clear understanding of these uncertainties in order to fairly evaluate the actual utility of using these projections as a basis for planning decisions.”

    NCA CLAIM #5 “Extreme Weather – Hurricanes”

    “The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s.” (NCA, Page 20)

    “Extreme Weather – “Droughts and Floods” “both extreme wetness and extreme dryness are projected to increase in many areas.” (NCA, Page 33)

    RESPONSE: According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC,) there is “high agreement” among leading experts that long-term trends in weather disasters are not attributable to our use of fossil fuels.

    Hurricanes have not increased in the United States in frequency, intensity, or normalized damage since at least 1900. Currently, the U.S. is enjoying a period of over eight years without a Category 3 or stronger hurricane making landfall. Government data also indicate no association between use of fossil fuels and tornado activity.

    The data on droughts paint a similar picture. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that “Climate change was not a significant part” of the recent drought in Texas. And the IPCC found that “in some regions, droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, central North America ….” The IPCC also states there is “low confidence” in any climate-related trends for flood magnitude or frequency on a global scale.

    Still More NCA CLAIMS

    RESPONSE: All of the other government claims worth discussing have been answered effectively in other commentaries. These include those related to ocean and lake ice levels, sea levels, and ocean alkalinity. Detailed rebuttals of such government claims can be found in reports available from CATO, CEI, Climate Depot, Heritage, ICECAP, TWTW, and WUWT.


    The Obama Administration’s National Climate Assessment begins with probably their most preposterous claims:

    “Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present.” (NCA, Page 1)

    “Evidence for climate change abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans.” (NCA, Page 7)

    “There is still time to act to limit the amount of change and the extent of damaging impacts” (NCA, Page 2)

    RESPONSE: This is pure rhetorical nonsense born of a cynical attempt to exploit short term memories and/or little knowledge of the Earth’s climate history and climate processes.

    Our climate is constantly changing for perfectly natural reasons that have nothing to do with carbon dioxide.

    With the Earth’s vast oceans and atmosphere never in complete equilibrium, our climate will always be changing on time scales from weeks to months to years to decades to centuries and beyond. With a star varying cyclically as our heat source and with an enormous planet like Jupiter tugging on our orbit around the Sun, dramatic climate changes are expected to occur. (See pages 39-50 in USCA, Case #09-1322, Document #1312291, Filed: 06/08/2011.) However, none of these dramatic climate changes have any connection to our use of fossil fuels.

    Yet the Obama Administration insists on building a House of Cards predicated on their Three Lines of Evidence as discussed in CLAIMS 1, 2, and 3 above. With all three of their Lines of Evidence shown to be invalid, their entire House of Cards collapses. For example, if increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations do not yield higher GAST, the claimed CO2 connection to higher sea levels is lost.

    What about their frequent claims that nearly all scientists agree with their analysis findings? By ignoring and even denouncing growing criticism, they have lost the benefit of crucial scientific debates which are critical to keeping their analyses honest and objective. In fact, as documented above in response to Claims 4 and 5, they are even disregarding their usual allies, the UN IPCC and US National Academy of Sciences, both of whom have been dialing back apocalyptic claims, not amplifying them due at least in part to such critical feedback.

    Bottom-Line: This NCA is so grossly flawed it should play no role in U.S. Energy Policy Analyses and CO2 regulatory processes. As this rebuttal makes clear, the NCA provides no scientific basis whatsoever for regulating CO2 emissions.


    Joseph S. D’Aleo
    Certified Consultant Meteorologist,
    American Meteorological Society Fellow
    M.S., Meteorology, University of Wisconsin
    B.S., Meteorology (cum laude), University of Wisconsin

    Dr. Harold H. Doiron
    Retired VP, Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.
    Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant
    B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana – Lafayette
    M.S., PhD. Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston

    Dr. Don J. Easterbrook
    Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University
    Ph.D., Geology, University of Washington, Seattle
    M.S., Geology, University of Washington, Seattle
    B.S., Geology, University of Washington, Seattle

    Dr. Neil Frank
    B.S., Chemistry, Southwestern College
    M.S., Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State Former Director of the National Hurricane Center

    Dr. Gordon J. Fulks
    Ph.D., Physics, University of Chicago
    M.S., Physics, University of Chicago
    B.S., Physics, University of Chicago

    Dr. William M. Gray
    Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
    Ph.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago
    M.S., Meteorology, University of Chicago
    B.S., Geography, George Washington University

    Art Horn
    B.Sc. Meteorology Lyndon State College Teaches Meteorology/Climatology at Tunxis Community College
    TV Meteorologist 25 years, lecturer, expert witness, radio broadcaster

    Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
    Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T.
    B.S., Physics, M.I.T.

    Dr. S. Fred Singer
    Fellow AAAS, APS, AGU
    Prof Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, U of VA
    Ph. D., Physics, Princeton University
    BEE, Ohio State University

    Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
    IPCC Expert Reviewer
    Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri
    Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
    M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University

    Dr. Madhav Khandekar
    Retired Scientist, Environment Canada
    Expert Reviewer IPCC 2007 Climate Change Documents

    George Taylor
    Certified Consulting Meteorologist
    President Applied Climate Services
    Two time President of the American Association of State Climatologists
    B.A. Mathematics, University of California
    M.S. Meteorology University of Utah

    Dr. James P. Wallace III
    Jim Wallace & Associates, LLC
    Ph.D., Economics, Minor in Engineering, Brown University
    M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Brown University
    B.S., Aeronautical Engineering, Brown University

    Dr. George T. Wolff
    Former Chair EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
    Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
    M.S., Meteorology, New York University
    B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology

    Dr. Theodore R. Eck
    Ph.D., Economics, Mich. State U.; M.A, Economics, U. of Michigan
    Fulbright Professor of International Economics Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela
    Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group

    May 15, 2014

  190. BobbyC says:

    Atmospheric scientist Dr. Chris Walcek is a professor at the University at Albany in NY and a Senior Research Associate at the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center who studies the relationship of pollutants within the atmosphere. Walcek is also a skeptic of man-made global warming fears. “10,000 years ago we were sitting under 2,000 feet of ice right here. It looked like Antarctica right here. And then over a one to two thousand year period, we went into today’s climate and the cause of that change is not, well, nobody has a definitive theory about why that happened,” Walcek said according to an article. In a separate interview, Walcek expanded on his climate skepticism and accused former Vice President Al Gore of having “exaggerated” part of his film. “A lot of the imagery like hurricanes and tornados. And as far as tornados go, there is no evidence at all that tornados are affected. And a recent committee of scientists concluded that there isn’t a strong correlation between climate change and hurricane intensity. A lot of people are saying we’re going to see more Katrina’s and there’s just not much evidence of that. We have had strong hurricanes throughout the last hundred years and we’re probably going to have strong hurricanes once in a while,” Walcek said. “We are over-due for an ice-age if you look at the geological records, we have had a period of not having a thousand feet of ice sitting here in Albany” New York, he added.

    Atmospheric scientist and hurricane expert Dr. Christopher W. Landsea NOAA’s National Hurricane Center who served as a UN IPCC as both an author and a reviewer and has published numerous peer-reviewed research noted that recent hurricane activity is not linked to man-made factors. According to an article in Myrtle Beach Online, Landsea explained that “the 1926-1935 period was worse for hurricanes than the past 10 years and 1900-1905 was almost as bad.” Landsea asserted that it is therefore not true that there is a current trend of more and stronger hurricanes. “It’s not a trend, it’s a cycle: 20-45 years quiet, 20-45 years busy,” Landsea said. He did say that a warming world would only make hurricanes “5 percent stronger 100 years from now. We can’t measure it if it’s that small.” The article said Landsea blamed Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, for “persuad[ing] some people that global warming is contributing to hurricane frequency and strength.” Landsea, who was both an author and a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after becoming charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. “I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns,” Landsea wrote in a public letter. “My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy,” he continued. “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.

    Meteorologist Justin Berk asserted that the “majority of TV meteorologists” are skeptical of dire man-made global warming claims. Berk said in an article in The Jewish Times, “I truly believe that global warming is more political than anything else. It’s a hot topic. It grabs people’s interest. As a meteorologist, I have studied this a lot and I believe in cutting down pollution and in energy efficiency. But I have a hard time accepting stories how we as individuals can stop climate change. It has happened on and off throughout history. We produce pollution but that is a small piece of the entire puzzle.” Berk continued: “There are cycles of hurricanes and we had a 30-year cycle from the 1930s to the 1950s. Then from the mid-1960s to the 1990s there was low hurricane activity. We knew there would be another round of higher activity in hurricanes and now it’s happening. [But people have] latched onto this topic and it’s been distorted and exploited. I know that a lot of scientists, including the majority of TV meteorologists, agree with me. In the mid-1970s, climate experts said we were heading for an ice age. Thirty years later, they’re saying global warming. If you look at the big picture, we’ve had warming and cooling throughout history. It’s a natural cycle. We haven’t created it and it’s not something we can stop.”

    CNN Meteorologist Rob Marciano compared Gore’s film to “fiction” in an on air broadcast. When a British judge ordered schools that show Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth to include a disclaimer noting multiple errors in the film, Marciano applauded the judge saying, “Finally, finally.” Marciano then added, “The Oscars, they give out awards for fictional films as well.” Marciano specifically critiqued Gore for claiming hurricanes and global warming were linked.

    Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

    Briggs, a visiting Mathematics professor at Central Michigan University and a Biostatistician at New York Methodist Hospital, has a new paper coming out in the peer-reviewed Journal of Climate which finds that hurricanes have not increased in number or intensity in the North Atlantic. Briggs, who has authored numerous articles in meteorological and climatological journals, has also authored another study looking at tropical cyclones around the globe, and finds that they have not increased in number or intensity either. Briggs expressed skepticism about man-made global warming fears in 2007. “There is a lot of uncertainly among scientists about what’s going on with the climate,” Briggs wrote to EPW. “Most scientists just don’t want the publicity one way or another. Generally, publicity is not good for one’s academic career. Only, after reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet,” Briggs explained. “It is well known that weather forecasts, out to, say, four to five days, have skill; that is, they can beat just guessing the average. Forecasts with lead times greater than this have decreasing to no skill,” Briggs wrote. “The skill of climate forecasts—global climate models—upon which the vast majority of global warming science is based are not well investigated, but what is known is that these models do not do a good job at reproducing past, known climates, nor at predicting future climates. The error associated with climate predictions is also much larger than that usually ascribed to them; meaning, of course, that people are far too sure of themselves and their models,” he added. Briggs also further explained the inadequacies of climate models. “Here is a simplified version of what happens. A modeler starts with the hypothesis that CO2 traps heat, describes an equation for this, finds a numericalapproximate solution for this equation, codes the approximation, and then runs the model twice, once at ‘pre-industrial’ levels of CO2, and once at twice that level, and, lo!, the modeler discovers that the later simulation gives a warmer atmosphere! He then publishes a paper which states something to the effect of, ‘Our new model shows that increasing CO2 warms the air,’” Briggs explained. “Well, it couldn’t do anything *but* show that, since that is what it was programmed to show. But, somehow, the fact the model shows just what it was programmed to show is used as evidence that the assumptions underlying the model were correct. Needless to say—but I will say it—this is backwards,” he added.

    Meteorologist and hurricane expert Boylan Point, past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s broadcast board, a retired U.S. Navy Flight meteorologist with Hurricane Hunters and currently a forecaster with WSBB in Florida, dissented from the view that man-made CO2 is driving a climate disaster. “A lot of folks have opinions in which they have nothing to back them up with. Mr. [Al] Gore I think may well fit into that category,” Point said in an interview on “To lay the whole thing [global warming] at one doorstep [CO2] may be a bit of a mistake,” Point explained. Point is a pioneer in the study of hurricanes, having logged thousands of hours flying through the storms taking critical measurements during his U.S. Navy career.

    Chief Meteorologist Topper Shutt of DC’s Channel 9, and formerly of CNN, holds the American Meteorological Societies Seal of Approval. Shutt expressed skepticism of a man-made crisis. “CO2 is just one variable in a most complex global climate. I have stated for years that some of the effects of global warming might even be beneficial. We might see crops grown farther north and in areas of the world that previously could cultivate nothing,” Shutt wrote. “Global warming is such a politically charged issue that we are losing our perspective on the issue and more importantly losing an open forum from which to discuss the issue. If we lose the right or comfort level to openly discuss and debate this issue we will not be able to tackle it efficiently and economically,” Shutt wrote. “Should we instead put that money into schools, infrastructure and R & D? I am not trying to diminish global warming but I am, like [author of Skeptical Environmentalist] Bjorn Lomborg, attempting look at it from a different perspective. Some of the effects of global warming have been greatly exaggerated (when the ice cubes in your drink melt does you glass overflow?) and our money may be better spent exploring other avenues in addition to CO2 reduction,” Shutt added. Shutt also wrote, “I try and remind our viewers that climate is always in a state of flux and yes, the world has warmed over the last 25 years but claiming that Katrina is a product of global warming is absurd. We have had much stronger hurricanes hit the United States in the past, the Labor Day or Keys hurricane of 1935 and Camille in 1969 to name just two. There is much more development now on our shores.”

    Chief Meteorologist Kevin Lemanowicz of 25 TV in Massachusetts dissented from man-made climate fears “I continue to say that we have obviously warmed, but we should not be setting policy based on an uncertain climate future,” Lemanowicz wrote on April 14 “I am not convinced we have been the dominant force in our global warming, and I certainly don’t trust climate models that are integrating thousands of variables thousands of time-steps into the future. There is chaos inherent in these models,” Lemanowicz explained. “One of the cornerstones of the movie An Inconvenient Truth was the belief that global warming will cause more frequent and more ferocious hurricanes.

    This belief was shared by esteemed MIT scientist Dr. Kerry Emmanuel. Well, just like that, the tide has turned,” Lemanowicz wrote, noting that Emmanuel was reconsidering his views on the global warming-hurricane link. In a May 1 report, Lemanowicz noted that “carbon dioxide is a good thing.” He wrote: “Did you know that if the greenhouse effect didn’t exist, life on this planet would be frozen? Further, I’m sure you remember from grade-school science that carbon dioxide is vital for life. Plants need it, and, in turn, give us oxygen. No CO2 means no plants, which means little oxygen for us. Certainly not enough to live on. Why, then, is CO2 called “pollution”? Is it really bad for us?”

    Physicist Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, of the Institute of Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig in Germany, and Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner co-authored a July 7 paper titled “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics.” The abstract of the paper reads in part, “(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects; (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet; (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly; (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately; (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical; (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.” Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s study concluded, “The horror visions of a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences of fictitious physical mechanisms, as they cannot be seen even in the climate model computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by climate models, because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training.”

    Renowned hurricane forecaster Dr. William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the schools Tropical Meteorology Project, chastised former Vice President Al Gore as “a gross alarmist” in an Associated Press interview. “[Gore’s] one of these guys that preaches the end-of-the-world type of things. I think he’s doing a great disservice and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” Dr. Gray said. The AP article explained, “Gray believes a recent increase in strong hurricanes is not due to global warming but is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns.” Gray believes current climate researchers rely too much on computer models. “Us older guys that were around in the pre-satellite, pre-computer age, we had to deal with the real weather. Most of these people don’t forecast,” he said. “They don’t live in a real world. They’re living in an imaginary world.”

    Senior Meteorologist Dr. Joe Sobel of Accuweather, winner of the American Meteorological Society 2005 Award for Broadcaster of the Year, asserted that climate change is nothing new. “The climate is changing. The climate has always changed, that is a fact of the earth’s existence,” Sobel said. Sobel has 35 years experience at Accuweather and has also been a member of the American Meteorology Society since 1966. “Only 10,000 years ago — which is geologically speaking is like [the snap of a finger] — we were in the midst of an ice age,” Sobel said. “There is not much doubt that climate changes and that climate will continue to change,” Sobel reiterated. “The question is what is causing it. It is totally a naturally cycle? Is it totally human induced? I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between,” he concluded. Sobel also lamented the National Hurricane Center’s new tropical storm naming policy because he believes it results in false claims of global warming related increases in storms. “Back in the old days… and I’m only talking 5 years or so ago… we did not name sub-tropical storms. Names were only given to storms that were deemed to be truly tropical. In the last few years, there have been a number of sub-tropical storms named. Those named storms go into the total of named storms and obviously increase the number of storms that year and consequently increase the average number of storms per year,” Sobel wrote in his blog. “It has been claimed that global warming is responsible for an increasing number of tropical storms and hurricanes, but here is a reason that the number of storms is increasing that has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. It’s because we are mixing apples and oranges and calling them all apples!” he added.

    “According to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero,” Hans von Storch IPCC lead author

  191. BobbyC says:

    Climate of Fear – Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

    There have been repeated claims that past year’s hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

    The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science–whether for AIDS, or space, or climate–where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

    But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

    To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let’s start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man’s responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn’t just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

    If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less–hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

    So how is it that we don’t have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It’s my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton’s concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann’s work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested–a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community’s defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences–as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union–formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton’s singling out of a scientist’s work smacked of intimidation.

    All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists–a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

    Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

    And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an “Iris Effect,” wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as “discredited.” Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming–not whether it would actually happen.

    Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

    M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

  192. BobbyC says:

    “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

    “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

    “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

    “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

    “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

    “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

    “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

    “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

    “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

    “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

    “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

    “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

  193. barry says:

    Splicing surface-100mb with lower layer atmospheric temp profiles?

    100mb is well up in the lower stratosphere, which as we know has a long-term cooling trend (predicted from GHG warming). This splice throws a few oranges in the basket of apples.

    As for adjustments: conspiracy theories only. Or would you like the raw sea surface data from 1900? That would significantly raise the centennial surface trend, as adjustments to pre WWII sea surface data raised those historic temps, thereby cooling the long-term record. Careful what you wish for.

  194. Doug Cotton says:

    Copy of my email just sent to over 100 Australian politicians and including a link to this article.

    Subject: Troposphere Radiosonde measurements show NO GLOBAL WARMING in 58 year records.

    Dear Politicians

    Yet again we see tampering with global temperature records to fake a warming trend.* There has been no overall warming in all the 58 years of radiosonde measurements, which are the true measure of global temperature trends. Land based measurements are affected by urban crawl and climatologists even adjust unaffected measurements upwards so that they are similar to the ones affected by urban crawl! This is outright scientific fraud. They are trying to defeat capitalism.


    What really happens is entirely due to natural cycles probably regulated by the Sun and planetary orbits. There is a 1,000 year cycle due to turn to cooling before the end of this century, continuing for about 500 years until the 26th century. Superimposed on that is a 60 year cycle which was rising for 30 years until 1998, but is now falling until 2028. The net effect at present is very slight net cooling for 30 years that started after 1998, as can be seen in the monthly charts on Dr Roy Spencer’s website but, despite this, Dr Spencer is still what we call a Luke, as he has himself been persuaded by the fictitious fiddled physics generated in climatology circles. Lukes still think carbon dioxide warms, but valid physics can be used to prove it doesn’t. Studies also show the most prolific greenhouse gas, water vapour, cools rather than warms also. On my blog* you will see reference to Dr Spencer’s errors and a copy of my email (also below) to which he has not been able to reply with any valid refutation.


    Basically climatologists do not have a correct understanding of the advanced physics involved. Their “school-boy” physics gives wrong answers, and what they know of First Year university physics is then incorrectly applied ignoring the pre-requisites for certain laws to be applicable. In contrast, I studied second and third year physics at Distinction level for my science degree, gained a scholarship awarded by the Physics Dept of Sydney University, helped many students understand maths and physics for several decades and have done extensive post graduate studies in thermodynamics – which is essential for understanding climate. I have written two papers on this and a book, website and blog.

    Yesterday I wrote to the main state National / Liberal parties offering to support the NSW party regarding their request to have an enquiry into the IPCC claims, which I can very easily disprove with valid physics.

    I ask you, as politicians with a responsibility to pay due diligence to such an investigation, to agree to such an enquiry, because this, I can see, is the greatest fraud the world has ever seen.


    Doug Cotton
    Researcher into Atmospheric Physics
    author of the book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All”


    (Sent by email 14 March 2016)
    Roy, Firstly, what you depend on is NOT the official IPCC explanation. Their energy diagrams very clearly imply that we can mathematically add the two fluxes (solar and atmospheric) just as if they have identical warming properties. It’s there in the figures: deduct the non-radiative cooling and you have 168+324-102=390W/m^2 which by coincidence (/sarc) has a blackbody temperature of 287.99K. This also assumes we have a flat Earth receiving a steady 390W/m^2 day and night.
    The Sun’s direct radiation reaching the surface is far too weak to explain the observed surface temperatures in nearly all of the surface of the globe except where the Sun is nearly directly overhead on a clear day. On Venus the solar radiation reaching its surface is never sufficient anywhere.

    So the rate of cooling is irrelevant. Unless you do it the incorrect IPCC way, you cannot “explain” the surface temperature at all, as James Hansen realized and thus assumed back radiation did it because he forgot what Loschmidt said about the gravitationally induced temperature gradient that explains what happens on all planets.
    Secondly, there is about twice as much non-radiative energy loss and, as I said in my 2012 paper, that cooling is not affected and it can accelerate to compensate. But what determines the minimum temperature that night is the supporting temperature in all the adjoining (mostly) nitrogen, oxygen and argon molecules. This is explained in my 2013 paper. Who cares if it takes an extra minute or so to get down to the supporting temperature in calm conditions in the early pre-dawn hours when we know cooling almost stops altogether? Do you ever wonder why?
    Increasing water vapor lowers the supporting temperature (by reducing the lapse rate = temperature gradient) far more than any slowing of radiative cooling could increase the minimum temperature.

    You, Roy, try to claim water vapor increases the surface temperature and lowers the upper troposphere temperature, thus making the lapse rate steeper, whereas in fact it becomes less steep, and my study (in the Appendix of my 2013 paper) shows more moist regions are indeed cooler.
    Yet again, Roy (and others) I refer you to “THE QUESTIONS THAT STUMP LUKES AND WARMISTS” towards the end of my blog
    The electro-magnetic energy in radiation from an effectively cooler source (as even the Sun is, for example, just after dawn) is not thermalized in the surface as explained by Prof Claes Johnson, whose work I cited in my 2012 paper.
    Just because the IR thermometer reads warmer than the surface where you are when pointed almost parallel to the surface merely means that either the air is actually warmer over there (due to weather conditions) or the thermometer is not correctly calibrated for such measurements because it “assumes” the wrong emissivity.
    As I have pointed out, you simply cannot explain Venus surface temperatures (which would require radiation over 16,600W/m^2) with 20W/m^2 of solar radiation, even if you incorrectly add atmospheric radiation, because, with emissivity well below 1.00 and atmospheric temperature below that of the surface, there simply is not enough. Non radiative cooling losses would be several times the solar radiation, and atmospheric radiation could never exceed what would be required to explain a rise from about 732K to about 737K during 4 months on the sunlit side.
    The radiative greenhouse conjecture is thus wrong because …
    (1) You cannot explain surface temperatures with radiation reaching the surface
    (2) So you cannot explain changes in surface temperatures with such radiation.

  195. Ben says:

    “They are trying to defeat capitalism”
    Tinfoil hat detected
    Opinion disregarded