Real Climate Science

Mercury News: Search Results

Thomas Jefferson believed in global warming, until Noah Webster pointed out to him that what he was seeing was a UHI effect.  Imagine that! A president who was actually capable of listening and learning – and talking about something other than himself.

In his 1787 book, Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson launched into a discussion of the climate of both his home state and America as a whole. Near the end of a brief chapter addressing wind currents, rain and temperature, he presented a series of tentative conclusions: “A change in our climate…is taking place very sensibly. Both heats and colds are become much more moderate within the memory of the middle-aged. Snows are less frequent and less deep….The elderly inform me the earth used to be covered with snow about three months in every year. The rivers, which then seldom failed to freeze over in the course of the winter, scarcely ever do so now.” Concerned about the destructive effects of this warming trend, Jefferson noted how “an unfortunate fluctuation between heat and cold” in the spring has been “very fatal to fruits.”

Webster concluded by rejecting the crude warming theory of Jefferson and Williams in favor of a more subtle rendering of the data. The conversion of forests to fields, he acknowledged, has led to some microclimatic changes—namely, more windiness and more variation in winter conditions. But while snow doesn’t stay on the ground as long, that doesn’t necessarily mean the country as a whole gets less snowfall each winter: “We have, in the cultivated districts, deep snow today, and none tomorrow; but the same quantity of snow falling in the woods, lies there till spring….This will explain all the appearances of the seasons without resorting to the unphilosophical hypothesis of a general increase in heat.”

Webster’s words essentially ended the controversy. While Jefferson continued to compile and crunch temperature data after his retirement from the presidency, he never again made the case for global warming.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Americas-First-Great-Global-Warming-Debate.html

Look for temperatures to rise a full degree every five years!

Hansen says that the deadline has already passed. Why are they still spending hundreds of billions of dollars on this scam?

President Obama ‘has four years to save Earth’ | Environment | The Observer

It is game over. Stop stealing our money.

The team now says that the warmest period of the last 12,000 years occurred when Canada was mostly covered with an ice sheet.

You really can’t make up world class stupidity like this.

I violated Mikey’s terms of use, by presenting some actual science.

My post is gone …..

(1) The disinformation…

“We have, through human emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, indefinitely delayed the onset of the next ice age and are now heading into an unknown future where humans control the thermostat of the planet,” said Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University

Recent heat spike unlike anything in 11,000 years | Aiken Standard

I am ambiguous about this. The thought of Chicago and New York getting buried under a mile of ice certainly has its appeal, and would be a huge help in future elections.

Must read article :

Three Democratic myths used to demean the Paul filibuster

The progressive ’empathy gap’, a strain of liberal authoritarianism, and a distortion of Holder’s letter are invoked to defend Obama

Some Democrats, to their credit, publicly supported Paul, including Sen. Ron Wyden, who went to the Senate floor to assist the filibuster. Sens. Jeff Merkley, Pat Leahy and (independent) Bernie Sanders all voted against Brennan’s confirmation, citing many of the same concerns raised by Paul. Some prominent progressive commentators praised Paul’s filibuster as well:on CNN, Van Jones – while vowing that “I love this president” – said “Sen. Rand Paul was a hero for civil liberties” and that “liberals and progressives should be ashamed.”

But most Democratic Senators ran away as fast as possible from having anything to do with the debate: see here for the pitifully hilarious excuses they offered for not supporting the filibuster while claiming to support Paul’s general cause. All of those Democratic Senators other than Merkley and Leahy (and Sanders) voted to confirm the torture-advocating, secrecy-loving, drone-embracing Brennan as CIA chief.

Meanwhile, a large bulk of the Democratic and liberal commentariat – led, as usual, by the highly-paid DNC spokesmen called “MSNBC hosts” and echoed, as usual, by various liberal blogs, which still amusingly fancy themselves as edgy and insurgent checks on political power rather than faithful servants to it – degraded all of the weighty issues raised by this episode by processing it through their stunted, trivial prism of partisan loyalty. They thus dutifully devoted themselves to reading from the only script they know: Democrats Good, GOP Bad.

Three Democratic myths used to demean the Paul filibuster | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

1. North Korea says they are going to nuke us
2. Afghanistan (“the right war”) says we are conspiring with the Taliban
3. Obama is giving F-16s to the Muslim Brotherhood, while disarming American heroes

The White House explains

“what difference does it make?”

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFZytEUCXu4]

UK weather: Snow and freezing temperatures on the way in cold snap that could be chilliest of the entire winter – Mirror Online