July Was Absolutely Gavin’s Most Fraudulent Month On Record

Gavin is claiming that July was absolutely the hottest month on record. This is utter nonsense – as always.


2016-08-16122127 2016-08-16123047

July was ‘absolutely’ Earth’s hottest month ever recorded – The Washington Post

More accurate measurements of the lower troposphere show that July was nowhere near as warm as 1998 and 2010.



Gavin shows that it was hot in the Arctic, when in fact it was cold – as the ship of fools discovered.


Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

There has been a massive expansion of thick Arctic Sea ice.

Greenland set their coldest July temperature on record of -30C.


Google Translate

Melting on the Greenland ice sheet was well below average.


Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

July temperatures in the US were just about average.

Screen Shot 2016-08-11 at 1.18.52 PM

The percent of US HCN stations to reach 100 degrees was well below average.

Screen Shot 2016-08-11 at 1.16.22 PM The percent of days above 100 degrees was also below average. Screen Shot 2016-08-11 at 1.12.35 PM

So where was the hot weather?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to July Was Absolutely Gavin’s Most Fraudulent Month On Record

  1. RAH says:

    The lies just keep coming.

    • Phil Jones says:

      They just paint it Red… people think its hot despite the Temperature..

      • clod hopper says:

        fyi ,
        If people think its hot its usually because of a thing commonly called heat. Did did you know that temperature is a common indica of heat and that thermometers measure heat?

        For example, if the temperature in your house is high relative to yesterday in your house, a thermometer should so indicate,
        although, in America thee are many people like you called Deniers who reject this simple science.

  2. BobW in NC says:

    Outright FRAUD!!! When, oh when, will they be called out?

    If the winter of 2016-2017 turns out to be as cold as some predictions call for, it will be interesting to see their pretzel logic brought out again.

  3. BallBounces says:

    What role does data tampering and temperatures infilling play in all of this?

    • Phil Jones says:

      When the data doesn’t show what you want.. just change it (data tampering) or simply create data where none exists (infilling)… its “artsem” for the Climate Models..

  4. Mac says:

    The climate change cultists are amazing. When I was a kid, all that hot weather in July was simply called “summer”. If it was over 95 degrees for a few days, the weather people on TV also called it “summer”. Maybe they said “heat wave”, but no mention of “heat dome” or some other fabricated scary-sounding term that provokes thoughts of apocaplypse in the mind of the listener. The climate terminology is so manipulative and disingenuous.

    This global warming garbage is really getting silly now. If the temperature anywhere on Earth goes above 75 degrees or below 30 degrees these liars claim it’s a result of 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere.

  5. CheshireRed says:

    Look at that top graph. That’s a 136 year record yet the margin of this year compared to all previous years is so vast it could make your eyes pop. Not just for a short term, either. It’s miles above the entire record for the whole year. Massive data-manipulation is the only answer. What cowards we have in senior ‘science’ roles these days.

    • CheshireRed says:

      PS. In particular they’ve rigged the data in summer because they’re desperate to claim ‘record summer high temperatures’ and the like.

    • Windchaser says:

      Not just for a short term, either. It’s miles above the entire record for the whole year.

      Yes – it couldn’t possibly be that the Earth is actually warming, and the surface temperature has natural variability over ~10 year timespan, such that big record-breaking years are.. not horribly abnormal, really, when you have a strong uptrend underneath it.

      So, maybe the Earth is just warming, like scientists and physics have been telling us for decades.

      • tonyheller says:

        Or maybe an intelligent person would look at the troposphere temperatures instead of parking lot temperatures. And an intelligent person wouldn’t consider a handful of paid political hacks to represent “science”

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey Windchaser! I have a sincere and polite question for you. Can you please explain why the adjustments to the temperature record (not the actual temperatures, but rather the adjustments to the raw data) track CO2 almost perfectly?

        (See bottom graph here: https://realclimatescience.com/all-temperature-adjustments-monotonically-increase/ )

        • Jason Calley says:

          If sceptics are wrong there surely must be a reasonable explanation for the adjustments tracking CO2. I would truly love to hear what it could be.

      • Gail Combs says:

        “…So, maybe the Earth is just warming, like scientists and physics have been telling us for decades.”
        Or maybe people would pay attention to Quaternary Science and realize the earth is COOLING and has been since the Holocene Optimum, 6,000 years ago.

        Maybe people should look at the solar insolation at the START of the Holocene which was the Holocene peak insolation @ 60N 523 Wm-2

        Compared it to NOW (modern Warm Period) @ 476 Wm-2
        and realize the solar insolation DECREASED by 47 Wm-2 almost ten times the wimpy contribution from CO2.****

        Also the depths of the last Ice Age was 464 Wm−2
        only 12 Wm-2 less than now.

        While the Wisconsin Ice age- Holocene transition, 12,000 years ago was 522.50 Wm-2

        These are from NOAA’s numbers calculated by Berger @ 60N not 65N

        **** It takes 5.44 W/sq.m to raise the tempearture 1 degree C according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law assuming the average surface temperature is 288K. The entire CO2 forcing is 32 to 44 W m–2 [cf., Reid, 1997]. and all but 5 to 6 W m–2 of that forcing occurs in the first 200 ppm CO2 (modtran) A CO2 concentration where plants barely survive.

        On can see from this data that once the Earth flips into the Ice Box mode there is no going back at the present insolation.

        So the question is will the earth flip into glaciation? The Holocene interglacial is now 11,700 years old. That’s two centuries or so beyond half the present precession cycle (or 23,000/2=11,500). So the little Ice Age was about the right time for glacial inception. However we had the Modern Grand Solar Minimum now ending. SEE – A History of Solar Activity over Millennia

        Will the earth descend into glaciation or be a ‘‘double precession cycle’’ interglacial? That is still being argued. However one thing is for sure the earth is certainly not going to warm for another 65 kyr and it is going to be very nasty violent cold weather. As geologists Neuman and Hearty put it. ” between the greenhouse and the icehouse lies a climatic “madhouse”!”

        Both NASA and WIki use Berger’s MODELS to say the Holocene will continue and the Ice Age the earth is presently in has ended. However more recent research using real data shoots Berger’s models dead.
        A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic D18O records by Lisiecki & Raymo
        We present a 5.3-Myr stack (the ‘‘LR04’’ stack) of benthic d18O records from 57 globally distributed sites aligned by an automated graphic correlation algorithm. This is the first benthic d18O stack composed of more than three records to extend beyond 850 ka,…

        Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA Community Members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with d18O values below 3.6% for 20 kyr, from 398 – 418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6% for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398– 418 ka as from 250–650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the 21 June insolation minimum at 65°N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘‘double precession cycle’’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence….

        Will the earth descend into glaciation or be a ‘‘double precession cycle’’ interglacial? That is still being argued although the above paper carries a lot of weight.

        A newer paper from the fall of 2012 Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? agrees and gives the calculated solar insolation values @ 65N on June 22 for several glacial inceptions:
        Current Solar insolation = 479 W m−2

        MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m−2,
        MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m−2,
        MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m−2,
        MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m−2,
        MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m−2

        Those numbers give you a feel for how close to glaciation we are, but just keep on worrying about melting ice and CO2. That leaves plenty of southern land for those of us who have not been brainwashed.

      • Sunsettommy says:


        You chase only manipulated surface temperature data,how charming.

        Satellite data is far more accurate,yet you ignore it.

  6. Justa Joe says:

    Besides more than typical rain it’s been a completely unremarkable July where I live. I guess Gavin et al are pulling out all the stops for Shrillary. They must reason that AGW scare propaganda is winning tactic for the Donks.

  7. Eliza says:

    Great posting!

  8. RAH says:

    Many of the data sets show June and July as the hottest during the satellite era. But the claim that it’s unnatural warming is just plain bunk. And the claim that this year is “99%” certain to be the warmest on record is also just a result of Gavin’s fabrications. It’s a toss up right now as to if 2016 will be the warmest according to the UAH. And of course anyone that knows diddly squat about El Nino effects knows that there is a significant lag time between the time the SSTs in the El Nino zones drop and the effect on temperatures subsides.

    This crap is just more support for the current administrations next step using “climate change” as an excuse to further expand the executive branches powers. It’s so easy to read them when one pays attention to both the political and pseudo science sides of the government.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Seems a Tinfoil hat type way back in the 1970’s nailed it.

      The Rockefeller File by Gary Allen
      Published June 28th 1976

      “The master planners devised the strategy of a merger – a Great Merger – among nations.

      But before such a merger can be consummated, and the United States becomes just another province in a New World Order, there must at least be the semblance of parity among the senior partners in the deal. How does one make the nations of the world more nearly equal?

      The Insiders determined that a two-prong approach was needed; use American money and know-how to build up your competitors, while at the same time use every devious strategy you can devise to weaken and impoverish this country. [See Chasing the Dragon: Clinton’s China Policy for how Clinton implemented this plan. ] The goal is not to bankrupt the United States. Rather, it is to reduce our productive might, and therefore our standard of living, to the meager subsistence level of the socialized nations of the world.

      The plan is not to bring the standard of living in less developed countries up to our level, but to bring ours down to meet theirs coming up… It is your standard of living which must be sacrificed on the altar of the New World Order….

      Much of the spade work for setting up this ploy is being done by Henry Kissinger, who was a personal employee of Nelson Rockefeller for a decade before Rocky placed him in the Nixon Administration….

      It is Kissinger’s belief, according to his aides, that by controlling food, one can control people, and by controlling energy, especially oil, one can control nations and their financial systems. By placing food and oil under international control along with the worlds monetary system, Kissinger is convinced a loosely knit world government operating under the frame-work of the United Nations can become a reality before 1980.

      Common sense tells us that a Rockefeller hireling such as Kissinger would not be setting up an “international control” system which takes assets from the Rockefellers and gives them to someone else. Obviously, the game plan is to take other people’s assets and put them under the umbrella of a Rockefeller-controlled World Government.”

      Do not forget the Food Safety Modernization Act placed US farmers and food sellers under the control of the World Trade Organization. (I still hate Richard Burr for that tra–torous act.)

      (Read online or as pdf.)
      Excerpts at http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/New_World_Order/Rockefeller_File.html

      Interesting that the International Monetary Eund (IMF) article from September 2012 World Economy: Convergence, Interdependence, and Divergence Finance & Development

      Shows how far along this plan has gotten.

      New convergence and strengthened interdependence coincide with a third trend, relating to income distribution. In many countries the distribution of income has become more unequal, and the top earners’ share of income in particular has risen dramatically. In the United States the share of the top 1 percent has close to tripled over the past three decades, now accounting for about 20 percent of total U.S. income (Alvaredo and others, 2012). At the same time, while the new convergence mentioned above has reduced the distance between advanced and developing economies when they are taken as two aggregates, there are still millions of people in some of the poorest countries whose incomes have remained almost stagnant for more than a century (see “More or Less,” F&D, September 2011). These two facts have resulted in increased divergence between the richest people in the world and the very poorest, despite the broad convergence of average incomes.

      So the IMF shows we are becoming a two class society, the elite and their suck-ups and the serfs. CAGW is the Psy-ops used to make the serfs accept the drastic decrease in their standard of living.

  9. Dr Joe says:

    Pure ignorance and misinterpretation of information. Leave the science for the educated.

    • tonyheller says:

      Moron alert

    • Mac says:

      Yes, I agree. We should sternly warn everyone not to try to dispute the Sacred Climate Science-y Texts, lest the gods smite us with continual thousand-year rains, frogs, and swarms of locusts. I have warned thee. If thou dost not listen, Mother Gaia will send the Creeping Death upon Exxon-Mobil and your air conditioners.

      LOL. Idiot.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Dr Joe says: “Pure ignorance and misinterpretation of information. Leave the science for the educated.”


      Really nice try with the Ad Hom there but many of us like Tony are scientists and we recognize propaganda disguised as science when we see it.

      Go pedal your crap to the uneducated brain dead sheeple at Huff ‘n Puff or the Groiniad. They might even believe you.

  10. AJ HARZKR says:

    It’s just MATH folks. This guy is using calculations of anomalies and days over 100 degrees only. When looking at AVERAGE monthly temps over time, as Gavin did, the trend is toward increasing temps. The average is a more robust measure than absolute temps or the number of days reaching a given temp.

    • tonyheller says:

      AJ prefers parking lot temperatures and fabricated data to actual measurements of the troposphere. (Folks)

    • Jason Calley says:

      “The average is a more robust measure than absolute temps or the number of days reaching a given temp.”

      In what sense? Compared to what?

      Suppose we consider two areas which each have a decadal average low of 60F and an average high of 84F, giving us an overall average temperature of 72F in each. One area then has a climatic change and shifts to an average low of 32F and an average high of 112F for an unchanging average of 72F. Hurray, the average is unchanged! The other area shifts to an average low of 64F and an unchanged high of 84F, giving us a catastrophic shift hotter of 2F to an average of 74F. Horrors!

      I know which area I would prefer… and my preference is not based on some “robust” abstract average.

    • Latitude says:

      It’s just MATH folks.
      Yes, adjustments are math

    • Gail Combs says:

      OH, what FUN!

      Here you go with a short list of all the problems with Gavin’s propaganda.

      Here are two examples why we know the adjustments used to increase current temperatures are bogus.

      They lower the old readings because of a TOBS (Time of Observation) adjustment.

      Zeke Hausfeather of BEST, a dyed in the wool Climate Alarmist says on Judith Curry’s website:

      “….Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations since 1960…”

      However a meteorology textbook from 1918 states:

      When a maximum thermometer is not read for several hours after the highest temperature has occurred and the air in the meantime has cooled down 15° or 20°, the highest temperature indicated by the top of the detached thread of mercury may be too low by half a degree from the contraction of the thread….

      …..The observations of temperature taken at a regular station are the real air temperature at 8am and 8pm, the highest and lowest temperatures of the preceding 12 hours, and a continuous thermograph record…. (Richard Freres thermograph) ….these instruments are located in a thermometer shelter…

      …The Ventilated thermometer which is the best instrument for determining the real air temperature, was invented by Assman at Berlin in 1887…will determine the real air temperature correctly to a tenth of a degree….

      The author says a thermometer in a Stevenson screen is correct to within a half degree. Two thermometers are used an Alcohol for Minimum and a Mercury for Maximum supplied with a manual in 1882 to the coop stations by the US Weather Bureau. He also states there are 180 to 200 ‘regular weather stations’ ordinarily in the larger cities that take reading twice daily and a continuous reading too. There were 3600 to 4000 coop stations and 300 to 500 special stations that recorded other aspects of the weather.

      So that is one example where the correction applied by the ClimAstrologists is IN THE WRONG DIRECTION! Steven Goddard attacks TOBS directly by looking at the data and also comes up with the conclusion that TOBS adjustments are unjustified.

      Here is another.
      Hausfeather goes on to say:

      ….For example, MMTS sensors tend to read maximum daily temperatures about 0.5 C colder than LiG thermometers at the same location. There is a very obvious cooling bias in the record associated with the conversion of most co-op stations from LiG to MMTS in the 1980s….

      Yet notrickszone reports the findings of a carefully conducted test by

      …German veteran meteorologist Klaus Hager, see here and here. The test compared traditional glass mercury thermometer measurement stations to the new electronic measurement system, whose implementation began at Germany’s approximately 2000 surface stations in 1985 and concluded around 2000.

      Hager’s test results showed that on average the new electronic measurement system produced warmer temperature readings: a whopping mean of 0.93°C warmer. The question is: Is this detectable in Germany’s temperature dataset? Do we see a temperature jump during the time the new “warmer” system was put into operation (1985 – 2000)? The answer is: absolutely!…

      So with just those two wrong way adjustments they change the data by more than 1 °C and that does not get into dropping rural stations and smearing the data from airports and cities for 1200 kilometers.

      There is plenty of other stinking rot underlying Gavin’s ‘data’ those are just two.

  11. TA says:

    What I find a little astonishing is how blatantly the Climate Change Gurus lie. They lie when the lie is obvious, and then expect us to swallow it. I guess they can get away with it for at least five and one-half more months. Then we’ll see. Things might take a drastic change.

  12. TC says:

    You climate deniers are crazy!

  13. Neal S says:

    I did. That site does not exist. You have proved yourself to be a liar, so I can now discount everything you may claim.

    You may be your own drummer, but it seems you certainly can’t think for yourself.

  14. Gator69 says:

    This is the best argument I have seen from an alarmist, but then none of what they say makes sense, so it is a very low bar.

  15. Paul Reimer says:

    Give me a break. “Real Science”. There are fewer and fewer of you “deniers” every year and for good reason. Thanks for being textbook cases for cognitive dissonance, though. At least that’s good for a laugh. ;)

    • tonyheller says:

      In other words, Paul has nothing intelligent to say.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Notice how all the CAGW believing Sheeple can not actually refute what is presented here. Instead like the monkeys at the Zoo they fling feces.

        Keep up the good work Tony, it is much appreciated by those of us who can think.

    • Manfred Kintop says:

      You can lead an alarmist to data but you can’t make him think. Actually Paul, I’ve spoken to a great number of educated individuals who used to “believe” like you do but became enlightened once they found their objectivity. I’ve never met anyone who was a sceptic that suddenly embraced the popular polemic. Not a single person. Since you use big words like “cognitive dissonance”, I am curious if you also understand what the term “projection” means.

    • mike says:

      SHoW uS tHe DaTa THeN We MiGHT LiSTeN To YoU FooL !

    • Sunsettommy says:


      I can’t make up a decent counterpoint,thus throw name calling around is all I can think up.

  16. brian says:

    stupid wunderground.com now has a prominent box on display on each forecast page titled: “July 2016 Was Earth’s Warmest Month on Record”.

    Any decent weather site that actually reports weather and not blatant propaganda?

  17. Peter says:

    Thank heavens. I was sooo worried. I can’t tell you what a relief it is to read your wonderful commentary. Those bastard scientists should be strung up. Years and years of publicly funded educations and what do we get; humbug and bias. Ever since I was a boy in the late 60’s I’ve been scared half to death listening to the climatologists and watching the weather in the UK gradually changing, getting more and more humid and less sunny, more rain than I ever remember, weird bugs biting me, no real summers any more, just grey mizzle with the occasional sunny days, winters with persistent 100mph gusty winds and more rain, towns that never ever flooded when I was young doing so now regularly, all sorts of weirdly unusual weather patterns, and that’s in the UK! Thank Christ it’s all just my imagination. Just popping out to buy a 6ltr turbocharged Ferrari……

  18. Dan says:

    You people are idiots. Scientists gather data. That’s what they do. Their work is done carefully, objectively and thoroughly. Everything they do is checked and double checked and thoroughly scrutinized. Any scientist who faked or changed or made up data would lose their credibility, their reputation and their job. But please don’t take my word for it (like there’s any danger of that.) Go to your nearest colleges, university or research institution and ask them what scientists do.

    • tonyheller says:

      Moron alert

      Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

      a research finding is less likely to be true when …. there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice ….. . Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.

    • RAH says:

      I know what the “scientists” that continually claim new hottest evah records do. They fabricate data! They also denied an indisputable pause in global warming as measured by satellites and radiosondes for years and then after those years of denial and assaulting the character and intelligence of those that were pointing it out, suddenly admitted that there was a pause. Then within a 18 months they published over 80 papers trying to explain where the heat went. That’s what a lot of scientists which claim climate did.

      Then some of the others, claimed that Texas was going into a permanent drought when that state when through a dry spell. When the drought was broken by record cooling rains two years later, they then claimed such heavy precipitation was the result of man caused climate change and we could expect such events to be come more common.

      Yea, I see what the kind of “scientists” your attempting to defend do.

    • Gail Combs says:

      ” Any scientist who faked or changed or made up data would lose their credibility, their reputation and their job.”

      HaHaHaHa.. Rolling on the floor laughing my arse off!

      Dude I got FIRED THREE TIMES and then was BLACKBALLED for refusing to falsify scientific data!!!

      Scientists HAVE NO legal protection. It is Professional Engineers who do not lie and have legal protection as my lawyer pointed out, NOT SCIENTISTS. If your are told to LIE and do not they have every right to fire you.

      And don’t mention ‘whistle-blower’ I went to the government ( FAA) and the response was to get blackballed.

      The blackballing was over Aircraft turbine blades BTW Investigation into three air crashes lead right back to the company that fired me and the particular testing protocal I was fired over.

      Get your head out of the sand. Scientists do what they are told to do because they have mortgages to pay and families to feed. If you buck the system you get tossed out. There are plenty of other scientists who will tell you that.

    • R. Shearer says:

      Not true. Scientists in government are particularly sloppy and because of their political aspirations they are not as honest as they should be. “Fired?,” you’re joking.

      Decades ago, the faux Dr. Karl misrepresented himself before Congress as having a Ph.D. Did he even get a slap on the wrist? In the private business, he likely would have been fired. I understand he recently retired with full pension.

    • gator69 says:

      Any scientist who faked or changed or made up data would lose their credibility, their reputation and their job.

      Then I guess you have never heard of admitted fraud Peter Gleick, a “climate scientist”…

      On February 20, 2012, Gleick announced he was responsible for the unauthorized distribution of documents from The Heartland Institute in mid-February. Gleick reported he had received “an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy”, and in trying to verify the authenticity of the document, had “solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name”.[44] Responding to the leak, The Heartland Institute said one of the documents released, a two-page ‘Strategy Memo’, had been forged.[45] Gleick denied forging the document. Gleick described his actions as “a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics” and said that he “deeply regret[ted his] own actions in this case” and “offer[ed his] personal apologies to all those affected”. He stated that “My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts – often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated – to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved.”[44][46] On February 24 he wrote to the board of the Pacific Institute requesting a “temporary short-term leave of absence” from the Institute.[47][48] The Board of Directors stated it was “deeply concerned regarding recent events” involving Gleick and the Heartland documents, and appointed a new Acting Executive Director on February 27.[49] Gleick was reinstated following an investigation, in which the institute found no evidence to support charges of forgery and “supported what Dr. Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute.

      Gleick lied, committed identity theft, and then real theft. Oh, and yes, after all that he was “reinstated”.

    • Sunsettommy says:


      You are so ignorant about published research that have been found to be crap,many times over the years.Here is a website called Retraction Watch showing how common the problem is:


  19. Pingback: The Ultimate Idiotic Appeal To Authority | Real Science

  20. Richard says:

    My father farmed, the whole family farms. 30 years ago my father earned £120 per ton of wheat. Today my brother is getting £120 per ton of wheat.

    Crisis , what crisis. The price illustrates that the climate is not a problem. Most countries are getting bumper crops today.

  21. RAH says:

    Government funded Climate scientists are much like my 19 month old Grand Daughter. A minute ago she was just sitting on my knee “helping” me post when she said “Mess- mess”. Two seconds later I knew what she meant by the smell of it. But thankfully Tony and others don’t have to try and clean up that mess. Grandma is doing the dirty work as I type this.

  22. Pingback: ARCTIC ALARMISM : Cambridge University Professor Accused Of “Crying Wolf” | Climatism

  23. clod hopper says:

    climate change denial is a common and basic psychological syndrome; denialists are almost all losers, or people who sense they are losers, and are angry and frustrated and resentful, and they lash out at others to justify themselves. Alot of gun nuts exhibit the a similar psychology; instead of attacking climate change, they attack threats to gun rights. Like deniers that reject the proven dangers of global warming, gun nuts deny the obvious dangers of guns.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.