Stop Heating The Arctic!

NOAA says December was really hot in the Arctic and it was your fault.

Given that there isn’t any sunlight in the Arctic in December, it is pretty incredible that people calling themselves scientists would attribute the relatively mild air to the greenhouse effect – which depends on sunlight.

The second half of December was record cold in the Eastern US, and even the New York Times understood that Arctic air in Florida means cold Arctic air is being displaced by milder air from the mid-latitudes.

Feeling a Chill? Blame the Polar Vortex. And Global Warming. – The New York Times

During the ice age scare in 1977, Alaska was warmer than Florida – for the same reason. Home purchases in Florida came with “FREE LIFETIME SNOW REMOVAL.”

Lakeland Ledger – Google News Archive Search

Before the 1970’s ice age scare, the Arctic warmed 10 degrees in the first half of the 20th century and glaciers were rapidly disappearing.

17 Dec 1939, Page 15 – Harrisburg Sunday Courier at


18 Feb 1952 – Melting Icecaps Mystery – Trove

If NOAA climate scientists were actual scientists, they would know that Arctic temperatures are cyclical, and have nothing to do with CO2 or humans.

Reykjavik GISS V2             AMO

The level of mindless peer-reviewed fraud coming out of academia and government is really quite remarkable!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Stop Heating The Arctic!

  1. Timo Soren says:

    I very gently tell my freshman students ‘the case of the looney scientists’ in which I explain that they have failed to prove a math result. Then they conclude that since we can’t prove it, then it must be false.

    I ask them to then give examples of when it happens in the newspapers or in the media/movies/tv.

    What I point out each and every time, is that they all seem to miss the Climate Scientists argument: since we can’t show it happening (in our models) it must not be natural (because we know we have included every natural possibility!) hence it must be human caused.

    I then very clearly state, it doesn’t matter WHAT they are saying, but the my conclusion MUST be: they are loons.

    • arn says:

      That’s exactly what i do.
      When i can not prove something- it does not exist.
      My supremacy is so great that i can not fail
      and it is impossible that my incompetence is the cause :)

      (btw-the main problem with the students attitude may not be incompetence but simply the fact that they got so used to trust blindly
      what tv or experts tell them(especially when they appear in groups)
      and that they can not imagine that there may be something wrong
      though even current scandals(VW-Diesel)
      or older failures(ozon-cfc/ice age scare)
      or even the fact that thousands of scientists were more than willing
      to change their ideology and citizenship(+certain scientific believes)
      as it happened with “operation paperclip.

  2. Gator says:

    The level of mindless peer-reviewed fraud coming out of academia and government is really quite remarkable!

    The peer of a fraud is a fraud.

    The peer of a leftist is a leftist.

    The peer of a grantologist is a grantologist.

    It is time to end peer review, and replace it with open scientific review.

  3. garyh845 says:

    Well then – it must have been the human-caused cooling which immediately followed that brought it back to normal.

    Goodness. If they weren’t able to model this scenario, then how can they determine what caused it (other than naturally occurring dramatic weather patterns).

  4. arn says:

    Interessting to sea that even during the coldest era of the last 100 years
    (end 70ies)alaska happened to be so warm.
    This just prooves that one can pick any period in time and proove global cooling or warming whenever he wants to by simply cherrypicking data
    and ignoring the unconvinient stuff.
    (the same way the media can portray any state leader as villain or as hero)

  5. John says:

    Blame Russia…
    “Arctic Warming” During 1920-40:
    A Brief Review of Old Russian Publications
    Sergey V. Pisarev
    P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology
    Russian Academy of Science
    Moscow, Russia

    Beginning with 1930, not one negative anomaly of average yearly or monthly temperature was observed in the whole Arctic sector from Greenland to Cape Tcheluskin, and during the same time the positive anomalies reached significant values: 1934/35 ± (4–10)°C, November in Spitsbergen ± 10°C.

    During the Persey cruise in 1934 Zubov noticed that the glaciers of Jan-Mayen and Spitsbergen were considerably reduced, relative to their sizes adduced in British sailing directions of 1911. Retreat of glaciers was observed also at Spitsbergen, Franz-Joseph Land, and Novaya Zemlya. The ice bridges between some of Franz-Joseph islands melted.
    Alman explored the glaciers of Spitsbergen in 1934 and came to the conclusion that they were melting. The observations of 1935–1938 showed that Iceland glaciers were melting too.
    According to Sumgin, the south boundary of permafrost shifted to the north by 40 km during 1905–1933.
    The disappearance of Vasilievsky Island in the Laptev Sea and washing away of the Lyakhovsky islands were phenomena of the same type.

  6. gregole says:

    Lots wrong with the process we call “science”; and the problems are widespread. This paper just touches on a few spots – but from topics as diverse as economics, nutrition, and medical research, there is plenty of room for more skepticism for what passes as “scientific truth”.

    Climate science? Pfffft. What a joke.

  7. Penelope says:

    “Given that there isn’t any sunlight in the Arctic in December, it is pretty incredible that people calling themselves scientists would attribute the relatively mild air to the greenhouse effect – which depends on sunlight.”

    I love you. Is there such a thing as very perfect?

  8. KillerBean says:

    I love the way you find the old news articles, they show so well that climate change is nothing new. Keep up the good work, its very important we have people like you.

  9. Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

    “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
    Richard P. Feynman

    For the up/down/”back” radiation of greenhouse theory’s GHG energy loop to function as advertised earth’s “surface” must radiate as an ideal black body, i.e. 16 C/289 K, 1.0 emissivity = 396 W/m^2.

    As demonstrated by my modest experiment (1 & 2) the presence of the atmospheric molecules participating in the conductive, convective and latent heat movement processes renders this ideal black body radiation impossible. Radiation’s actual share and effective emissivity is 0.16, 63/396.

    Without this GHG energy loop, radiative greenhouse theory collapses.

    Without RGHE theory, man-caused climate change does not exist.

    Of course, that doesn’t stop hosts of pompous “experts” ‘splaining the mechanisms of this non-existent loop with quantum electro-dynamics, molecular level physics, photo-electrics which, when faced with real data, ends up as pretentious, handwavium, nonsense.



  10. Ulric Lyons says:

    Arctic warming is normal during a solar minimum, as low solar increases the negative North Atlantic Oscillation states that drives a warm AMO.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *