Messing With Texas

Nobel Prize Winner Barack Obama, Katharine Hayhoe, and UN Climate Spokesman Leo Dicaprio

During the heat and drought of 2011, Texas academics snake oil salesmen announced that heat and drought was permanent.

The weather of the 21st century will be very much like the hot and dry weather of 2011  …. There are few qualified atmospheric scientists who would argue with the assessment in the book. And there are none in Texas

Texas is vulnerable to warming climate – Houston Chronicle

Since then, Texas has been having their wettest weather on record.

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

The frequency of hot days has also been declining.  The weather of 2011 was an outlier, not climate.


Afternoon temperatures in Texas have declined about one degree since the peak in 1921.


But this doesn’t suit the needs of the climate mafia, so NOAA alters Texas temperatures to turn cooling into warming.

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Much of this change occurred under Nobel Prize Winner Barack Obama’s watch. NOAA simply altered their data to create a fake warming trend.

This was achieved through a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering, which cools the past by two degrees.


Texas climate academics have no legitimacy, and neither do government climate agencies. The climate scam is world class fraud.  I went to graduate school in Texas, got engaged twice there, married once there, and started my engineering career there.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Messing With Texas

  1. AndyDC says:

    During the 2016 Democrat convention, a prime time video was shown that knowingly and fraudulently gave the clear impression that the 2011 Texas drought was still ongoing, when in reality the drought had ended by 2013. Where were the wonderful investigative reporters from the Washington Post and New York Times with that story? You know, those fake news Pulitzer Prize winning journalists that believe “Democracy dies in darkness”. Their blatant hypocrisy and total phoniness knows no bounds.

  2. Colorado Wellington says:

    “… one book you should be reading is The Impact of Global Warming on Texas … This book, written by a group of Texas academics, is a sober analysis of our state’s vulnerability to climate change — and the things we can do about it.”

    We are fortunate they wrote it and the Houston Chronicle recommended the book. Aliens read it and realized they had to do something about climate change. And now Oxford academics noticed what the aliens are doing and started writing their own sober books about it.

    Oxford University professor claims aliens are already breeding with humans on earth
    The Korean academic has written a book called Alien Visitations and the End of Humanity

    An Oxford University professor has claimed aliens are already breeding with humans to create a new hybrid species that will save the planet.

    Dr Young-hae Chi, an instructor in Korean at Oxford’s Oriental Institute, part of the prestigious university, thinks this new species will save Earth from annihilation from climate change.

    • Gator says:

      That might explain the modern democrat party.

    • Petit_Barde says:

      Climate activists seem to have serious problems with reality … I wonder how many of them didn’t Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest …

    • arn says:

      A species believing in AGW could never reach the intellect to leave its solar system.

      On another note:
      This guy is just recycling some very old legends,myths and not so old conspiracy theories that aliens/demons/angel called nephilim/annunaki/chitauri etc bred with humans
      to create a hybrid species
      but as they already recycled the apocalypse of global cooling one should not expect too much crativity from them in terms of Bullshitting.
      As it is actionism and supremacy of definition their ideology is built on since Karl M.

      • Caleb Shaw says:

        Some medieval kings (including, I think, Richard the lionhearted), liked to think they had an angel/god/elf-princess way, way back in their family-tree.

        I think it gave them an explanation for why they got to be boss and others didn’t.

        Lacking science, pseudoscience may be turning to aliens for the same reason. They want an explanation for why they get to make stuff up and others don’t.

  3. Rud Istvan says:

    The NCDC 2014 shift in GHCN state calculations from Drd964x to nClimDiv did not only warm Texas. It gave all but 8 states ‘new’ warming. For CONUS, the Drd964x decadal trend was 0.088F. With ‘new improved’ nClimDiv it became 0.135F.
    California, Michigan and Maine were used to illustrate this nonsense in essay When Data Isn’t in my ebook Blowing Smoke.

  4. DM says:

    Tony and fellow reality champions have devastated many of the watermelons’ doomsday forecasts issued since “The Population Bomb”. Watermelons are tyrants masquerading as environmentalists. They are green on the outside and red on the inside. Devastating doomsday forecasts has devastated the “intellectual” case for wind turbines, solar panels and other “green” energy hardware.

    Experience with green energy devastates the physical case. It is much more costly and unreliable than thermally generated electricity. It is much more capital intensive than conventional generators, thereby diminishing investment in other goods and services needed and wanted by society. It ruins landscapes, batters flying creatures and damages the environment in other ways. It cuts CO2 emissions less than replacing coal fired generators with natural gas generators.

    Let me explain the latter. Building a reliable electricity system around wind turbines presently requires 10-15x MORE capital per unit of output than does a system built upon natural gas fueled generators. The 10-15x multiplier means ONLY 1 CO2 belching, coal fired generator can be replaced with a wind based system INSTEAD of the 10-15 replaced if the same amount of capital is used to install natural gas fueled generators.

    Slashing the number of coal fueled generators replaced slashes the CO2 reduction. 1 reliable wind system producing as much electricity as a 500 MW coal fueled generator might cut CO2 emissions 2.7-3.1 million metric tonnes per yr. Investing the same amount of capital in natural gas fueled capacity reduces CO2 emissions 18-27 million tonnes per yr. The larger reduction does far more to temper anthropogenic global warming.

    The 10-15x multiplier is for post industrial countries. It reflects the fact wind turbines alone require 5-10x more capital per unit of electricity generated than does a natural gas fired baseload generator. Wind turbines must be more extensively backed up than baseload thermal generators. A low ball, ball park estimate is every 300 MW of effective wind capacity (rated capacity x capacity factor) requires 500-600 MW (rated) of back up capacity. A natural gas fueled generator needs perhaps 35-40 MW. Wind based systems also need more extensive (and less well utilized) transmission networks. FYI, a wide confidence interval surrounds all these figures. Actual values for an individual site or region will differ because of local wind traits, equipment specifications and other factors.

    The CO2 savings are based on CO2 emissions from German brown coal and estimates that burning natural gas releases 0.572 kg of CO2 per kWh. Also, a reliable electricity system built upon wind turbines might emit 15-25% the CO2 released by a similarly sized coal based system.

    Time to wrap. Tony, perhaps you should suggest to Boulder’s do-gooders that instead of signaling their good intentions by ruining Boulder’s wetlands, they replace the nearby coal fired generator with one burning natural gas AND replace 9-14 MORE coal plants elsewhere.

    • Al Shelton says:

      “Carbon emissions” are not causing global warming/climate change.
      Replacing “this with that” and doing “this and that” is meaningless.

      • DM says:

        Al, natural factors almost certainly dominate fluctuations in temperatures and other weather / climate metrics. Anthropogenic CO2 is probably just a modifying, very minor factor.

        Persuading others to support replacing old, coal fired generators with natural gas generators, rather than renewables, involves building on their perceptions. A significant fraction of the population perceives, rightly or wrongly, that reducing CO2 emissions will prevent catastrophic global warming. Informing them natural gas does more good than do renewables might gain their support for sensible policies and encourage some to oppose watermelon nonsense.

  5. Steven Fraser says:

    Prompted by this post, I brought my DFW monthly rainfall spreadsheet up to date today, and reviewed for reservoir status.

    As of yesterday, the ‘official preliminary’ DFW monthly rainfall from the National Weather Service for April stands at 6.74″, not too far away from my own measurement at home, 8.5″. April is currently at 184.69% of the average (full-month) April history values, and we are expecting a wee bit more on April 30.

    For the year-to-date (through the 26th) , DFW rainfall measured is 11.62″, which is 35.06% of the average full-year rainfall.

    Reservoirs are at 87.7% of Conservation storage (full), though this number does not represent the complete picture, as the water is only counted contributing to this % up until the conservation storage limit of a reservoir is reached. When a reservoir exceeds this amount (flood stage) the flood pool water is not counted toward the total %.

    Also, there is 1 out-of-state (NM) reservoir in the watersheds, 2 on the Rio Grande and a number of flood-control-only (not for water supply) included in the totals.

    All that said, below is what the reservoir status like, with the color-code key. The dark-blue is 90% or greater. That chart does not tell you those that are above 100%. Of the 121 reservoirs tracked, 82 of them are at 100% or in flood pool stage.

    As things stand now, the conservation capacity of the reported reservoirs is 28,599,957 acre-feet, and the actual water stored is 34,587,527 acre feet. If the water were distributed from those lakes which have extra to those which are <100% (even the flood-control lakes), Texas would still have 1,086,755 acre feet of water above the total conservation storage.

    Drought… not so much recently.

  6. John F. Hultquist says:

    I searched for the authors but did not find a complete list.
    Texas needs a large billboard with their photos, names, and the main bogus idea thereon. “Repent or doom comes by 2017”
    However for the book:
    Impact of global warming on Texas, Texas press 2011

    Edited by Jurgen Schmandt, Gerald R. North, and Judith Clarkson

    Same authors listed for Chapter 8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    Seems to be a summary of IPCC (2007).

    Regarding CO2:
    This reversal needs to come within a decade or so if the worst effects of global warming are to be avoided. It is generally agreed that the richest countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions 60–80 percent.

    While the 2nd edition of the book has 2011 as a date, the source IPCC material must be 2007.
    Who among you has reduced your emissions by 60%?
    Show of hands, please.
    Me neither.

    • Steven Fraser says:

      I love the quoted line beginning :’It is generally agreed…’. My questions: By whom? Which are the ‘richest’ countries?

      Enquiring minds want to know!

  7. Walter says:

    Was in West Texas last fall with my girlfriend hiking Big Bend National Park. Wet, green, beautiful. We loved it. I was in Heaven.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.