“This story has been edited to remove an erroneous temperature conversion.”

It may be cold, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t hot.


About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to “This story has been edited to remove an erroneous temperature conversion.”

  1. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    the election where the loser won the contest


    Votes don’t matter to some people. Record cold an snow doesn’t matter to some people. Political power is all, it appears, that matters to some people.

  2. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    “You can’t tell much about the climate or where it’s headed by focusing on a particularly frigid day, or season, or year, even.”

    But the heat in Russia proved global warming, even though the same thing happened 135 years ago. A single hot day last summer in Los Angeles proved global warming, even though the station recording the temperature was clearly influenced by UHI. A drought in one area of Georgia in the US proved global warming, even though droughts in small areas have always happened. Warmth in water in Antarctica proved global warming, even though there are underwater volcanoes in that water. Floods for for a few days in Brisbane prove global warming, even though worse flooding had happened there more than once in the last 150 years.

    All of these events prove global warming. But record cold and snow three winters in a row across both hemispheres doesn’t prove anything.

    I see how it goes.

  3. Mike Davis says:

    You can prove Global Warming by looking at 150 years, which is less than an eye blink in Geological Time, but long term trends show the globe is cooling.
    Any warming observed in the temperature records over the last 150 years on a global scale is within error of being none existent.

    • latitude says:

      Mike the whole global warming thing falls apart when you ask them to explain why CO2 levels have falling so dangerously low.

      • Mike Davis says:

        Yes! My issue is not with climate changing but claiming humans are responsible or even that CO2 is the leading cause. It appears that CO2 is just one of the components of the atmosphere and is controlled by atmospheric conditions rather than the other way around.
        The CO2 levels in the Biosphere are an illusion. CO2 exists in the atmosphere but the actual extent is not known because due to regional conditions CO2 is NOT a well mixed gas. As long as the plants are growing and the concentration does not reach a harmful level the actual amount does not matter. The “Comfort Range” is fairly wide as it is with other substances that are a part of the natural biosphere.
        The illusion being promoted is that the Gas concentration was falling before we started contributing because the concentration was never a stable condition just as climate is not a stable condition.

  4. latitude says:

    liberals get nasty….

    …conservatives vote

  5. Nobama says:

    Shortly after the 2000 election, USA today did a big spread on the voting, with the help of several universities. (Read – all liberal sources) The article concluded that GW truly did win by nearly every method one might conceive for qualifying votes, (hanging chads, dimpled chads, recounts, etc., etc.) It was multiple pages of newsprint with numerous studies.

    As I recall, the article concluded that Gore would actually have lost by even more votes had he been successful at obtaining the cherry picked recounts he tried to arrange. So this story about how he was elected is fiction. We use the electoral college. Gore did win the popular vote, but since we don’t elect the president that way, he was never the cheated victor he’s claimed to be.

    • Justa Joe says:

      It’s been well proven that GWB won Florida vs. Algore. GWB backed it up the next time when he took Florida vs. Kerry. There is no significance to the fact that Gore may have won the most popular votes nationwide as that is not how the President is elected. It may be interesting trivia, but it has about as much validity as this season’s N.E. Patriots declaring themselves NFL champs because they won the most games this season.

  6. Andy Weiss says:

    I resent these know-it-all media types making global warming into a “smart vs. dumb” issue rather than a ” whose right vs. whose wrong” issue.

  7. Charles Higley says:

    Global warming is not the issue at all.

    The problem is the claim that man is causing it by CO2 emissions. This claim is patently untrue for a variety of reasons, all fairly basic science which the IPCC denies exists. The most telling effect is that, even if CO2 could warm the climate a bit, it would only serve to ramp up the convectional cooling of the water cycle as warm, moist air carries energy (about 92% of upward energy transfer) upwards where it is lost to space. The result would be a strong negative feedback such that we might cool a little.

    This is all about a trace gas which simply cannot, does not, and will not drive the climate. It has been much higher in the recent past and temperatures even crashed while CO2 was high.

    CO2 is plant food and we need it. It is greening the land and fertilizing the oceans.

  8. suyts says:

    One of the things I like about Steve’s site is that it gives me a chance to torture alarmists on a regular basis! Like going to the Columbia Missourian and screwing with Rosman. I don’t know how he finds all of this stuff, but is fun!

    • Paul H says:

      I’ve added my two penn’orth!

      • suyts says:

        Sigh, I did, too. It was there last night, but now its been disappeared! Typical.

      • suyts says:

        Yours is a good comment. They didn’t just delete my comment, they won’t let me log in anymore. My comment is even referenced in one of the other comments!(right next to a reference of yours.)

        frank christian January 27, 2011 | 8:34 a.m.

        Mike W.,frothferous, J. Sexton, P. Homewood – Thanks, very interesting. All but one posted good information and a great laff for a dreary, cold, GW, day.

        Censorship from the “Show Me” state by a fourth estate entity. Gotta love the warmistas. I don’t know if it was my use of the word “tripe” or “disingenuous” or my Orwellian references, but none I would have thought to warrant deletion and banning. Down the memory hole I go!

      • suyts says:

        Heh, my post is back.

  9. AndyW says:

    “The problem is that many climate change opponents only look at the short term, what is happening this week — not this century. ”

    Wonder who he could be thinking of ?



    • Mike Davis says:

      The people I often here this type of statement from are usually looking at 30 years or even 150 years of properly adjusted climate history to support their claims. When I see warmest in X years I see natural variations and when I see coldest in X years I also see natural variations.
      This century or even last century are just more of the same and to use short term conditions to claim a need for concern is ignorance.

  10. suyts says:

    lol, holy crap! Does anyone have Lindzen’s e-mail?

    “In a study published in the American Meteorological Society’s online journal, Edwin K. Schneider, Ben P. Kirtman, and Richard S. Lindzen of the Center for Ocean–Land–Atmosphere Studies reported that the increase in overall temperature of the planet has increased the water vapor in the atmosphere. This factored with the dipping jet stream accounts for the snows. It also accounts for the massive flooding in Australia and Brazil this year.”

  11. papertiger says:

    The middle of middle America is Belle Fourche, South Dakota.

    And Belle Fourche is a hell of a lot closer to Glacier National Park then Missouri is.

Leave a Reply