Angry Climate Alarmists

Below my most recent video about NOAA fraud, climate alarmists are making some interesting arguments.

This guy doesn’t dispute the data, but says people didn’t know how to read thermometers before 1960.

Other alarmists ignore the data completely, and say that people who look at climate data are engaging in tin foil hat fantasy.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

173 Responses to Angry Climate Alarmists

  1. Sean says:

    It’s funny, the Neaderthall NASA scientists of the 1960’s could put a man on the moon in 10 years even though they had not put a man in space before the decade started. The genius NASA scientists of the new Millenium could not make a new vehicle to replace the shuttle in the decade after the 2nd shuttle loss. But they can make computer models to that support a political narrative like no one else can.

    • RAH says:

      And the guys in the 50’s and 60’s did their calculations using slide rules!

    • czechlist says:

      Gotta play devil’s advocate here.
      The scientists – and let us not forget the engineers, mathematicians, technicians…- of the ’60s did not have to contend with OSHA, EPA, etc. and the time consuming and costly regulations that they must comply with in the past few decades.
      The Hoover Dam, Golden Gate Bridge, Empire State Building… would take a decade to build today – witness One World Trade Center.
      Environmentalists, State Legislatures, Congress (mostly lawyers) and the bureaucracies they created are primary temporal obstacles.

    • AndyDC says:

      At 5 PM (yesterday), the Weather Service put out a statement that the peak gust at Wilmington was 92 mph. But when their midnight daily report came out, the peak gust was “adjusted” to 105 mph.

      I wondered if perhaps that gust came after 5 PM, but I checked and the peak wind was from the NNE. By 5 PM, the “hurricane” was already well west of Wilmington meaning a NNE wind could not have possibly occurred after 5 PM.

      The same report stated that the highest sustained wind at Wilmington was only 61 mph. That is a 44 mph difference between the sustained wind and peak gust. That is absurd. The spread is seldom more than 20%. I challenge anyone to find a spread nearly that big with a tropical system. Normally in the eye wall, winds are pretty steady. These people are such idiots that they can’t even give fake news in a credible manner!

      Myrtle Beach was also directly “hit” by this fake hurricane and its peak gust was only 59 mph.

      The bottom line is that none of these places, directly in the path of Florence had a sustained wind over 61 mph. Nowhere near hurricane force.

  2. RodT says:

    Thank you Tony, this is outstanding! I love that you continue to show how history is being erased to support a false agenda. As a sidebar, I heard a lot of people comment this summer up in Southern Ontario that it was really hot. It seemed to me that it was always really humid and so naturally it felt hot. I saw the data presented around rainfall increase and how that has moderated temperatures at either end, day and night, and that makes sense. I’m not trying to make more work for you, you already do enough, but I wonder if relative humidity records have been kept anywhere, and if those data could play into this discussion?

  3. Gator says:

    Well, I guess it’s back to the drawing board, as none of these scientific discoveries can be validated or trusted…

    1905 – Albert Einstein: theory of special relativity, explanation of Brownian motion, and photoelectric effect
    1906 – Walther Nernst: Third law of thermodynamics
    1907 – Alfred Bertheim: Arsphenamine, the first modern chemotherapeutic agent
    1909 – Fritz Haber: Haber Process for industrial production of ammonia
    1909 – Robert Andrews Millikan: conducts the oil drop experiment and determines the charge on an electron
    1910 – Williamina Fleming: the first white dwarf, 40 Eridani B
    1911 – Ernest Rutherford: Atomic nucleus
    1911 – Heike Kamerlingh Onnes: Superconductivity
    1912 – Alfred Wegener: Continental drift
    1912 – Max von Laue : x-ray diffraction
    1912 – Vesto Slipher : galactic redshifts
    1912 – Henrietta Swan Leavitt: Cepheid variable period luminosity relation
    1913 – Henry Moseley: defined atomic number
    1913 – Niels Bohr: Model of the atom
    1915 – Albert Einstein: theory of general relativity – also David Hilbert
    1915 – Karl Schwarzschild: discovery of the Schwarzschild radius leading to the identification of black holes
    1918 – Emmy Noether: Noether’s theorem – conditions under which the conservation laws are valid
    1920 – Arthur Eddington: Stellar nucleosynthesis
    1922 – Frederick Banting, Charles Best, James Collip, John Macleod: isolation and production of insulin to control diabetes
    1924 – Wolfgang Pauli: quantum Pauli exclusion principle
    1924 – Edwin Hubble: the discovery that the Milky Way is just one of many galaxies
    1925 – Erwin Schrödinger: Schrödinger equation (Quantum mechanics)
    1925 – Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin: Discovery of the composition of the Sun and that Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe
    1927 – Werner Heisenberg: Uncertainty principle (Quantum mechanics)
    1927 – Georges Lemaître: Theory of the Big Bang
    1928 – Paul Dirac: Dirac equation (Quantum mechanics)
    1929 – Edwin Hubble: Hubble’s law of the expanding universe
    1928 – Alexander Fleming: Penicillin, the first beta-lactam antibiotic
    1929 – Lars Onsager’s reciprocal relations, a potential fourth law of thermodynamics
    1930 – Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar discovers his eponymous limit of the maximum mass of a white dwarf star
    1932 – James Chadwick: Discovery of the neutron
    1932 – Karl Guthe Jansky discovers the first astronomical radio source, Sagittarius A
    1932 – Ernest Walton and John Cockcroft: Nuclear fission by proton bombardment
    1934 – Enrico Fermi: Nuclear fission by neutron irradiation
    1934 – Clive McCay: Calorie restriction extends the maximum lifespan of another species
    1938 – Otto Hahn, Lise Meitner and Fritz Strassmann: Nuclear fission of heavy nuclei
    1938 – Isidor Rabi: Nuclear magnetic resonance
    1943 – Oswald Avery proves that DNA is the genetic material of the chromosome
    1945 – Howard Florey Mass production of penicillin
    1947 – William Shockley, John Bardeen and Walter Brattain invent the first transistor
    1948 – Claude Elwood Shannon: ‘A mathematical theory of communication’ a seminal paper in Information theory.
    1948 – Richard Feynman, Julian Schwinger, Sin-Itiro Tomonaga and Freeman Dyson: Quantum electrodynamics
    1951 – George Otto Gey propagates first cancer cell line, HeLa
    1952 – Jonas Salk: developed and tested first polio vaccine
    1952 – Frederick Sanger: demonstrated that proteins are sequences of amino acids
    1953 – James Watson, Francis Crick, Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin: helical structure of DNA, basis for molecular biology

    Next, we will have to deny another 2000 years of discoveries. Back to the cave, and let’s start over, per Ms Zebooker.

    • RAH says:

      Leftists never look around them to appreciate what those that came before accomplished. Don’t think about where all of this infrastructure came from or the tremendous advancements made before they were blessed to be born here that allows them to have a high standard of living so they can spend their time bitching about things and making up imaginary bogymen to be afraid of. They are pathetic unappreciative creatures. Total ingrates.

    • toorightmate says:

      The list of achievements exemplifies the problem.
      While these scientists were coming up with their simple theories and findings, they were neglecting the complexities of reading a thermometer!!!!
      I would not be surprised if some universities do not introduce “Thermometer Reading” as a degree course. It would be right up there with “Gender Equality” and “Feminism”.

    • David M. says:

      2 thumbs up, Gator. Might the pending “re-think” revise / adjust The Enlightenment, Galileo, Pythagoras, pi, the lever, wheel, Greek mythology (the foundation for most of the great subsequent literature) …?

  4. David Reich says:

    Zebooker makes several logically incoherent assertions. Data prior to 1960 “cannot be validated.” Of course it can’t. But, how suddenly, can data from 1961 be “validated”? This is just an arbitrary assertion with no “validation” by anyone else. Second, if the data prior to 1960 “cannot be validated” and therefore must be thrown out, that implies that data after 1960 is all of sudden trustworthy. What changed in 1961? Did NOAA hire all new people who were more qualified to read thermometer readings? Did NOAA replace all gauges in Dec of 1960? If Zebooker’s claim is true, then why does NOAA make adjustments to any post-1960 data especially that after 2000 as you point out in the video? Zebooker qualifies for what I call a chronological snob and incoherent one at that.

    • spike55 says:

      Over 40% of NOAA data is marked with an “E” for estimated.

      Seems that it is NOW that they are having trouble reading a thermometer. !!!

    • AndyDC says:

      You can safely risk your bottom dollar that if pre-1960 data confirmed their pre-determined warming hypothesis, they would be more than happy to embrace it. But it doesn’t. After the torrid 1930’s, there was marked cooling from 1940 to 1979. Since CO2 was not working for those 40 years, they had to adjust that cooling out of existence. It hasn’t worked the last 20 years either (1998-2018).

      If CO2 has produced warming worked for only 18 years since 1940 (1980-1998)), which is only 23% of the last 78 years, my conclusion is that CO2 is a very pathetic greenhouse gas. Certainly not worthy of destroying the Constitution, the economy and our way of life. Or instituting a totalitarian world communist system of government to regulate every step of your life from cradle to grave.

  5. Josh says:

    Good for Zebooker! He is aiding us. Since all data pre 1960 are useless, then he shows the alarmists are lying about the 1 celsius increase since 1880. I love it when the leftists attack themselves. This is a blessing in disguise!

  6. Bob Cherba says:

    Geez . . . I got my EE degree in 1959. Does that mean all the data I took in labs was useless? Strange, I still see people taking data using thermometers and instruments that must be “unverifiable,” whatever that means. Funny, I’ve seen examples of post-1960 data, untouched by human hands and used in “official” records, that is obviously outside the range of possible values. This data is verifiable?

    I’m old, and shouldn’t be surprised by the amount of ignorance and bias in groups of otherwise intelligent people, but I am. Worse yet, they don’t hesitate to display their ignorance and bias for all to see.

    • arn says:

      No-this just means that you(and everyone else) were intellectually not capable
      to read a thermometer and by 1960 some strange miracle happened=
      all those incompetent experts who were not able to read thermometers were all of a sudden able to do so-nobody knows why!

      This miracle was not the last in climate science.
      Until the beginning of the 80ies co2 was a very lousy climate gas
      that contributes very little to our climate
      and you would have looked like a completely idiot claiming that this lousy co2 would turn planet earth into a fireball while 3/4th of this planet is covered with superstrong climate gas h2o
      and that this h2o is unprotected and being released into the atmosphere
      in quantities many magnitudes higher than co2.

      But since the 80ies everything changed.

      2 million years ago= man learned how to use tools.
      1960=man learned how to read thermometers.
      1980=man learned how dangerous co2 is.

  7. Disillusioned says:

    …otherwise intelligent people….”

    I think you’re being generous.

  8. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    Prior to 1960, scientists could read thermometers, they just didn’t know how to adjust the data (until Gavin Schmidt showed them how).

    “It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.” – Ronald Reagan

  9. CO2isLife says:

    How have these videos avoided the Google/YouTube Shadow Banning?

  10. spike55 says:

    Great to see that you are RIGHT ON TARGET.

    The AGW scum are trying to snipe back. and failing completely

    • gregole says:

      I love it when the warmunists snipe back. The stuff they say is laughably unhinged. At lease Zebonkers came up with a date; 1960.

      I’m still waiting for Andy to provide me the start date for his perceived Arctic trend.

  11. Sean O'Malley says:

    Can anyone point me to a real case by case rebutall of Tony’s videos and posts. I have seen some “we have to alter the temps for reasons no one who is not climite scientist will ever understand” statements but nothing else. But how about the Tony’s contention that everywhere there are no measured temps the inferred temps are always hot. How do they no it is very hot in New Guinea if their are no measurements there.

    Note I would also like see if any of Tony’s claims have been confirmed by the mafia. He has about a hundred or more claims. Just by chance one of them has to be correct.

    Note if any of these people would ever come out and say that this or that tropical storm has nothing to do with global warming they would vastly increase my belief in the claimed “science”.

    Also some of Tony’s shots at the news media seem irrefutable (say the fact that the temp in you home town does not equal the data for that home town). Has anyone ever said you are wrong about everything else but this is correct. Or once you have drunk the cool-aid you have to agree with everything the “scientists” at the NY Times or the Washington post say.

  12. Jason Calley says:

    Supporters of CAGW achieve a level of hubris that even Stalin and Mao could not approach.

  13. gofer says:

    Liz Warren pushing bill to force companies to report “climate risks”. Pure moon battery….

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/elizabeth-warren-pushing-new-bill-to-force-public-companies-to-disclose-climate-risks/

  14. spike55 says:

    OT, DMI Arctic sea ice volume increase for last 5 days.

    A bit later than usual due to WEATHER.

    16 year mean low is 6.158 Mkm³

    2018 low was 6.213 Mkm³

    Has anyone seen the Arctic sea ice death spiral lately ;-)

    Seems it is very much a “thing of the past” :-)

    • Steven Fraser says:

      spike55: I’ve been watching this too, but I get a different, lower number for the 16-year low volume average:5894. Here is my low list for comparison:
      2003 5,526
      2004 8,167
      2005 7,348
      2006 7,629
      2007 4,862
      2008 4,400
      2009 6,235
      2010 5,797
      2011 4,863
      2012 4,527
      2013 6,669
      2014 7,146
      2015 4,924
      2016 4,466
      2017 5,526
      2018 6,213

      Happy for you to correct me if I mis-entered a value.

      The difference does not negate your point, but might amplify it, putting this year’s low value at a higher percentage of the average low. By my calculation, 105.41%, subject to your confirmation

      By my calculation, from the year’s highstand to the lowpoint, decline was 18, 068 cu km, which was 94.58% of the average decline, 4th lowest decline of the 16-years, occurring over 135 days, 5th longest decline. As you said, slow.

      Expressed in average decline amount per decline day, 133.84 cu km per decline day. The average for the 16-years was 150.28, so 2018 was 89.06% of the average decline amount per day, and ranked 4th lowest.

      From last year’s lowstand to this year’s , a net gain of 686 cu km. The average of the 15 year-to-years lowstand gain is 46 cu km, with 8 net decline intervals, and 7 net increase intervals.

      I agree with you… no death spiral evident in DMI Ice volume results. The low in 2003 was 5,526, 93.77% of average low. This year, 6,213. Start-to-finish (lowpoint-to-lowpoint), I’d say an improvement, with interesting and instructive year-to-year variation both ways.

      And, as a reminder, 2018 Sea Ice volume growth was 99.06% of the growth average for the 16 years….just under the average.

      Please let me know if you find any of my numbers in error.
      Thanks in advance for your help.

      • spike55 says:

        You have averaged all the lows, whereas I averaged each day of year and took the lowest.

        Your way is probably more correct. :-)

        Still, this year is above average, whichever way you do it. :-)

    • spike55 says:

      “lower number for the 16-year low volume average:5894”

      Should we include this year as well, like you have?

      I get 5.872 km³ for all previous year’s lows back to 2003

      • Steven Fraser says:

        spike55: either way is valid, as long as the description is clear.

        5,872 for all the prior year average lows is what I get. Our numbers match, so your point is made stronger. Thanks for your confirmation. I hope you liked all the other stats I put up.

  15. JPinBalt says:

    Tony,
    Thank you for also representing average daily temperature data as opposed to just daily highs. I do not use USHCN, politically manipulated by James Hansen’s protege mathematician/politician Gavin Schmidt at GISS, and biased for urban heat island effect before “adjustments”.
    Pristine USCRN would trust, data does not go back far enough (they will be sorry later), use most accurate satellite UALv6 https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt but only goes back to 12/78.
    https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#NCAR
    also good, for less than (UAL) month intervals above. Latest Sept 13, 2018 0.203°C “anomaly” statistically insignificant and not noticeable by humans according to IPCC, for 1994 base. Plus global temperatures falling for last three years now, OK be fair other side of El Nino drop expected prior for natural change.
    Keep up the good work.

  16. RAH says:

    OT. Have fun. After a break I’m on the road again.

    After working three weekends in a row I’d had enough. My run from Anderson, to Indy, to Romulus, MI to Walbridge, OH, to Harrisonburg, VA to Indy, to Anderson was a pain with more than one problem to deal with. Got in from my last run last week at 05:00 Friday morning and I went off duty at 06:00. Friday night they called again asking if I would run. I told them NO! They had my sleep schedule totally screwed up and I hadn’t had a decent meal in a week. My grass was so high it was going to seed. So I took the time off due me and got rested, ate a couple of very good meals, mowed my grass, and drank a few JDs & coke, and played on the computer.

    Saturday they called to tell me I was going out at noon today (Sunday). Depart at noon from Anderson to Breinigsville, PA to deliver a Nestle’s load then over to Pottstown, PA to take a break and then pick up the next morning. Then to Phillipsburg, PA to pick up some more freight. Then to Vandalia, OH to deliver and then back to Anderson. They like to give me that run because I’m one of the few that can usually get back to Anderson without taking a 10 hour break after starting at Pottstown though too much of a back up will screw things up and there is a lot of construction on I-80 which is the fastest way back from Phillipsburg.

    They’re desperate because they’ve taken too many runs for the drivers they have and when they get like that they’ll run you to death if you let them.

    • arn says:

      take care of you-
      they won’t.

      • RAH says:

        I’m back. Got back from that PA run and walked in the door here at exactly 23:58 Monday. Run is not supposed to be back here until 12:00 noon Tuesday. Made it back early despite driving through 170 miles of hard rain along I-80 in PA from Florence and stopping on I-71 to check on a company driver that was having truck trouble. Unlike the remnants of Gordon that I drove through in southern IL Saturday before last, Florence had no wind.

  17. Timo Soren says:

    Climate/Weather desperateness:
    ABCNews reports: Tree blown down by storm, doesn’t hurt anyone.
    ABCNews is shocked.

  18. Rob Turpin says:

    Ah, I found one of those internet sites where all the climate change deniers hang out and stroke one another.

    I’ll point out some of the hilarity from this clown who has proclaimed, “I am more than happy to debate anyone who feels up to the challenge, including the President of The United States. Science works through research and debate – not censorship, propaganda, faith, or intimidation.”

    And yet his “debating” is filled with lies and distortions .. and let’s face it, isn’t scientific at all.

    In the beginning of the video “Steven” or Tony or whoever this dude is, says that NOAA is lying about the 2018 summer being tied with 1934 for 4th hottest. I’m sure none of your good buddies noticed any problems with your irrelevant response as they’re all patting you on the back for what is surely your airtight case of showing another NOAA lie. Unfortunately, it never happens.

    There’s a nice graph for many decades of the nation’s heat index. Unfortunately, this is not temperature, and I’m sure many of your more blind readers, which is probably just about all of them, didn’t notice this a bit. Here’s a definition of the heat index.

    https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures

    “This figure shows the annual values of the U.S. Heat Wave Index from 1895 to 2015. These data cover the contiguous 48 states. Interpretation: An index value of 0.2 (for example) could mean that 20 percent of the country experienced one heat wave, 10 percent of the country experienced two heat waves, or some other combination of frequency and area resulted in this value.”

    And at the link you’ll see the very same graph “Steven” used in the video. Well, this is comparing apples and oranges. And even though this is an irrelevant comparison and has nothing to do with the NOAA claim, it’s also the heat index for the entire year … not just the summer. But I digress.

    Then, without missing a beat, “Steven” states some info. about May of 1934 … well, the “meteorological summer” is defined from June to August. So even though he’s talking about the heat index and not temperature (remember, apples and oranges), he’s also mentioning a month that is irrelevant to NOAA’s statement. Good one, “Steven”.

    I didn’t even bother going on as you very quickly showed yourself to be a quack. Enjoy your little hokum website.

    Oh, and I know you claim you’ll debate anyone, “who feels up to the challenge”, but I won’t be waiting for your response.

    • tonyheller says:

      Heatwaves occur in the summer. NOAA is lying. You are an incoherent clown babbling gibberish.

      • Rob Turpin says:

        If heat waves occur in the summer then why did you mention May? If heat waves occur in the summer, why did you show the heat index of the entire year? As it stated in the chart you used: “This figure shows the annual values of the U.S. Heat Wave Index from 1895 to 2015. ” Are you confused by the word “annual”? By the way, heat waves do not just occur during the summer, it’s relative to the normal seasonal temperature. A definition of a heat wave.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_wave

        “While definitions vary, a heat wave is usually measured relative to the usual weather in the area and relative to normal temperatures for the season.”

        Which of course is why there’s a chart on the annual heat index.

        I said quite a lot in my comment … and you did exactly what I expected if you offered any rebuttal, which you didn’t. You ignored all of it and said more irrelevant crap.

        Keep up the quackery. At least I’ll know where to come for the most recent attempt at obfuscation from the climate change denying crowd. You’re simply horrible at “science” … and debating.

        • spike55 says:

          Wiki as a reference.. and you PRETEND to have “science”

          ROFLMAO ! gullible ignorant turnip. !

          Yes, you said a whole lot in your comment.

          ALL of it GARBAGE. !

          • Rob Turpin says:

            Feel free to offer your own … sorry .. a substantiated definition of a heat wave. You nor Tony get to make up your own.

          • spike55 says:

            Days over 100F

            Notice anything ???

            or will you remain WILFULLY BLIND as well as just plain dumb

          • spike55 says:

            Days over 95F

            Notice anything ???

            or will you remain WILFULLY BLIND as well as just plain dumb and ignorant?

        • spike55 says:

          “While definitions vary,”

          Yes, they have been varying the definition.

          …. to try to fudge and fabricate the facts.

          And GULLIBLE fools like you fall for it.

          DUMB. !!

      • Rob Turpin` says:

        Since you have a broken comment system where after a few replies there’s no option to reply to a poster, I’ll do it here.

        Here’s an added response you made to me below.

        “Your post was classic FUD and gibberish”.

        So including what you said just above. You’ve essentially just name called. Your comment about heat waves is irrelevant to my criticism. And also, the fact you ignored my criticism of what you think a heat wave is. I guess you don’t have to look to science for definitions, you just make them up.

        Nope, there was no FUD in my criticism to you. It was direct criticisms of your nonsense.

        I’ll leave the child, Tony, with all his other little friends to spittle insults at people and ignore any actual real debate.

        By the way, repetition is not an argument. You can repeat that NOAA lied as much as you want … you never showed that they lied.

        Bye bye kids!

        • tonyheller says:

          Heatwaves are periods of hot weather. Hot weather occurs during the summer, when the half of the planet you are on is tilted towards the Sun. You are talking complete BS, and your feeble attempt at paranoia and FUD is simply not going to work here.

        • Disillusioned says:

          Rob Turpin said, “I’ll leave the child, Tony, with all his other little friends to spittle insults at people and ignore any actual real debate….

          Bye bye kids!”

          There is actual debate here, including real data, which you have ignored. Instead of engaging in that debate, you choose to run away from the debate, but not before you decide to ‘spittle insults’ while whining about others who ‘spittle insults.’ Uncool.

          • Rob Turpin says:

            Thanks for your meta-commentary, but there isn’t actually any debate going on. To my multi-paragraph explanation of why Tony was comparing apples and oranges … his reply was “Heatwaves occur in the summer. NOAA is lying. You are an incoherent clown babbling gibberish.”

            Which entails him simply repeating that NOAA is lying and an insult, which are all irrelevant. Even his one comment about heatwaves had nothing to do with refuting what I had to say. When someone has so little to say in response … they aren’t debating.

            By the way, you can insult me … just make your case while you’re doing it. Tony didn’t make any kind of case.

            So go find something else “uncool” to talk about. I don’t need meta-commentary from some clueless idiot.

          • spike55 says:

            Poor turnip.. reduced to mindless ranting

            Pitiful, if one could be bothered pitying.

            Evidence, littel turnip.

            Your self-opinionated ranting is NOT evidence.

            Just because you are INCAPABLE of understanding basic graphs, deosn’t mean everyone else is.

          • Disillusioned says:

            Rob Turpin, you said, “By the way, you can insult me … just make your case while you’re doing it. Tony didn’t make any kind of case.”

            You must think you’re really special. All your concerns have been addressed innumerable times.

            “When someone has so little to say in response … they aren’t debating.”

            Calling him a liar isn’t a debate. Nobody can make you open your eyes. Only one. You.

            “So go find something else “uncool” to talk about. I don’t need meta-commentary from some clueless idiot.”

            You don’t know me, Rob. But I know you. I was you. Your fear is showing through your bravado. What’s at risk?

          • Rob Turpin says:

            Nope, no concerns have been addressed. But I do understand I’ve gotten a lot of childish contradiction from many of you.

            I not only called him a liar. I explained why he was a liar. That’s what a debate involves … explication. You’re only responding with contradiction.

          • Disillusioned says:

            You don’t get it. Your explanation is irrelevant. Tony isn’t going to “debate” you. You think you’re special. He has addressed your concerns many times. It’s up to you. Not him.

            Your disillusionment is going to be very difficult. What’s at risk?

          • Rob Turpin says:

            I know he isn’t going to debate me .. because my criticisms of him are correct.

            You can keep childishly contradicting me with “he has addressed your concerns many times”. He obviously didn’t, let alone “many”. He offered up a one sentence rebuttal, “Heatwaves occur in the summer.”, and even this was incorrect for the chart he showed.

            One sentence doesn’t refute my criticisms. Only in your imaginary world do such things occur.

          • Gator says:

            And only in an imaginary world would Turdpin criticize his alarmist priests. Little Robby isn’t interested in facts, only in finding a splinter in Tony’s eye, whilst balancing two massive Redwoods in each of his short sighted beady little eyes.

            Typical troll.

          • spike55 says:

            WRONG AGAIN turnip.

            You MADE A MISTAKE.

            Grow up and admit it to yourself..

            Stop your juvenile arrogant tantrums.

          • Disillusioned says:

            Are you purposefully being obtuse?He has addressed it plenty of times.

            Why are you here, Rob? What’s at risk that you’re working so hard to protect?

          • Rob Turpin says:

            Many, plenty, repetition is not an argument. It didn’t happen.

          • Disillusioned says:

            “Many, plenty, repetition is not an argument. It didn’t happen.”

            Oh, but he has. Because you don’t get to see him debate you, you think he hasn’t addressed it. It’s before your very eyes, yet you choose to remain blind.

          • Rob Turpin says:

            Nope. Wash, rinse, repeat…

            All you can do is repeat the same childish contradictions.

          • Disillusioned says:

            Your constant projection about childishness is amusing. You have it really bad.

            What’s at risk, Rob?

          • Rob Turpin says:

            One more repeat contradiction should do it.

          • RW says:

            Turpin seems to be some sort of narcissist, and his Newspeak defintion of a Heatwave is ridiculous. Nobody would agree that the U.S. experiences heatwaves in winter. The utility of the word heatwave is in conceying a sense of possible danger to people’s well-being due to extreme heat. If it is unusually warm in winter, fewer people die, not more. If it is unusually warm in summer, more people die, not less. Hence heatwaves are traditionally associated with summer. Turpin’s definition has no face validity, which is why others have pointed out that it is merely a revisionist, posthoc definition used to spin a data set that would not othwrwise support the alarmist narrative.

          • Rob Turpin says:

            Nope. The definition is given on the EPA website where Tony got his chart. It’s not mine. You’ll have to contact the EPA to inform them of what you think is a ridiculous definition. Too bad you can’t understand words.

          • spike55 says:

            What is it about

            “This indicator describes trends in unusually hot and cold temperatures across the United States.”

            Or can’t you read, you moronic cretin !!

            Take your child-minded IRRELEVANT sniping and TROLLING elsewhere, rotten turnip.

          • spike55 says:

            1934 was MUCH WARMER than current

            GET OVER IT, FFS !!!

            Stop your DENIAL and your child-like attention-seeking.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            The Winter Heatwave Cult. These people deserve each other.

    • spike55 says:

      “climate change deniers hang out and stroke one another.”

      As opposed to you stroking yourself ??

      Do you DENY that the current climate temperature is only just above the COLDEST period in the last 10,000 years?

      Do you DENY that Arcic sea ice is in the top 10% of the Holocene?

      Do you DENY that nothing unusual is happening with the climate AT ALL.

      Do you DENY that there is zero empirical evidence for atmospheric CO2 warming anything, anywhere, anytime.

      Do you DENY that the only real warming in the last 40 years has come from El Nino ocean effects, with ZERO warming between.

      Do you DENY that climate changes NATURALLY, and there is zero evidence of any human effect except on global surface temperature fabrications?

      Do you DENY that the EPA was run by a pack of rabid alarmists, who LIE and defy proper scientific procedure in an attempt to forward their agenda?

      It seems that the ONLY CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER here is YOU, turnip !!!!

      • Rob Turpin says:

        Hey dude. Why don’t try refuting any one of a number of things I stated in my post? That’s easy .. because you can’t. Just like Tony couldn’t.

        I’ve played this game with internet trolls before. You ignore everything I said and ramble on with your own nonsense.

        First things first. Figure out if Tony is fibbing. But we never will because both you and Tony … and anyone else who wants to chime in .. won’t directly address my criticisms of his pathetic attempt to not speak honestly … or even remotely “scientifically”.

        • spike55 says:

          Yep turnip is a CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER.

          Through and through.

          Unable to counter one thing I said. so typical of the AGW scammers.

          Also, you are the obvious TROLL here..

          Your only purpose.

          LOSER.

          • Rob Turpin says:

            Understood. Your game of gish gallop is old and far too familiar.

            Like I said, we never will get to my original criticism because it’s accurate, and there’s no point in you fools even attempting to refute it.

          • spike55 says:

            Poor little turnip, doesn’t like being played at his own game

            Go and SULK elsewhere.

            Your original criticism is just a load of MINDLESS GARBAGE, and I suspect you know that.

            Your juvenile attempts at trolling are quite laughable.

            It is again noted that you are unable to counter one point I made.

            Seems you are INEPT as well as dumb and ignorant

            MUCH warmer in the 1930s, GET OVER IT !!!

        • Disillusioned says:

          Rob, you have made a tactical error. Most of us here, even Tony, are former believers. We’ve been through arguments like yours so many times it is boring. You’ve come to the wrong place to peddle AGW arguments. You cannot convince an ex-smoker to begin smoking; you can’t recruit disillusioned former believers to come back to your cult.

          When you start off trolling and calling others liars and other names, including calling them trolls, you’re going to get trolled. When you show some respect, perhaps you’ll get some respect.

          You made a fool of yourself. Sadly, you have no clue how much.

          • Sara Hall says:

            Hear hear!

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Disillusioned,

            Rob will be back to prove you right.

          • Dave B says:

            Hear hear,
            Many/most folks here have spent a lifetime in science and engineering. We’ve seem many true first principles that prove not be significant to a system. Since 8/22/81 we’ve seen classic comformational bias evolve into religious gua worship and leftist corruption. This scientifically corrupt issue caused me to take critical look at the broader political issues and has complete turned me around; so thanks for that Rob.

          • Rob Turpin says:

            Your “former believer” comment is irrelevant to this entire discussion. You don’t get school credit for such ridiculous nonsense. You deal with argumenst as they come up. You’ve shown … along with all the others … you will not be discussing any arguments.

          • spike55 says:

            YOUR comments are irrelevant to any rational discussion, turnip-brain.

            So why don’t you STFU !

            Tony is NOT using the wrong data, you are deliberately LYING or being DELIBERATELY DUMB.

            …. most likely both.

        • Rob Turpin says:

          I never stated any AGW arguments. You keep demonstrating your ignorance of what’s been discussed.

          I demonstrated that Tomy is using the wrong data for his supposed argument, and he has made numerous incorrect statements showing his misunderstanding of this data.

          • spike55 says:

            You have NOT demonstrated ANYTHING except that you are a mindless self-opinionated w**ker. !!

            You have shown a DELIBERATE complete and utter lack of comprehension from your first trolling post.

    • spike55 says:

      “2018 summer being tied with 1934 for 4th hottest.”

      Hey, turnip, are you saying that there has been NO WARMING in 84 years.

      Thanks, but we knew that already.

      As you point out, temperatures now are very similar to temperatures in the 1930s.

      • Rob Turpin says:

        I understand you’re confused. I’ll attempt to explain even though you’ll ignore everything I say.

        Regardless that the summer’s in the contiguous U.S. for 1934 and 2018 were tied. The overall temperature for those years was not. Not that it really matters to compare two years in a 100 year trend line. Something many of you simply can’t understand.

        “As you point out, temperatures now are very similar to temperatures in the 1930s.”

        No, I didn’t point that out, but thanks so much for putting words in my mouth. When you can’t be honest, you clowns will just make stuff up.

        You show me the data that shows “the 30’s” had similar average temperature to what we have now. Oh, and one more thing. We are talking about global climate change. Another part of this obfuscation is you clowns focusing just on the U.S. There can be relatively radical temperature changes on a local scale that doesn’t affect the overall global trends.

        Glad I could help. Like for Tony, I won’t be waiting for any sensible reply from you.

        • spike55 says:

          NO WARMING since 1934.

          You said so yourself.

          Sorry you are SO CONFUSED

          But you know you have NMO SCIENCE to back up the farce of CO2 warming

          Come on.. empirical measurements of atmospheric CO2 causing warming

          I doubt you even know what SCIENCE is. !!!

          Failed arts/journalism???

          In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

          No more mindless troll ranting, turnip.

          • Rob Turpin says:

            And the game continues. Nope, never said no warming since 1934.

            And the rest of your post is inane rambling.

          • spike55 says:

            roflmao

            you said the temperatures were the same.

            ““2018 summer being tied with 1934 for 4th hottest””

            You are a TOTALLY IRRATIONAL,

            That’s not at all unusual for a AGW apologist.

        • spike55 says:

          “even though you’ll ignore everything I say.”

          Then maybe come up with some rational comments, instead of your brain-hosed trolling.

          No doubt that the 1930’s were MUCH WARMER than current.

          The GHCN data confirms it.

          GET OVER IT stop being a turnip and FACE FACTS for once in your feeble non-thinking existence.

          • Robert Turpin says:

            Already made plenty of rational comments. But I know you’ll keep playing your teenage games and keep having this meta-conversation of making unsubstantiated claims of things I didn’t do.

            Feel free to pick and choose anything from my original post to refute. I know you won’t.

          • tonyheller says:

            Your post was classic FUD and gibberish

          • Rob Turpin says:

            “No doubt that the 1930’s were MUCH WARMER than current.”

            “No doubt” is not an argument.

          • spike55 says:

            DATA is though.

            But AGW apologist HAVE to ignore data !!!

        • spike55 says:

          “No, I didn’t point that out,”

          You most certainly did reiterate NOAA statement that..

          “2018 summer being tied with 1934 for 4th hottest”

          STOP LYING !!

          MEASURED US temperatures , before the fraudsters at NOAA get their hands on them.

          • Rob Turpin says:

            That wasn’t the quote you claimed I said … you really are a child.

            Where does this nonsense chart come from? It’s the internet, ever thought of a link? Of course not, you’re b.s.ing.

          • spike55 says:

            You mean like a AGW scam wiki link?

            DATA scares you doesn’t it turnip. !!!

          • spike55 says:

            Poor turnip. doesn’t seem to know what NCDC data is..

            WOW.. just WOW !!!

            These AGW apologists REALLY need to do some basic homework before trolling !

        • spike55 says:

          Just like basically everywhere else in the NH, WARMER in the 1930s, 40s.

          You really need to WAKE UP from your brain-hosed stupid.

          • Rob Turpin says:

            Sorry, random charts posted into a chat box don’t do it for me. Of course you won’t show where you’re getting this nonsense. Then you would be exposed for the fool you are. Although, you’re doing a pretty good job already with your verbal responses.

          • spike55 says:

            Sorry, mindless cackling from a chicken-little AGW apologist is MEANINGLESS to me.

            It is noted that you avoid the two questions

            NO EVIDENCE, mindless cackling is not evidence.

          • spike55 says:

            ps. still waiting for some empirical evidence of warming from atmospheric CO2.

            In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

        • spike55 says:

          “We are talking about global climate change.”

          The only REAL warming in the last 40 years has come from two El Nino events, ocean heat from the Grand Solar Maximum of the latter half of last century.

          ANY parts of the globe haven’t warmed during that time,

          Many are similar temperatures to what they were 80-100 years ago.

          Only human effect is from urbanisation of thermometers and data “estimation” and “fabrication”

          Are you part of that fraud, turnip?

          Are you a collaborator, or an apologist, or just a brain-washed cultist ?

          You are too INEPT to be a paid operative.

    • sunsettommy says:

      Rob, from YOUR link is the headline:

      “Climate Change Indicators: High and Low Temperatures”

      Then the chart section,

      “This indicator describes trends in unusually hot and cold temperatures across the United States.
      Figure 1. U.S. Annual Heat Wave Index, 1895–2015

      (The Chart)

      This figure shows the annual values of the U.S. Heat Wave Index from 1895 to 2015. These data cover the contiguous 48 states. Interpretation: An index value of 0.2 (for example) could mean that 20 percent of the country experienced one heat wave, 10 percent of the country experienced two heat waves, or some other combination of frequency and area resulted in this value.
      Data source: Kunkel, 20166
      Web update: August 2016”

      You has written this misleading B.S.:

      “There’s a nice graph for many decades of the nation’s heat index. Unfortunately, this is not temperature, and I’m sure many of your more blind readers, which is probably just about all of them, didn’t notice this a bit. Here’s a definition of the heat index.”

      This is a classic warmist fogging attempt when YOUR own link about that chart stated:

      “This indicator describes trends in unusually hot and cold temperatures across the United States.
      Figure 1. U.S. Annual Heat Wave Index, 1895–2015”

      Ooops, it was indeed about Temperatures, you dumb ass!

      • Rob Turpin says:

        I didn’t write anything that was misleading. I copied from the site, and you haven’t shown any discrepancies. Good one.

        • Gator says:

          I copied from the site

          Braaaaaak! Robby wants a cracker!

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Rob no understand. Rob copy. Rob no write. Good.

          • Rob Turpin says:

            It’s called using sources. Something every poster responding to me has a problem with showing.

            You all seem to think you get to make up things on your own. That’s not how science works.

            But I know with almost everything I say, you’ll all figure out some childish retort. Sounds like me and brother arguing when we were teenagers. I grew up … you fools haven’t.

          • spike55 says:

            ” That’s not how science works.”

            No , it works on empirical evidence

            WAITING , WAITING

            Watch the turnip change into a headless chook !
            Poor pathetic cretin, running around in evasion in a hilarious attempt at distraction

          • spike55 says:

            ” Something every poster responding to me has a problem with showing.”

            Turnip doesn’t know what USHCN is,

            Doesn’t Know what temperature data is.

            Doesn’t know what HadCrut is.

            Doesn’t know what NCDC is

            IGNORANT and rotten .. to the very core

          • Gator says:

            Braaaak! No original thoughts in Little Robby’s parrot head! Braaak!

        • spike55 says:

          Copy/paste.. WOW. !!!!

          Just follow your ignorance and total lack of comprehension of what you are doing.

          Why are all AGW apologists JUST SO DUMB !!!

        • sunsettommy says:

          Ok then what you wrote was a LIE!

          You stated:

          “There’s a nice graph for many decades of the nation’s heat index. Unfortunately, this is not temperature, and I’m sure many of your more blind readers, which is probably just about all of them, didn’t notice this a bit. Here’s a definition of the heat index.”

          You said there was no temperature in the chart, but the heat index chart are built on TEMPERATURE DATA!

          Again from YOUR link:

          “This indicator describes trends in unusually hot and cold temperatures across the United States.
          Figure 1. U.S. Annual Heat Wave Index, 1895–2015″

          You are indeed pathetic, it is why so many here are calling you out.

          • Rob Turpin says:

            “You said there was no temperature in the chart, but the heat index chart are built on TEMPERATURE DATA!”

            It certainly is built on temperature data, but the chart isn’t showing temperature data. I know this is hard for you to understand. Here’s the definition given for the heat wave index on that site.

            “While there is no universal definition of a heat wave, this index defines a heat wave as a period lasting at least four days with an average temperature that would only be expected to occur once every 10 years, based on the historical record. The index value for a given year depends on how often heat waves occur and how widespread they are.”

            Which by this definition would include the entire year … after all, that’s why it’s the annual heat wave index, NOT the summer heat wave index, NOT even the meteorological summer heat wave index. But Tony wants to keep using his own definition, which is not in agreement to the site where he got the chart.

          • spike55 says:

            WRONG, Turnip.!!

          • Rob Turpin says:

            You really are desperate for attention. I suggest you take it up with the EPA.

          • spike55 says:

            You are the one doing the mindless TROLL yapping, turnip.

            Poor pathetic lonely little turnip. !!

            Seek attention elsewhere, putz.

          • sunsettommy says:

            Now Turpin is trying to mislead people with this:

            “It certainly is built on temperature data, but the chart isn’t showing temperature data. I know this is hard for you to understand. Here’s the definition given for the heat wave index on that site.”

            He finally admits the chart is BUILT on temperature data, which he denied earlier with these words:

            “There’s a nice graph for many decades of the nation’s heat index. Unfortunately, this is not temperature, and I’m sure many of your more blind readers, which is probably just about all of them, didn’t notice this a bit. Here’s a definition of the heat index.”

            You Clearly say there is no temperature in it, now you say it does after I pointed it out to you, using YOUR OWN link.

            No one here disputes the definition of the heat index, no one here ever said that the Heat Index chart is a temperature chart.

            The RED HERRINGS needs to stop!

            Tony never said it was a temperature chart either, he made clear that with all those HEAT WAVES being far more common in the 1930’s, it was clearly hotter then than now, many of the record highs still stands that were from the 1930’s.

            You are here to fog it up with your white and black LIES!

          • Rob Turpin says:

            Nope. Never never denied temperature wasn’t a factor in determining the heat wave index. As a matter of fact, I gave you the EPA definition of how they determined the heat wave index.

            And yes, clearly there is no temperature in the heat wave index … it’s the heat wave index. I could copy the definition for you once again, but obviously you do not understand it.

            Agreed, no one ever said the heat wave index was a temperature chart, but Tony did use a heat wave index chart to say, 1934 was the hottest year ever in the contiguous U.S. That’s not true. If that were true, he’d be using a chart that showed the average temperature in the U.S was the highest in 1934. It wasn’t.

            “Tony never said it was a temperature chart either, he made clear that with all those HEAT WAVES being far more common in the 1930’s, it was clearly hotter then than now, many of the record highs still stands that were from the 1930’s.”

            That’s an incorrect statement … more heat waves do not mean the year was the hottest. Once again, if that were true, he’d be showing the average temperature chart with 1934 in the lead. He’s not because there is not chart support support this .. as a matter of fact:

            https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature

            What does “many of the record highs still stands that were from the 1930’s.” mean? Where’s your data? In the Great Plains, across the country, what are you talking about?

            Don’t bother, you’re clueless.

          • spike55 says:

            Poor turnip, digging himself further and further into his mind-sewer.

            1934 was much warmer than 2018

            Just accept FACTS and

            GET OVER IT !!

  19. gregole says:

    It’s warm. The ’30s were warmer. We survived then; we’re doing just fine now. So what?

    • gregole says:

      I love this blog. It’s all about numbers.

      And may I remind you these numbers are all minute. Whether it’s 1930s warming or our our present warming. Climate varies all on its own. And measured by a human lifetime; not by much.

      Yet there is at present, there is some sort of fascination, a kind of fetish actually, about CO2 and these tiny, inconsequential variations in temperature, all debated on a global scale; as if we can easily and competently visualize the entire planet. Time and again I’ve suggested people compare, for example, the Arctic ice minimum with the size of their country/state. Few respond.

      I’ve asked, time and again, for the start date of the “trend” in declining Arctic ice. No answer.

      Lots of nitpicking though.

      Flies that eat the eyes of wise men know nothing.

      • spike55 says:

        As I said before.

        This years Arctic minimum was around 20 times the area of the UK, 13 or so times the area of Germany

        A bout 60% of the contiguous USA area.

        That’s ONE HECK OF A LOT OF SEA ICE. !

        Trend in sea ice since the peak of the Holocene has been basically INCREASING except for the minor decrease since the LIA.

        That increase was particularly marked during the 2000 or so of the “Neoglaciation” leading up to the LIA, which was the coldest period in 10,000 years.

        THANK GOODNESS for that small amount of warming since that bleak and cold period.

  20. Steven Fraser says:

    Since its germaine to the topic, I’ve done some follow-up on the definition of ‘Heat Wave Index’, where it comes from, what goes into it.

    First, for purpose of candidate months, the WMO uses May-September in the NH as the ‘warm season’, that is, 1-month before and after the Meteorological Summer.

    Second, the definition of the ‘Heat Wave Index’ is found in the 1999 paper ‘Temporal Fluctuations in Weather and Climate Extremes That Cause Economic and Human Health Impacts:A Review’ by Kenneth E. Kunkel, Roger A. Pielke Jr., and Stanley A. Changnon. (a.k.a., Kunkel et al). The paper can be found at

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%281999%29080%3C1077%3ATFIWAC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    Per citations within the paper, the methodology builds upon one published by Karl et al 1996, in the paper ‘Indices of Climate Change in the United States’, which can be found at
    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%281996%29077%3C0279%3AIOCCFT%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    The relevant metric defined there is the CEI, the Climate Extremes Index.

    On page 280, the right hand column identifies the measurement stations selected, and the adjustments applied to the recorded values.

    The description of the ‘Extreme’ hot or cold identification is on the lower left column of page 287, and says ‘In each case, we define much above (below) normal or extreme conditions as those falling in the upper- (lower) tenth percentile of the local, century-long period of record.’

    Returning to Kunkel et al, the 1-year-and-10 qualification is used, and the index further qualified as to the calculation. The chart and associated text on page 1092, left column, show the index value for the 1.5% and 1-in-10 heat wave index, as indicated by the left and right axis labels. In this representation, to qualify as a ‘heat wave’, the measurement at a station must have an average for 4 consecutive days of >= the 1-in-10 threshold heat (or cold) level. The index is the number of station days meeting the threshold/the total number of stations in the sample group.

    The Kunkel et. al. methodology was used in publication in 2006 and 2016, including those by the EPA.

    Attached is a screenshot of the methodology text, followed by another post showing the resulting charts for the 2016 and 2006 publications.

    • Steven Fraser says:

      The Kunkel 2006 and 2016 Heat index charts:

      • Steven Fraser says:

        I have equalized the vertical scale, and added 4 index lines to assist in the comparison. You may note that there are some anomalies in the published charts. They do not agree with each other in some regards.

    • Rob Turpin says:

      The WMO definition is immaterial as these aren’t WMO charts. The definition is easy as it is given on the website where this chart is … an EPA website, which states:

      “While there is no universal definition of a heat wave, this index defines a heat wave as a period lasting at least four days with an average temperature that would only be expected to occur once every 10 years, based on the historical record. The index value for a given year depends on how often heat waves occur and how widespread they are.”

      And as I originally stated long ago … another definition for heat wave index:

      “While definitions vary, a heat wave is usually measured relative to the usual weather in the area and relative to normal temperatures for the season.”

      As you can see there’s one similarity … there’s no ONE definition. But like I said, that site gives you the definition for their data, so it’s also immaterial what the definition is that you found in someone else’s paper. That’s for their data and presentation. For the EPA it’s annual. Something Tony will never agree with even though the definition is explicitly stated.

      • spike55 says:

        Yes, we know the EPA do everything they can to BEND and WARP the facts, even making up dumb, incorrect definitions to suit their agenda.

        Your point is IRRELEVANT and IDIOTIC..

        and just plain NONSENSE !!

        Stop your moronic TROLLING, turnip. !

        • Rob Turpin says:

          Right, that’s why Tony is using the EPA chart to claim NOAA lied. Because they bend and warp the facts.

          You’re supposed to be backing him up. You’ve already forgotten this was about NOAA … not the EPA. Good one, stupid person.

          • spike55 says:

            WRONG AGAIN, turnip

            YOU GOOFED.

            MAN UP and admit it. !!

            FAR WARMER in the 1930s in the USA.

            End of story.

            No more of your childish tantrums, ok turnip !!

        • Disillusioned says:

          Spike, don’t tell the troll to stop! Let him keep digging his hole.

  21. Gator says:

    If the Robbin’ Turds’ of this world were half as critical of the Holey Church of Climunism as they are of real skeptics, this charade would be over. They always seem to miss the part about fudged numbers.

    • arn says:

      The real problem with Robert Turdpin is
      that we right now had a massive lying and propaganda climate bullshit with the current hurricane(no apocalypse,no superstorm,fake winddata) ,which once again turned out to be yet another MSM hoax turning a nobody of a community organiser into a political supersta…
      i mean,calling a yet another run of the mill hurricane an armageddon.

      And he is still pretending that something that looks like shit and smells like shit is caviar.
      Until we don’t start to beat the shit out of people who make bold predictions and fail,they won’t stop.
      Rewarding failure must be stopped.

      • Rob Turpin says:

        You guys are so super hilarious, turdpin!! Who couldn’t just laugh at the name calling you yokels dream up.

        Too bad Tony got caught spewing b.s. Now all his little buddies are hurt and need to rage back.

        • Gator says:

          “Yokels”. A term of endearment to the ignorant, projecting, and scientifically illiterate of this world.

          Awe, aren’t they just precious!

        • spike55 says:

          Poor squirmy little rotten turnip.

          PATHETIC. !!

          Like basically every other AGW apologist, ZERO-SCIENCE, just mindlessly yapping, like a demented chihuahua

          Still waiting for some empirical evidence of warming from atmospheric CO2.

          In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

        • spike55 says:

          Only person caught spewing spittle and BS is you, turnip.

          But its all you have to back up your NON-science nonsense.

        • mopar440 says:

          I run into this dementia with a lot of AGW believing people like Rob. When they see a graph that supports their religion like Michael Mann’s hockey stick, they froth all over it without a single question, like what actual measured data did you use to come up with that graph? Never mind that Mann won’t release his data to anyone for confirmation. When I present actual measured USHCN raw data, they get all suspicious about it and can’t comprehend that it’s the only real stuff out there. Rob’s just another one of those guys that believes everything the government says and looks to the government to change his diapers and solve all his problems. Rob, if you have some actual data to present that supports the AGW religion you preach, by all means share it. But links to Wiki garbage doesn’t cut it here.

          • Rob Turpin says:

            And I’ve run into many people on this board just like yourself .. and Tony. You aren’t paying a lick of attention to what I’m saying and not directly addressing any of my points.

            I used the graph that Tony used, and I didn’t use it to support AGW. I used it to refute the very claims he was making because he has a misunderstading of what the graph represents.

            I also get the constant ” fake news” attitude from people like yourself whenever showing links. Just simple denialism. Besides, the wiki link isn’t even that important as the EPA gave their own definition for heat wave index. A definition that Tony refuses to acknowledge. This simply shows his own ignorance of sources he uses.

          • spike55 says:

            Another EMPTY comment from the turnip-troll.

            Have the GUTS to admit you were WRONG, and stop your petulant tantrums..

            1934 was FAR warmer that 2018 is REAL data that hasn’t been massively tampered.

            GET OVER IT !!!

        • mopar440 says:

          Rob,
          The problem is that you aren’t making any actual points.
          All you have done is babble on about the EPA heat index definition and a stupid comment about “meteorological summer”. Is that all you’ve got? We’re all waiting for your great actual data that supports AGW? Where is your worldwide data Rob? We don’t care what you say, we want to see your scientific support for CO2 driven “climate change”? What is the data that supports the notion that the summer of 2018 was as warm as 1934? We’re still waiting for the great Rob Turpin’s scientific case for climate change? Still waiting Rob….. ?

          • Rob Turpin says:

            I did make points, and I’m not going to play your childish game of just denying it . Move on if you don’t want to be an adult.

            And you’re droning on about supporting AGW. Scientists have already supported all your looking for. Why you would ask me is simply mystifying.

          • Disillusioned says:

            “Scientists have already supported all your looking for.”

            You’re referring to a false consensus Robbie. Consensus is the refuge of scoundrels. It is not science. Empirical evidence is science. Your consensus-based ‘science’ has not held up to scrutiny. You believe a fallacy. I did too.

          • Rob Turpin says:

            All you have is name calling. Bye bye.

          • Gator says:

            From Little Robby’s very first post here…

            Ah, I found one of those internet sites where all the climate change deniers hang out and stroke one another.

            … this clown…

            … your more blind readers, which is probably just about all of them…

            … showed yourself to be a quack. Enjoy your little hokum website.

            I would say Little Robby started it. And now he pretends to be above it. Little Robby likes pretending.

          • Disillusioned says:

            Rob Turpin said, “All you have is name calling.”

            Would you like for me to list the numerous accounts you have ridiculed and used ad-hominem attacks against others?

            Robbie says – AGAIN: “Bye bye.”

            You said that before, Liar Robbie. Are you really going “Bye bye” or are you lying again?

          • Disillusioned says:

            Rob Turpin said: “Scientists have already supported all your looking for.”

            Disillusioned said: “You’re referring to a false consensus Robbie. Consensus is the refuge of scoundrels. It is not science. Empirical evidence is science. Your consensus-based ‘science’ has not held up to scrutiny. You believe a fallacy. I did too.”

            Rob Turpin makes a patently false claim and raises his white flag: “All you have is name calling. Bye bye.”

          • spike55 says:

            “All you have is name calling”

            All you have is EMPTY NONSENSE.

            Bye bye, I hope the door kicks you really hard on your way out.

            and you land face-first in your own BS. !!

        • mopar440 says:

          Yes, it is mystifying Rob, you’re obviously a zero with nothing to offer this site. Please go get your panties changed, your nose wiped and your life instructions at the nearest government office.

  22. sunsettommy says:

    Here is the reason why I am all over this misleading, lying fella named Rob Turpin, who thinks Tony is trying to mislead over what the EPA’s Heat Index means.

    Here are some PAST blog entries made by Tony, who make clear he understands what a Heat Index is:

    NOAA’s Complete Fake Climate Extremes Index

    “The EPA has this graph on their website, showing that the worst US heatwaves (by far) occurred during the 1930’s.”

    https://realclimatescience.com/2017/07/noaas-complete-fake-climate-extremes-index/

    and,

    The Most Fraudulent Climate Data

    “Most government climate fraudsters at least make some attempt at plausible deniability, but not so with NOAA’s climate extremes index. Even some people at the EPA seem to understand that summers in the 1930’s were much hotter.”

    https://realclimatescience.com/2018/06/the-most-fraudulent-climate-data/

    At the EPA website he linked to shows this:

    “Key Points
    Heat waves in the 1930s remain the most severe heat waves in the U.S. historical record (see Figure 1). The spike in Figure 1 reflects extreme, persistent heat waves in the Great Plains region during a period known as the “Dust Bowl.” Poor land use practices and many years of intense drought contributed to these heat waves by depleting soil moisture and reducing the moderating effects of evaporation.”

    and,

    NOAA Temperature Adjustments Invert Reality

    “The EPA’s own data shows that heatwaves were much worse in the 1930’s.”

    https://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/noaa-temperature-adjustments-invert-reality/

    NEVER does Tony said the heat index is a temperature data chart in all those links, therefore stop your Red Herrings and lies!

    • Rob Turpin says:

      Once again, I never said Tony said the heat wave index is a temperature chart. But he is using the heat wave index chart to claim 1934 was the hottest on record. That’s wrong:

      https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature

      • spike55 says:

        1934 WAS the hottest on record.

        By quite a bit.

        What is you issue??

        The rubbish you showed is a fabricated LIE for gullible AGW fools like you.

        REAL DATA, REAL HISTORY shows it most certain WAS far warmer than 2018

        But AGW apologists don’t deal in REAL DATA.

        Which are you , turnip.??

        an AGW cultist, an AGW apologist, or an AGW collaborator..

        .. or just a gullible idiot that has been sucked-in by the propaganda and lies?.

        Why the mindless trolling ??? !!!!!

  23. RW says:

    Hi. Steven Fraser redid your homework for you. As things turned out, your original flying-by-the-seat-of-your-narcissistic-pants work was shit. You should thank him for enlightening the discussion you seem so passionately driven by.

  24. Rob Turpin says:

    Hmm, seems when people are shown actual data that shows 1934 was not the hottest year in the U.S., they lose their voice. Particularly Tony.

    Good job climate change denialists.

    • spike55 says:

      TROLL ALERT.

      The turnip returns. !!

      1930s were MUCH warmer than 2018

      The once-was-data you linked to has been MASSIVELY ADJUSTED by your fellow AGW collaborators.

      This FRAUD has been shown OVER and OVER and OVER again

      REAL data tells the TRUTH, manic fabrications are there for the GULLIBLE TWERPS, like you.

      REAL un-adjusted data looks like this. !

      • spike55 says:

        FAKE DATA, ..
        … looks like the red line as used by the temperature FRAUDSTERS.

        And you, of course, are either COMPLICIT with the fraud, accepting it totally

        … or you are mindlessly GULLIBLE

        I am guessing .. both.

      • spike55 says:

        Question for you, turnip.

        Do you REALLY CONDONE this sort of data manipulation and fabrication ???

        Are you REALLY that DISHONEST ???

      • Rob Turpin says:

        Understood. The previous graph from the EPA used by Tony is all well and good. But this one isn’t. Must be nice picking and choosing. Please go to school and learn science.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          You don’t understand the graph, do you?

        • RAH says:

          Rob Turpin.
          One does not need graphs or even thermometer data to understand who is telling the truth. The News from the times, some of which Tony has presented in the past, concerning the times of the dust bowl makes it abundantly clear that there were multiple deadly heat waves in 34 and 36 which killed 1,000s of people over vast stretches of the US. And then of course there are people still alive from back then that remember and experienced it and of course various testimonials from those that are gone now but lived through it. It’s called history. History that backs the thermometer data from the time and is damning to the adjusted numbers that you are trying to defend.

          • Rob Turpin says:

            No, the death toll is not an indicator … actual data that I’ve already shown you all on a graph is. Obviously, none of you have an inkling what science is.

          • Gator says:

            Little Robby, you have not provided any “actual data”. Are you even aware of this? No, you are not.

        • spike55 says:

          Turnips are REALLY DUMB !!!

          EPA heat index graph shows temperature were FAR WARMER in 1934.

          GET OVER IT .

          .. and stop your PETTY and JUVENILE idiotic trolling.

        • spike55 says:

          Question for you, turnip.

          Do you REALLY CONDONE this sort of data manipulation and fabrication ???

          Are you REALLY that DISHONEST ???

          YES, you are !!

    • Gator says:

      What “actual data” Little Robby? Do you even know what “data” is? Clearly you do not, and this is part of the ignorance that clouds your beliefs.

Leave a Reply

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