Coolest Summer On Record In The US

The frequency of 90 degree days in the US has been plummeting for 80 years, and 2014 has had the lowest frequency of 90 degree days through July 23 on record. The only other year which came close was 1992, and that was due to dust in the atmosphere from Mt Pinatubo.

ScreenHunter_1349 Jul. 26 16.57

About Tony Heller

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

696 Responses to Coolest Summer On Record In The US

  1. Jerry Moore says:

    global warming is working great or is it cooling? drying? wetting? WTF IS IT PEOPLE?!

    • Tangair says:

      “It” is the ever convenient catchphrase, “climate change”. You know, like the climate is always changing anyway, so let’s now demonize level-headed science with the passing of each season.

      • porchhound says:

        Catch up man! It is now Climate DISRUPTION!!! Can’t you see it, feel it, taste it?

      • Rick says:

        That’s exactly it. If it’s too hot, it’s climate change. Too cold, climate change. Drought, climate change. Flood, climate change. Too many hurricanes, climate change. Not as many hurricanes as predicted, climate change. Anything that happens in nature at all, as if there is ever a “normal” in global climate patterns, well, climate change and we should be taxed to death and live off windmills and solar power and stop farming cows.

        • philjourdan says:

          No one said there was no climate change. It has been changing for 4.5 billion years! What planet are you on?

        • George Senda says:

          I never said there was NO climate change. My issue was the contention that it was the coolest summer which I doubt. I’m on Earth. I’m not sure wher in the hell YOU are at or on.

        • philjourdan says:

          T comes out of the closet!

          Or there actually is climate change. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/temperature.html

          You said “or there actually is…”. That indicates a revelation. As in WOW, really? I never quoted you as saying “no climate change” indeed I said NO ONE said that. And that includes skeptics.

          Don’t “J’acuse” when you do not know what was said.

        • Which summer do you believe had fewer 90 degree days?

        • Gail Combs says:

          I completely disagree. There IS NO “CLIMATE CHANGE”!

          Why do I say that? Because the politicos changed the meaning of the phrase “Climate Change” to confuse the sheeple. A tactic the progressives have been using for years.

          The USA ratified the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change on 21/03/94 and they came up with a brand new definition. Now “climate change” is 100% caused by humans, AND THAT is what I do not agree with.

          Here’s the official definition:

          “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

          That’s from the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2536.php). The term specifically excludes all natural climate change, end even excludes any caused by humans due to, for example, land clearance or city building, considering only atmospheric changes.

          So you’ve been hoodwinked thoroughly. Of course that’s the idea. They can make all sorts of horrendous claims about “climate change” (assuming their definition), which people like you assume to apply to, not “climate change”, but to a change of climate (meaning any change, whatever the cause or mechanism). So if they say, “climate change” is 1000 times more than it was 100 years ago, that may be true, but it might still be that the change of climate is negligible.

          Do you see now how the hoax is perpetrated?

          The fact that the UN has pulls such an underhanded trick on the general population should be a BIG CLUE that they are scammers.

      • Yup, you said it.

      • Big2Tex says:

        “level-headed science” now there is an oxymoron for you.

      • woodNfish says:

        Actually, I think the climate is pretty stable – summers are warm, winters are cold, spring and fall transition between them, and overall we have weather mostly consistent with whatever time of year it is. All this BS about AGW and climate change is noise to continue the AGW fraud.

        • pesce9991 says:

          I’m surprised you can type this gibberish with your head in the sand!

        • _Jim says:

          pesce9991, are you a loving, kind, compassionate and understanding liberal or a conceited, vicious, rug-chewing, ankle-biting liberal?

          Just asking …

          .

        • pesce9991 says:

          The former, Jim. Of course.

        • Ron says:

          And your credentials are…?

        • lectorconstans says:

          Obviously, no-one can say anything about weather or climate unless they have the requisite credentials.

          How about yours?

          In the meantime, the Earth’s temperature has been fairly constant over the past 15 or so years,

          No, you go find it. we shouldn’t have to do your homework.

        • Donald Olson says:

          I’m thinking that pesce9991 voted for Obama 5 or 6 times.

        • Elfguy says:

          Pesce, go watch Christopher Monckton’s lectures and the documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (Which, Ironically, was originally going to be about scientists who could verify the scientific basis of Al Gore’s film…but the producer couldn’t find any reputable scientists who agreed, and to save the money he’d already spent in research and conducting interviews, he made it about what a big fraud the AGW movement was.)

          Note that both Monckton and the scientists in TGGWS say to NOT just believe them, but look up the facts for yourself.

          Now who is more trustworthy? A politician who claims that human activity and CO2 production is catastrophic, yet lives a lifestyle in direct contradiction to that (I especially appreciated how he left the engines on his private jet running on the tarmac in the San Francisco airport while he got a haircut), or scientists who lay out the facts and tell you to draw your own conclusions?

        • pesce9991 says:

          No thanks, Elfguy. I’ll leave the honor of being deluded by him to you.

          http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-lesson-for-monckton-and-co.html

        • philjourdan says:

          Hmmm….This SS? http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/skepticalscience-goes-godwin-nazi-or-something/

          You sure pick strange sources. Goebbels next?

        • That is not proven but if so then compassionately and lovingly.

      • rho1953 says:

        No, lets demonize agenda driven science that is based on the desire of government to justify taxation, regulation, and control.

      • Albert says:

        Its whatever TF we say it is. Pay us for carbon credits and nobody has to get hurt, see?

      • Truth Is Bad Mmmkay? says:

        Stop being a truther. Always trying to find the truth in things. Why can’t you just let the government do what it needs to do: swallow every dollar we all make?

    • J Tyme says:

      Nobody really knows… There are those that pretend to know for money or to defend the indefensible.

      • Ron Bonner says:

        Some are Al Gore Climate Change proponents who if given the chance will end the coal industry, put up more wind farms that kill birds, and continue claiming we are doomed by global cooling.

        Gore is just lining his pockets with money as his motivator.

        • …don’t forget the Gore’s family made money mining a specific type of coal…the one opposite they type he and his followers are trying to ban….moneytrail anyone?

        • philjourdan says:

          tom steyers too.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Erik Von Guido ….moneytrail anyone?
          >>>>>
          Oh Al Gore’s Money trail is truly funny.

          Not only do you have Al Gore Sr. on the board of Soviet spy Armand Hammer’s Occidental Petroleum. Al junior was also a “friend” of Occidental Petroleum.

          FORBES: The Greening Of Gore’s Bank Account

          ..Al Jr. received the favor and patronage of Hammer’s successor, Occidental CEO Ray Irani, throughout his political career. He was one of the campaign contributors who slept in the Lincoln bedroom upon writing a $100,000 check to the DNC. When Al made illegal fundraising calls from the White House, a memo unearthed during the investigation revealed that Irani had ponied up $50,000. It appears that Al may possibly have made that generosity worth every penny… and a lot more.

          At least 100 sacred burial sites gave historic testimony to the fact that Kitanemuk Indians had made their homes in the Elk Hills of central California for thousands of years, land that was surrendered to the U.S. Government through an 1851 treaty. Rich in oil that Occidental sought to gain drilling rights to develop, the region was also inhabited by a rare species of fox, lizard and kangaroo rat which environmental groups fought to protect through a lawsuit filed under the Endangered Species Act. Accordingly, Occidental’s plans were perceived as a threat to both the grave sites and the critters.

          Fortunately for Oxy, they had an influential friend. Yup, you probably guessed who. Congratulations!

          Vice President Gore recommended that Elk Hills be sold as part of his “Reinventing Government” National Performance Review program. Tony Coelho, his confident, Democrat super-fundraiser, and later, campaign manager, served on the board of directors of ICF Kaiser International, the private company hired to assess the sale’s environmental consequences. As Peter Eisner, director of the Center for Public Integrity, observed: “I can’t say that I’ve ever seen an environmental assessment prepared so quickly.” And, perhaps not entirely surprisingly, it worked out in Occidental’s favor. They purchased the 47,000 acres of land from the federal government for $3.7 billion, tripling the company’s oil reserves….

          However as the CAGW scam has run it’s course Al Gore is heading for ‘greener’ (the money shade that is) pastures. No fool he, he is dumping his green energy stock.

          Al Gore Walks Away From Green Energy
          When Al Gore talks, people listen. Just ask the folks who hand out Academy Awards and Nobel Peace Prizes….

          if Al Gore has any message for investors today, it might very well be this: “Stay the hell away from alternative energy!”
          …Reading through the promotional materials he puts out through his company, Generation Investment, it is hard to tell whether his “Client Update” is selling investments in his Climate Solutions Fund or memberships in the Sierra Club.

          “Scientific fundamentals continue to point to a need for urgent action on climate,” Gore says. Just like his Oscar-winning movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” it has lots of cool charts and graphics.

          Climate policy is still firmly on the political agenda and corporate climate-related activity is increasingly strategic. Innovation is driving costs down and improving the business case for low carbon and high efficiency solutions.

          This goes on for 20 pages. But even Gore does not seem to be listening anymore.

          Gore’s company files a quarterly report with the SEC that tells a different story about the 30 stocks in its portfolio. His company’s public investments in wind, solar, biomass and other alternative energy to combat climate change are practically non-existent.

          …He is also big in China, with stakes in a big Chinese travel agency, CTrip, and China’s largest medical equipment manufacturer, Mindray Medical.

          And if you want a piece of the natural gas pipeline game — heavily dependent on the environmentally suspect fracking — you can find that in Gore’s portfolio as well with Quanta Services (PWR_)…..

          Given all of Al Gores blatant moves that are anti-environmental and show he doesn’t believe a word of the bull he is spewing I find it completely jaw-dropping that any one with half a brain listens to the ‘sex-crazed poodle’

      • stevesmitty79 says:

        There’s obviously a clear pattern of unpredictability.

      • It just isn’t climate commenters, it seems to be everyone, who just won’t say “I don’t know”. The real lesson of the Butterfly Effect, presented by E Lorenz, is that even a small difference at the beginning, such as a very small rounding of a data set, has a very dramatic effect later on for down stream predictions and results. Since it is impossible to be exactly precise in the beginning, or even to know where to begin, it is not possible to make exact predictions. So if anyone says, the rise will be 1 degree C or the decline will be 1.5 degrees C, you must immediately know that he/she doesn’t have any credibility.
        My prediction: I don’t know.

        • _Jim says:

          re: Tom (@Templar8) says July 27, 2014 at 12:53 pm
          It just isn’t climate commenters, it seems to be everyone, who just won’t say “I don’t know”. The real lesson of the Butterfly Effect,

          The so-called Butterfly Effect ignores the concept of balance in nature; the natural skeptic in me has always had problems whenever someone mentions that ‘effect’. Rather, I think the chaotic nature of ‘nature’ balances out ANY imposed perturbation (by man or things like volcanoes) and a ‘reversion to the mean’ (as in: all energy flows are eventually out to 2.7 K ‘deep space’) is the result.

          .

        • BoilerVette says:

          Chaos Theory is the reason that NONE of the computer “climate models” are worth a damn. The models all linear/deterministic and the Earth’s climate is a complex, non-linear, non-deterministic system. When frauds like Hansen point to the “accuracy” of their models for the past 30 years, what he really did was fudge variable coefficients until he got the desired result.

        • lectorconstans says:

          The Butterfly Effect applies quite well to ” deterministic nonlinear systems”. You can see the effect quite clearly in fractal pattern generators.

          Whether the physical universe is one of those systems is questionable. The effect probably entered the mass culture’s consciousness with Ray Bradbury’s story “A Sound of Thunder”: ” As of 1984 it was the most re-published science fiction story up to the present time.”

          But for Lorenz’s thought experiment example is just that – a thought experiment, intentionally exaggerated. There’s no possible cause-and-effect relationship to the butterfly’s wings and anything more than a meter or so away.

          In other contexts, there may well be a cause-and-effect. The most striking example is the “For want of a nail, a kingdom was lost”, and that story spells out the connections.

          As far as long-term climate goes, I believe that nobody knows for sure.

        • _Jim says:

          lectorconstans, to quote the Zerohedge website motto: “On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.” also applies to everything a Butterfly’s wings could possibly affect; in the end thermal energy (from the sun, which will one day extinguish or the earth’s core) is radiated out to space, with the resulting local temperature approaching that of 2.7 K space temperature. I do not see where a Butterfly flapping or not flapping it’s wings affects this outcome (verily, it is just part of the overall energy in the system, either potential or kinetic at the time).

          Also the ‘for want of a nail’ would seem to be limited to the environment or world built by ‘puny’ mankind; nature and overall plant and animal life does not seem to have an equivalent. That ‘we’ build such critical system is a reflection upon us, and not nature.

          .

        • Andre Paquin says:

          What about the butterfly effect of the bat and bird kiilling windmills disrupting wind patterns? Same deal with the bird incinerating solar power plants and the vast solar panal farm waste lands that are sprouting up everywhere, what is thier butterfly effect?

        • Gail Combs says:

          Tom,
          you might want to read what physicist Dr. Robert Brown has to say on chaos. It is his field.

          My take away from several of his comments is that the climate stays relatively stable around one strange attractor until enough factors change and it tips into ‘orbiting’ a different strange attractor.

          rgbatduke says:
          March 7, 2014 at 12:02 pm

          It might be an interesting student project if you could get the code for one of the models and see how many different “Water Worlds” there are. – paul linsay- [I did research on nonlinear dynamics, aka, chaos theory, for nearly twenty years and from my experience, these guys are pikers.]

          This is, of course, the point of the Perturbed Parameter Ensemble application of the models (which is statistically one of the few bright spots in the attempt to model the insanely difficult N-S system. As you say, from any given (neighborhood of) a starting condition they do indeed get a substantial spread of future climates, and then attempt to reduce that spread to some sort of mean future climate. This per-model PPE mean is then super-averaged into the Multi-Model Ensemble mean.

          All of which is enough to make me want to just beat my head against the wall. You can dress all of this up in as many learned publications as you like and it will still be deeply suspect methodology with no theoretically defensible predictive force. At least per model, you can look at the spread of future PPE climates and see if the real climate is decently represented by any of them, although even then one has to look at and compare the entirety of EACH trajectory to reality and not whether the PPE “envelope” of a given model “contains” reality (between five or ten models that sometimes descend to it, briefly). That’s the fundamental sham of figure 1.4 in the SPM — just because the envelope of all of the GCMs barely contains reality doesn’t make one single model in the entire ensemble plausible.

          But yes, I sometimes wonder if the climate modellers have ever heard of strange attractors at all, let alone put any effort into trying to understand a NON-microscopic decomposition into large scale climate modes that are likely associated with long-lived attractors in the actual Earth climate system. Everything is linearized. Turn the CO_2 crank, up goes the temperature, and let’s throw in some H_2O linked positive feedback for good measure.

          One can put together a decent non-linear argument for the assertion that rapid warming could trigger the next ice age. Ice melt in the arctic freshens surface waters, slows and shifts the north atlantic turnover in the global thermohaline circulation enough to cause it to phase lock to a new pattern further south. Heat stops being transported to the Arctic and northern Europe, which consequently cools. Whatever governs the tipping point into the known, major cold phase attractor dominating the Pliestocene ice age, the climate tips and the Holocene ends. We know from the Ordovician-Silurian transition that glaciation tips millions of years long have occurred in the past at CO_2 levels 10x or more the current level, so we have no good reason to think that they are impossible now. This freshwater blocking of the thermohaline circulation is one of the explanations offered for the Younger Dryas return to glaciation shortly after the Wisconsin glacial era started to end.

          I just don’t think people appreciate either the depth of our ignorance, the impotence of our computational capability to solve problems of this complexity with anything like predictive force, or just how completely strongly nonlinear systems can confound your simple linear response expectations.

          But we might eventually find out

          More on Strange Attractors from Dr. Brown:

          “There’s an interesting contribution on HK dynamics (Hurst-Kolmogorov model) by Demetris Koutsoyiannis “Stochastics and its importance in studying climate” over at Climate Dialogue, well worth reading:”

          http://www.climatedialogue.org/long-term-persistence-and-trend-significance

          Let me second this. Koutsoyiannis is the HK “man”.

          Let me also comment on the connection between HK dynamics and statistics and chaos. Complex nonlinear multivariate systems often exhibit “strange attractors” — local fixed points in a set of coupled nonlinear ordinary differential equations — that function as foci for Poincare cycles in the multivariate phase space. In classical deterministic chaos, a system will often end up in a complex orbit around multiple attractors, one that essentially never repeats (and the attractors themselves may migrate around as this is going on). In a system such as the climate, we can never include enough variables to describe the actual system on all relevant length scales (e.g. the butterfly effect — MICROSCOPIC perturbations grow exponentially in time to drive the system to completely different states over macroscopic time) so the best that we can often do is model it as a complex nonlinear set of ordinary differential equations with stochastic noise terms — a generalized Langevin equation or generalized Master equation, as it were — and average behaviors over what one hopes is a spanning set of butterfly-wing perturbations to assess whether or not the resulting system trajectories fill the available phase space uniformly or perhaps are restricted or constrained in some way. We might physically expect this to happen if the system has strong nonlinear negative feedback terms that stabilize it around some particular (family of) attractors. Or, we might find that the system is in or near a “critical” regime where large fluctuations are possible and literally anything can happen, and then change without warning to anything else, with very little pattern in what happens or how long it lasts.

          The solutions in question are usually technically integrodifferential equations with a non-Markovian kernel, which makes them damn difficult to solve. To simplify them, one often uses the Markov approximation and simulates them as e.g. a Markov chain rather than necessarily as a non-Markovian integral. A very reasonable interpretation of HK dynamics in climate science is that each distinct regime represents a period where a particular local attractor is stable and some specific pattern of climate holds (one which might be net warming or net cooling or stable, as all three are clearly visible in even the LOCAL record of just over a century in e.g. GISS, most of it without the help or influence of CO_2).

          This sort of time evolution is evident in the longer term — 5 million year — climate data. The Earth entered precisely this sort of multistable regime at the beginning of the Pliestocene, with a clearly evident bistability between dominant glaciation punctuated by comparatively brief interglacials (for all that the whole of recorded human history fits into half of ONE such interglacial). There is no evidence of a stable, still warmer multistable phase — even when the Earth has spiked up to much warmer than it is today, negative feedback has quickly driven it first back to interglacial behavior, then (usually quite abruptly) back into the dominant glaciation mode. This behavior is NOT truly chaotic, but rather has only a few distinct frequencies associated with it, frequencies we can identify (weakly) with various orbital periods and changes in the solar system.

          Given this natural history of dramatic, game changing swings in the Earth’s climate across at least a slowly varying pair of bistable regimes acting as primary attractors, attempting to analyze the Earth’s behavior over the last 30 to 50 years (where we don’t yet understand and cannot predict its gross behavior on all of the timescales longer than this and hence have no real idea what the climate “should” be doing) is a bit of a joke. Or if you prefer, a grand challenge problem, arguably the most difficult problem in science we might have today, more difficult than finding the Higgs or unifying field theory or detecting gravity waves or building a stable exothermic thermonuclear fusion reactor. This isn’t settled science — we haven’t even finished doing the preliminary work, the groundwork, needed to make serious progress in it.

          In fifty to a hundred years, we might have enough, good enough, data to make some real progress in the field — if people would take the damn thumbs off of the scales and leave politics both ways out of the science. Yes, the Earth could experience catastrophic warming, catastrophic cooling, or could have a catstrophe unrelated to heating or cooling in between. No, we do not know enough yet to do more than hint at which one(s) are likely, or how likely. If the Earth exhibits this behavior, it might or might not be “our fault”. Or perhaps it is the fault of a Brazilian butterfly. Or the fault of goats turned loose in what became the Sahara, 9000 years ago. Or the fault of the Earth’s inexorable orbital progression. Or the fault of as yet unknown solar dynamics.

          What we do know is that politics and science make poor bedfellows, and that confirmation bias is the bete noir of all scientific research. We also know that the measures proposed to combat an unproven possibility of catastrophe in fifty or a hundred years are themselves causing a directly provable catastrophe today. Even if the catastrophists are right, this is a cost-benefit problem, a risk assessment problem, and we have to trade off the certain damage caused by energy poverty that afflicts some 1/2 of the world’s population now against the possibility of (probably lesser, quite frankly) damage in fifty years, in a hundred years, should the catastrophists prove correct.

          Anybody who forecasts a chaotic system with more than one forcing more than 5 days ahead is either a fool or very courageous. – Climatologist

      • KayFlyte says:

        One thing is certain: Al Gore will NOT log in and post here.

    • cjt says:

      It is a mechanism for the political class to scare the uninformed and dupe them into giving a STIPEND ……oops i mean money .. stipend, um… tax….to the ruling class. We are now watching the ruling class retarding us down to make a slave class. The new working class.

      • Tiny says:

        Americans as a whole deserve everything they are now getting from the political class. They are completely ignorant, uninformed, and gullible. Their maturity level politically is similar to a small child’s. The people have been completely corrupted and gladly exchange freedoms for the false protections offers by their nanny state. The last 8 years has caused me extreme disappointment in the electorate for being completely blind to all logic.

        • Bob NotMyRealName says:

          Perhaps one of the best posts I have seen in weeks. The dependency class will be the death of us all.

        • Gail Combs says:

          This dumbing down of the general population was done over more than a 100 year and it was done with Malice Aforethought by John Dewey (Fabian Socialist), the Father of American education.

          Dumbing Down America by Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld
          I am often asked to name those educators responsible for the change in primary reading instruction which has led to the decline of literacy in America. People ask this because by the time they understand the history of the reading problem and of the dumbing down process that has been going on in our public schools for the past forty years, they recognize that all of this is not the result of a series of accidents but of conscious, deliberate decisions made by our educational leaders…

          In 1894, Dewey was appointed head of the department of philosophy, psychology and education at the University of Chicago which had been established two years earlier by a gift from John D. Rockefeller. In 1896, Dewey created his famous experimental Laboratory School where he could test the effects of the new psychology on real live children.

          Dewey’s philosophy had evolved from Hegelian idealism to socialist materialism, and the purpose of the school was to show how education could be changed to produce little socialists and collectivists instead of little capitalists and individualists. It was expected that these little socialists, when they became voting adults, would dutifully change the American economic system into a socialist one.

          In order to do so he analyzed the traditional curriculum that sustained the capitalist, individualistic system and found what he believed was the sustaining linchpin — that is, the key element that held the entire system together: high literacy. To Dewey, the greatest obstacle to socialism was the private mind that seeks knowledge in order to exercise its own private judgment and intellectual authority. High literacy gave the individual the means to seek knowledge independently. It gave individuals the means to stand on their own two feet and think for themselves. This was detrimental to the “social spirit” needed to bring about a collectivist society.….

          What is interesting is Stalin tried Dewey’s methods and found them horrible so Soviet children were not subjected to Dewey’s deliberate sabotaging of their education.

          Another prominent figure in destroying US education was George Count.
          From the book Willing Accomplices: How KGB Covert Influence Agents Created Political Correctness and Destroyed America by Kent Clizbe

          As Kent points out Americans were naive trusting Amateurs going up against seasoned professional covert operatives. The Bolsheviks spent their lives as covert operatives before coming to power and their thinking never changed. America never really had a chance against them.

          ..One who observed and understood was the Creel Committee foreign educational section member, and future dean of Teachers College, William R. Russell. He was in Russia soon after the Bolsheviks seized power and spent considerable time there, working on Creel propaganda against the Germans, for the Bolsheviks, and later against the Bolsheviks. Russell described how he saw the communist tradecraft:

          The way they worked their way to the seizure of power was as follows: Talk about peace, talk about social equality, especially among those most oppressed. Talk about organization of labor, and penetrate into every labor union. Talk on soapboxes. Publish pamphlets and papers. Orate and harangue. Play on envy. Arouse jealousy. Separate class from class. Try to break down the democratic processes from within. Accustom the people to picketing, strikes, mass meetings. Constantly attack the leaders in every way possible so that the people will lose confidence. Then in time of national peril, during a war, on the occasion of a great disaster, or of a general strike, walk into the capital and seize the power. A well-organized minority can work wonders

          Russell’s spot-on understanding of how the communists worked, based on his own on-location observations in Russia during the revolution should have been useful to him during the next two decades of his work at Columbia. Yet, under his nose, communist covert influence agents like George Counts, who was under Russell’s supervision at Columbia’s Teachers College, used the exact tactics he described—talking, publishing, orating and haranguing, breaking down democracy from within, attacking the leaders, making people lose confidence—to destroy American society….

          In 1931 Houghton Mifflin published New Russia’s Primer: The Story of the Five-Year Plan, by M. Ilin, translated from the Russian by George S. Counts, Associate Director of the International Institute and Professor of Education in Teachers College, and Nucia P. Lodge, Research Assistant in the International Institute.

          We see that Anna Osipovna has transformed herself into Nucia Lodge. And we see that the dapper professor Counts modestly claims that he translated the book, while grudgingly crediting his KGB handler. The payload of this unbelievably brazen covert influence operation is straight out of Muenzenberg’s manual.

          Muenzenberg’s payload: “You think the capitalist system is corrupt…You’re frightened…by the oppression of the working man…You think the Russians are trying a great human experiment…”
          Counts’ New Russia’s Primer:

          In America the machine is not a helper to the worker, not a friend, but an enemy. Every new machine, every new invention, throws out upon the streets thousands of workers. In glass factories one person now makes three thousand bottles an hour. In former times such a task required seventy-seven men. This means that each machine for the making of bottles deprives seventy-six men of employment. And the American worker despises the machine which takes away his bread.

          But how is it with us [Russians]? The more machines we have, the easier will be the work, the shorter will be the working day, the lighter and happier will be the lives of all.

          We build factories in order that there may be no poverty, no filth, no sickness, no unemployment, no exhausting labor— in order that life may be rational and just…We build in our country [the U.S.S.R.] a new, an unheard-of, a socialistic order.

          The newly-minted “Russian expert” from Columbia delivered the KGB payload directly into the cultural heart of America. “Capitalism is corrupt! Russia’s experiment is working!” screamed his text.

          The Primer was a selection for Book-a-Month Club members in May 1931, and 46,000 members chose it. Counts’ first influence project was a best-seller for seven months, and ranked eighty-first on the list of nonfiction bestsellers from 1921-1932. Cloaked in his non-partisan, academic-research cover, Counts delivered the anti-capitalist payload into schools, universities, and living rooms across America….

      • cjt, you are exactly right. I’ve said for years now that if someone approaches you and tells you of a problem you weren’t really aware of or concerned about, then tells you that if you just give them money they can fix the problem, run. Just run, it’s a scam and they’re nothing more than a snake-oil salesman, like Algore.

      • Dave says:

        well said cjt and don’t forget these elitists stand get very, very rich as they decide the winners and losers based upon the control of abundant, cheap and relatively safe carbon based energy.

      • samuel cross says:

        Absolutely this is the case; any old reason to get more money from the producers to the takers to get a vote.

    • genetics73 says:

      All of the above – it is a religious cult, not science

    • genetics73 says:

      Actually, global warming is caused by women’s menopause.

    • Mary ann says:

      Weather… Mother Nature … Plain and simple….

    • Sweetheart I love making fun of you “simpel-folk” who don’t understand science. Are you busy????

      • _Jim says:

        Richard, this proposed (I saw proposed, because, AGW has not been demonstrated EXCEPT through adulteration of the temperature record WHEN plotting the data USING government-adjusted ‘figures’) “global warming” scenario will be seen in later centuries as a hoax and a scam the size and magnitude Great Dutch Tulip Bulb craze, or on a smaller scale Pokemon & “beanie babies” fads.

        Another ‘popular delusion’ fed by those in a frenzied search for money (Carbon Trading ‘markets’ anyone?) and power (isn’t that always the case? “Follow the money.”)

        .

        • Roberto says:

          Its like technical analysis of financial markets where “technicians” try to predict future stock movements by using historical data and charts. It has never worked in finance and it won’t work in climate science either.

    • Mother Nature?

    • Grizz Mann says:

      WTF, Winning The Future with global warming.

    • Jerry sweetheart is seems that science is too difficult for you “simpel-folk” to understand. The koch brothers will be very happy. They love “simpel-folk” that vote. Any questions????

      • MrSalmonDaze says:

        Hey Dick,
        Obviously, you have no grasp of the scientific method. So, yes; entertain us with your nonsensical interpretation of the data presented in the graph in this article.

      • Kenneth Jones says:

        Yeah, I have a question: how do you spell “simple”. Oh, you spell it “simpel”. Twice. Until you can pass second grade spelling I suggest you don’t post comments about how simpel (sic) other people are.

    • Sam Huston says:

      It’s cold because of global warming because Al Gore and pResident Obama said so. So stop asking questions.

    • SickupandFed says:

      Now it is called climate disruption whatever in #€|| that is supposed to mean.

    • Somehow you know this is going to wind up Bush’s fault.

    • Dave says:

      “The People” know it as weather. The elite lefties who stand to profit immensely from convincing the gerbils that their activity causes “weather” used to call it Global Warming but since all the cooling statistics have been revealed they now call it “Climate Change”. That fits in their playbook perfectly.

      • Dawson says:

        Did you mean gerbils or lemmings?

      • Ron says:

        And your climate science credentials are…?

        • tom0mason says:

          And you IQ is?

        • BigFish92672 says:

          And here’s your question: It is example of the logical fallacy, Appeal to Authority.
          Correct.
          Liberal nonsense for $200

        • philjourdan says:

          And your climate credentials are?

        • And your climate science credentials are…?

          Ron, thank you for asking this question, repeatedly, unfailingly and without hesitation. You could not have given a better example of thinking that is both a classic fallacy and a festering problem of modern times, as identified here more than 80 years ago:

          “For if knowledge became too great for communication, it would degenerate into scholasticism, and the weak acceptance of authority; mankind would slip into a new age of faith, worshiping at a respectful distance its new priests; and civilization, which had hoped to raise itself upon education disseminated far and wide, would be left precariously based upon a technical erudition that had become the monopoly of an esoteric class monastically isolated from the world by the high birth rate of terminology.”

          Will Durant
          The Story of Philosophy
          Preface to the Second Edition, 1933

        • _Jim says:

          I would like to have Ron riddle me answer to the question: “Where the very first “credentialed” person get his degree?

          Very simply stated, which came first, the chicken or the degree?

          .

        • _Jim says:

          re-try (correct missing verbiage)

          I would like to have Ron riddle me an answer to this question:

          Where did the very first “credentialed” person get his degree?

          Very simply stated, which came first, the chicken or the degree?

          .

        • lectorconstans says:

          That’s practically the classic definition of a Ph.D.: the man who knows more and more about less and less, until eventually he knows almost everything about almost nothing.

          The “credentials” argument is a standard tactic when somebody has run out of facts. I don’t have a Ph.D. in physics, but I can tell you with great certainty that a rock is going to fall if you drop it.

    • Get with it, Sir. It’s climate change or climate disruption caused by man. Algore who invented the internet told us so. Messiah IRS-Smidgen said he was going to heal the planet and he did. We are so lucky to have a jackass as our leader.

    • Indiana Mike says:

      Just give your money and obeyance to Politicians or else Mother Gaia will die. And YOU will have killed her. You don’t want that on your conscience do you???? So just shut up and do as your Green/Communist comrades TELL you to do.

    • Marc says:

      “What is it?” It is the statist desire to impose Socialism and hopefully North Korean Communism; by any and all means. i hate them.
      oh btw record levels of Antarctic ice. lol.
      OK, so to most people it would look like going out on a limb but I feel solid ground: CO2 is good for this planet and makes life better! We will know this conclusively in the future and those future statists will conveniently forget that their brethren were flat earth wrong.

      (meanwhile I go on a statist list somewhere as an undesirable in need of Camp training or worse)

      • Marc says:

        WAIT!!! Ice build up in Antarctica, did they measure the sea levels drop?

        Was this not a central tenet?

        • Gail Combs says:

          Acually yes they did measure the seal level drop. The sea level has gone down since the highstand during the Holocene Optimum.

          Mid to late Holocene sea-level reconstruction of Southeast Vietnam using beachrock and beach-ridge deposits

          Abstract
          Beachrocks, beach ridge, washover and backshore deposits along the tectonically stable south-eastern Vietnamese coast document Holocene sea level changes. In combination with data from the final marine flooding phase of the incised Mekong River valley, the sea-level history of South Vietnam could be reconstructed for the last 8000 years. Connecting saltmarsh, mangrove and beachrock deposits the record covers the last phase of deglacial sea-level rise from − 5 to + 1.4 m between 8.1 to 6.4 ka. The rates of sea-level rise decreased sharply after the rapid early Holocene rise and stabilized at a rate of 4.5 mm/year between 8.0 and 6.9 ka. Southeast Vietnam beachrocks reveal that the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand slightly above + 1.4 m was reached between 6.7 and 5.0 ka, with a peak value close to + 1.5 m around 6.0 ka….

          Another paper:
          http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/ericg/kap_paper.pdf

          CONCLUSION
          We have constructed a new Holocene sea-level curve for Oahu showing mean sea level higher than today between ~5000 and ~2000 yr ago with a maximum ~2 m above present ca. 3500 yr ago….

          Sea-level highstand recorded in Holocene shoreline deposits on Oahu, Hawaii
          http://jsedres.geoscienceworld.org/content/66/3/632.abstract

          Abstract
          Unconsolidated carbonate sands and cobbles on Kapapa Island, windward Oahu, are 1.4-2.8 (+ or – 0.25) m above present mean sea level (msl). Agreeing with Stearns (1935), we interpret the deposit to be a fossil beach or shoreline representing a highstand of relative sea level during middle to late Holocene time. Calibrated radiocarbon dates of coral and mollusc samples, and a consideration of the effect of wave energy setup, indicate that paleo-msl was at least 1.6 (+ or – 0.45) m above present msl prior to 3889-3665 cal. yr B.P, possibly as early as 5532-5294 cal. yr B.P., and lasted until at least 2239-1940 cal. yr B.P. Hence, the main phase of deposition on Kapapa Island lasted a minimum of c. 1400 yr and possibly as long as c. 3400 yr. No modern samples have been recovered from the fossil beach…Radiocarbon ages of coral and mollusc clasts from a breccia lining an emerged (1.4 + or – 0.25 m msl) intertidal notch, cut into emerged coralline-algal carbonate of presumed last interglacial age, on south Mokulua Island (15 km to the southeast of Kapapa Island) correlate to the history recorded on Kapapa Island. Calibrated ages range from 2755-2671 to 3757-3580 cal. yr B.P. (averaging c. 3100 cal. yr B.P.) suggesting that a higher than present sea level formed the notch prior to 3757-3580 cal. yr B.P….

          The Authors interpret this data to agree with subsidence based on models: ” This history is consistent with geophysical models of postglacial geoid subsidence over the equatorial ocean first predicted by Walcott (1972) and later refined by Clark et al. (1978) and Mitrovica and Peltier (1991).” However if the Southeast Vietnam coast was geologically stable and showing the same type of data, that interpretation based on models is open to question.

          The warmists sure will twist and turn and ignore the facts to support their believe the earth is warming, glaciers are melting and the sea levels are rising….

    • Mikael says:

      well, it is 90° with a real feel of 99° right now in South Florida. and i am working out in the direct sun trying to make a living while obama is chillin, destroying America, on my dime.

    • The libt@rd theory is that it is the inverse of dry ice… Instead of it being so cold that it burns you, it is getting so hot that you are cooling off. Now impose some regulations and lets get that laundered money back into the libt@rd coffers…

    • Michael Dowd says:

      It’s a hoax

    • DarkStarAz says:

      I think they now call it climate “change”. That way the temperatures can go up down or sideways and they are covered…

    • jmorlife63 says:

      In 1975 in WAS “global cooling” and the coming ice age. Then we had Al Gore’s global warming. That euphemism didn’t work out so well for the left so liberals invented “climate change.” Most recently “climate change” has been updated to include “climate disruption.” I can hardly wait for the next euphemism for the left’s “get other people’s money” and “save-the-earth” religion.

    • Iben_Hadd says:

      Warm is really cool man!

    • It is called – WEATHER!

    • ds says:

      can we bring acid rain back, maybe the ozone hole thats going to kill us all? I’m feeling retro right now.

    • calhoun211 says:

      Its a load obama crap

    • Jim Moore says:

      Regardless, Obama will tax it.

    • JoeTex says:

      It’s getting warmer in the north pole, which melts more and more ice each summer, which then cools the rest of the world like an air conditioner.

      However, each year less and less ice is created at the north pole during winter, leaving more water in our oceans.

    • desert says:

      Whoever wrote this b.s. article has their head firmly up their ass for the warmth!! Here in the desert its hotter than hell….so don’t talk your bullshyt to me!!

    • DG says:

      Don’t believe the 1st article you read. Yes the US as a whole is having relatively cooler weather than normal (other than the extreme drought on the West Coast), but worldwide temps are the hottest on record since they started recording in 1880.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2014/07/21/june-was-hottest-on-record/
      http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/07/21/june-record-heat/12943367/
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/07/21/june-2014-was-earths-warmest-on-record-as-ocean-temperatures-surged/

      • More accurate satellite data shows that is complete nonsense, and that global temperatures have been declining for 18 years. But thanks for being a useful idiot.

        • Edward says:

          Steven gibbered:
          “More accurate satellite data shows that is complete nonsense…”
          [citation needed]

          I noticed you’ve made a baseless claim. Do you want to follow up with more cherry-picked data? 18 years? Really? Why not go back 30? Or 50?

          Is it because it makes your argument ridiculous? I bet that’s it.

        • It only takes one warmer year to show that this year isn’t the hottest ever, dinglebrains.

        • philjourdan says:

          You lose the bet. Why not go back 1000 years. 20,000 years?

          The date was “cherry picked” by Phil Jones. Might want to take it up with him.

      • Gail Combs says:

        From Philip Gentry at UAH – temperature graph

        The RSS satellite temperature record shows no global warming for 17 years 10 months: Graph

        The Met Office (UK) acknowledges (grudgingly) the temperature has been FLAT: The recent pause in warming

    • Duke Sweden says:

      I disagree. 1969 was the coolest summer, man…

    • George Senda says:

      Well, they obviously missed the SF Bay Area in their calculations where recently we had Mtn View and SF set all time heat records and where here in Martinez ( 39 miles from SF ) we’ve just had a week of 90 degree + temps and one day at 104. The Bay Area has had unseasonably hot weather since April and it was sweltering in the city even 3 months ago when my Mother died. And the last I looked its still summer with cold temps in the Northeast and 90+ in the South. Global cooling ? Not around here !

      • The numbers include all of California and all of the lower 48. I was in Cupertino in July 2006 when it was over 100 many days in a row and hit 115 in Sacramento.

      • Gail Combs says:

        I am in mid North Carolina where 100+ was not uncommon when I first moved here. It barely got into the 90s for a few days last summer and this summer is pretty much the same. It is now 73 °F and was 65°F this morning. Yesterday morning it was 59°F and the day before that it was 60°F. Normally at this time of year the min is 70 °F.

        I have not bothered to turn my A/C on all summer!

  2. But, Global warming…

    • Farnsworth F Stich says:

      ManBearPig and his antics aimed to scare the low information voter into carbon credits (TAX) and to prop us failed “Green” industry investments with government funding (taxpayer dollars) into his and other ULTRA RICH men pockets.
      The rich get rich off the backs of low information folks who are too ignorant to know the difference,(d) so keep watching for that gulf-stream or Lear jet, maybe you will get a glimpse of corruption as it fly’s overhead polluting unbelievably to shuffle one person off to the bank in Switzerland to deposit your carbon credit while laughing at you the gullible, and if you listen close enough you might hear a wisp of hockey stick being chanted or greenhouse gas being released by MBP himself….Farrrrrroottttttt and not a cow anywhere to be seen.

  3. nigelf says:

    These cool days and nights are actually quite nice for this time of year but I definitely don’t like where the trend is going.

    • draidt says:

      Stick around for 100 -300 more years and it will reverse itself as it has done though out recorded history.

    • Will Davis says:

      I don’t know where the temps are going either but as a lifetime resident of steamy Georgia I welcome it. Cool nights, pleasant days. Very nice.

      • Dave says:

        I love these past few nights in Southern Ohio have been just beautiful… open windows all night long… sleeping with COVERS!

    • Carmen J Bernardo says:

      I remember back in the late 1970s when they were telling us that it was our fault for the pollution in the atmosphere causing the next Ice Age to be arriving within the coming decade. Then I remember seeing at least two consecutive days of 100-degree (F) temperatures during the summer when I was in high school, and not a glacier (nor much of a snowfall) in sight. I’ve since figured that we have a cycle that more or less goes from hot to not-so-hot summers, and winters that are either mild or deep freeze where I live. That cycle isn’t uniform in scale or duration, but gets affected by variables such as where the jet stream lines up, the frequency of storm systems crossing the continent, and so on.

      And this is just my observation over time. I live by an adage I’ve come up with: “Adapt or die; if you won’t adapt, you die.”

    • Didn’t we just have an artic polar vortex a few weeks ago? Similar to last winter when here in the east we had extremely cold temperatures.

  4. TxSon says:

    Good luck convincing the climate alarmists. They generally do not understand simple math much less a statistical linear regression.

  5. Bob Tisdale says:

    Brrrrr!

    • Dmh says:

      +1

      • Dmh says:

        The cooling trend is obvious. I believe all important climate parameters, ENSO, AMO, PDO, icecaps in both poles, etc., are saying the same thing.
        Now, even solar radiations are giving signs that the solar max is ended,
        http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
        and the comparison with SC5
        http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sc5_sc24_1.png
        If NASA / GISS / NOAA etc., acknowledge it or not *makes no difference*.
        2015 promises to be a very interesting year, for those really interested in learning the lessons of Nature (I mean, the real scientists).

        • We’re actually in the first half of a Grand Solar Minimum. This is caused by the way in which the four gas giants align in orbit. Every 171 years, Neptune meets Uranus and as they approach meet and leave one another, this is the Solar Minimum period. It happened in 1308 (Wolf Minimum 1280 to 1350) again in 1479 (Sporer Minimum 1450 to 1550) again in 1650 (Maunder 1645 to 1715) again in 1821 (Dalton 1790 to 1830) and it happened again in 1992. When N, U, J align opposite S, this define the depth and breadth of the minimum.

          It has to do with angular momentum and magnetic dampening but it can be seen in the declining number of sun spots. These spots are caused by a slight cooling of the sun’s surface where magnetic strands exit the star. No spots, no mag activity. The sun is extremely quite now and is going to be so for another couple cycles or about 23 years or so.

        • Your reference to Dr. Landscheidt is spot on, DMH.

          It is going to be pretty darn chilly in about 4 or 5 more years.

  6. Smokey says:

    Believers in man-made global warming will respond like they always do.

  7. When the weather warms,it’s global warming. When the weather cools,it’s global warming. When the moon is full,it’s global warming. Bla bla bla they go on and on. Point is the earths been cooling and heating up from day one and has done so many times before modern man was walking about…..

    • Sweetheart I love making fun of you “simpel-folk”who don’t understand science. Are you busy???????

    • Tiny says:

      Ever heard of snowball earth?

    • Carmen J Bernardo says:

      Now they call it “climate disruption” and still demand that we stop living in heated/air-conditioned houses, driving cars, and ordering mass-produced goods. All while still flying in their climate-controlled jets, driving their limousines, and living in enormous mansions that have to be getting heated/cooled by some pretty stout equipment. All for our own good, of course.

      Some things never change.

  8. kbray in california says:

    Smile, you’re on Drudge !

    • ChrisGC says:

      Smile, you’re an idiot.

      • Htos1 says:

        kbray’s smile is awfully similar to the feces eating grins seen on illegals as they exit the local DMV.

      • LarryBoy says:

        Ah, projection. My favorite tell for screwballs with no real argument.

      • kbray in california says:

        The Drudge Report posted a link to Real Science at 9:20pm.
        You are 2 and 1/2 hours late to the party.

        My post is factual, your comment is that of a troll and is caustic as most of your other comments. Try posting facts instead of insults.

      • kbray in california says:

        VISITS TO DRUDGE 7/25/14
        027,561,616 PAST 24 HOURS

        20+ million could be reading your petty comments.
        Smile.

      • kbray in california says:

        These subsequent comments connected to my comment remind me of the game “Telephone”… The words interpreted by each listener never match the original statement.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers

        My original post was a compliment to the blog owner in getting a link on the Drudge Report. Restated: “Good work Steven Goddard”.

        When I originally typed those 4 words there were no comments posted yet.

        The downside to the Drudge link is it opens the blog to a new batch of trolls.

        Have a nice day.

    • Art Hemsley says:

      Hey, what’s the only thing worse than an incompetent liberal president? Answer, a competent liberal president. Now dont be late for your yoga class, therapist appointment or your psychic reading. Dont worry msnbc will be on shortly so you can get your propaganda fix for the evening and feel good about yourself..

    • Joe Gamache says:

      Kbray, How did you wind up here? A link on NYT, perhaps?

      • kbray in california says:

        For several years now, I type in “Steven Goddard” and this blog magically appears in my browser.

    • Ted Steiner says:

      Did Matt Drudge write this article? Does Matt Drudge write any articles? Hating Drudge is pretty shallow, even for someone who uses california in their name.

    • Anto says:

      Go there and you might learn something. If you’re into learning, that is. Otherwise you can polish your participation trophy, it’s pretty cool, you know.

    • Dave says:

      Smile you are IQ challenged drone without a wit of common sense or the ability to think critically.

      • kbray in california says:

        Nice “facts” Dave…
        I can see you’re not a science major.
        How you conclude all that from the word “smile”…
        You are a good candidate for the “warmist” club.

        Drudge always brings in the trolls.

      • kbray in california says:

        Dave and Chris GC:

        The Nazis used similar claims against the Jews.
        “Smile, you’re an idiot.”
        “Smile you are IQ challenged drone without a wit of common sense or the ability to think critically.”

        First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
        Because I was not a Socialist.
        Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
        Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
        Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
        Because I was not a Jew.
        Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

        The Jews have some of the best minds and brains in the world.
        Never again will they sit quietly.
        When attacked, fight back.

      • tom0mason says:

        And you seem to be an maginally improved auto bot with a slightly extended lexicon. Tell me can you really ‘know’ anything or do you just repeat you programming?

  9. russfelix says:

    This is disturbing news to me. I’m in the climate change industry and my job depends on it. NOT!

  10. Joe says:

    Can you make a hockey-stick graph of this for us to share?

  11. theoldadam says:

    Maybe you haven’t heard…the sky is falling !

    The only thing that we can do is to raise taxes (on everything ) and to ride bicycles and live in pup tents.

    Come on. Get with the program.

    • Cynthia says:

      um, in Florida we have had 90 degree days since around start of May…it’s usu. 80’s…90’s are more August…it’s steaming here…cold? need a vacation? come to the GOM and go for a nice chem swim.

    • Stan Olson says:

      The problem with tents is that I read just recently about people getting killed in campgrounds during severe thunderstorms.

  12. Cool man, real cool. Like far out man … oh, wait, … I think I had a flashback to the early 70s. I’m ok now … but why am I wearing this paisley shirt and bell bottom pants?

    This has been a nice sumer in central Florida. It has been hot these last couple of weeks but it has been a mild sumer. The weather guy on the local channel was almost crying when he told me the tropics were quite and calm. I could tell he wanted a killer hurricane to come and make him important again. What has it been, 10 years now since Florida was hit?

    This is a cool site and you are a cool dude Steve … er, Tony … er … oh hell, whatever dude. Keep up the great work. 🙂

    • Latitude says:

      there was a 70’s??

      • Philip says:

        No, it was faked. Like the moon landings.

      • Tiny says:

        And a 60s, an evil decade that laid the foundation for many of out current ills. If we could erase the 60s, we’d get rid of all hippies and Barack Obama…mmm mmm mmmmmmmmm!

      • Carmen J Bernardo says:

        There were 70’s. I grew up then. And the summer then was a lot like it is now: not often too hot, more often mild and a bit of rain every so often. Back then, the climate gurus were crying about the next Ice Age and blaming it on us then, too.

      • Stan Olson says:

        And a 50’s and 60’s; I was there.

  13. De Paus says:

    The CAGW propaganda machine is in overdrive to convince gullible people that 2014 is the warmest year ever.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/07/21/june-2014-was-earths-warmest-on-record-as-ocean-temperatures-surged/
    Bits of bogus-science: http://www.bitsofscience.org/hottest-years-ever-2014-world-temperature-record-2015-6545/ It is a flat out lie, but so-called scientists get their fundings by supporting the global warming hoax.
    Three days ago The Guardian came with the same bogus claim: Will 2014 be the hottest year ever?: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/23/will-2014-be-the-hottest-year-on-record
    When this nonsense ends with a question mark, it can’t be even called a lie. The answer to the question is: No, the chance 2014 will be the hottest year on record is practically zero. The last months of the year should become super-hot compensate the cold we had so far and that is most unlikely. But many people remember only the headlines. 2014 the hottest year on record. It is by far not true, but a lie, repeated often enough, will eventually be considered to be the truth.

  14. Youcankeepyourdoctor Period says:

    Gee, cold winter, cold summer: sounds like global warming to me.

  15. jlbusm says:

    Hey al gore what ever happened to global warming i mean climate change

  16. Jason says:

    They going to say you can’t judge a trend by a single year…It’s becoming a mantra for them. It’s true, but this has been a number of years. Now, the question is, what has changed? If we really want to figure out what’s going on with the climate, we need to be looking at these things. The alarmists have been creating a huge carbon footprint of their own, trying to get the word out that we need to reduce our carbon footprint. Do you have any idea how much fuel it takes to fly all those people to all those conferences? They aren’t getting there via train our electric bus/car. All this extra carbon, no real change in infrastructure or driving habits, and we’ve been cooling…

    • ChrisGC says:

      Nope. You can’t judge a trend by a single year. But you damn well can judge it over an 80 year span! You can even do so by the now 8 consecutive winters of increasing record cold and snow in both northern and southern hemispheres!

      • Paul Noel says:

        I would like to give people a trend line that is 1,015 years long. It is sort of undeniable. 999AD Leif Erickson set up a colony in Greenland. The weather was warm enough for raising large herds of cattle, goats, sheep and also raising wine. The weather was pleasant for 350 years and the colony did well. They built homes using the Aspen trees for poles in their roof.

        Then something miserable happened and the colony essentially froze out. They left as crops failed and the animals died. Even to this day raising significant crops of cattle is nearly impossible. Sorry for those who will try to say otherwise the entire herd of cattle there which is highly dependent on modern heating oil, there are less than 250 animals there now. The Aspen trees are extinct in Greenland and no trees grow there of any significance. It is basically impossible to raise animals, grass or trees there. Sorry guys who think otherwise but we have a long term Climate Change study on Greenland and it doesn’t do several things the “scientists” (AKA Useful Idiots) say. Sea levels were lower when it was warmer and the climate is cooling. Those are the undeniable facts. We have been cooling for about 650 years now.

    • mjc says:

      If they were really concerned…they’d be doing video-conferences on pedal-powered laptops.

    • R lee says:

      That’s what pisses me off about climate change alarmists. They say you can’t use one year to justify a trend, but they constantly use single natural disasters to try and prove their point. Every one of them need to be punched in the f**king face.

    • Will Davis says:

      I have the idea that the earth has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850 and now the planet is cooling. Solar activity has been extremely low the last few years. A little warming is actually a good thing but another mini ice age would be disastrous. Crop failures, food wars, starvation….

      • Stan Olson says:

        My favorite was that the negative GDP in the 1st quarter was due to the “brutal” Winter. So I would guess that Global Warming might lead to a positive GDP? They want it both ways, or maybe all four ways!

  17. Abel Garcia says:

    Its Bush’s fault

  18. James the Elder says:

    Quit bitching; September weather is always like this. Oh—

  19. JM says:

    I would like to see a similar graph showing the frequency of below zero days over the same period.

    • Despite UHI, 2014 is coldest in 35 years.

      • Ed says:

        If you want the grants and jobs in academia, and thr praise of all the alarmist it is cliemate change /warming if you don’t care about all the bs it is I don’t know we will see later.

      • JM says:

        Thank you Mr. Goddard. I don’t suppose you’d care to add a red trend line for us novices out here? It would appear that since 1980 the percentage of 0F frequency declined relative to the earlier period, but over the whole period the trend of frequency would cant only slightly lower, consistent with a minor warming trend? Kind regards from Urban Heat Island Grand Rapids near the Gerald R. Ford International Airport, where it is 60.7 F one hour before lunch at the end of July, and the snow didn’t completely melt until the first week of April!

      • pesce9991 says:

        Only in the US, Tony.

        • _Jim says:

          Prove it.

          Oops, I forgot, you can’t.

          Another ‘innumerate’ speaking beyond his (or her) innate capability.

          In case you’re from Rio Linda: innumerate – means “without a basic knowledge of mathematics and arithmetic

          .

    • J.j. Erler says:

      I’d like to see a similar graph showing frequency of 100 degree days. It would make sense that 90 degree days would decline as 100 degree days increased, but no idea if that is happening if both show a decline then it’s much firmer evidence than a 90 degree chart alone.

      • J.j. Erler says:

        I hope you’re just waiting til the chart is ready to approve my comment 😉 Really am curious to see whether 100 degree days are up or down.

    • Ron says:

      It’s just US data. If you are interested in the global climate, there is nothing to see here.

      • geran says:

        except the “global” sea ice is setting new records….

      • philjourdan says:

        yea,the US is not part of the world, right ron?

        • pesce9991 says:

          The US temperature readings have an exceedingly small effect on the global averages.

        • philjourdan says:

          “Exceedingly small”??? Less than 2%?

          But is 2% not an effect? YOu keep digging that hole, but China still awaits you.

        • She’s a digger, alright.

        • We’ve heard that narrative many times before. Climate always seems to move away from places that get invaded by cold weather. It just doesn’t like it there any more.

          Also, can you explain your concept of “exceedingly”?

        • pesce9991 says:

          I think this question goes to me since I used the word “exceedingly small” to describe the land area of the US.
          Happy to oblige. You may find the num3ers numbing:

          The 48 contiguous states of the US are 1.58% of earths total global surface.

          The total land mass of the US plus Alaska and Hawaii is 3,790,000 sq miles. This comes to about 1.9% of the total surface of the planet.
          These percentages come from dividing the total surface area of the earth by the total area of the states without and with Alaska and Hawaii.
          Perhaps a better word I could have used would’ve been “surprisingly small”.
          You can see now that all the temperature readings we have can affect no more than 1.9% of the results.

        • philjourdan says:

          Then the effect would be at best “small”. Not surprisingly since you are the only one that seems to be surprised of the area of the planet the US covers. And not exceedingly since the size is not changing (exceedingly being an adverb meaning less than what it represents).

          So you laugh at Tom because you do not know the difference between spelling and grammar. Now you demonstrate a lack of comprehension of the language itself.

          You must be a school teacher.

        • pesce9991 says:

          You’re being very anal phil, Like someone in love.

        • philjourdan says:

          Aw, and I was so hoping that you would remain above the childish ad hominems! I held out great hope that at least, when properly educated on the English Language, a productive discourse could ensue.

          But alas, like all alarmists, you are just another ad hominem spewing sycophant that has no clue what you are talking about.

          I have an anus, I am not being like one. (Just so you know, Anal being the adjective of Anus).

          However you are welcome to be one if you want.

        • pesce9991 says:

          Thanks for the invite (invite is a colloquial expression for invitation) but one @ss hole (anus) is enough per forum.

        • philjourdan says:

          And more ad hominems from the troll. Frankly I do not think any bung holes are needed for a forum, nor trolls. But like flies to honey, they are always attracted to them.

          And you have not disappointed. Just a quick question. Can you post a comment that is not illiterate, ignorant or insulting? You have yet to demonstrate the capacity to do so.

        • philjourdan says:

          The diameter of the hole he is digging.

        • The US has by far the best long term temperature record in the world. About 98% of the rest of the world has nearly worthless long term records.

        • JM says:

          stevengoddard said:

          “The US has by far the best long term temperature record in the world. About 98% of the rest of the world has nearly worthless long term records.”

          I thought Central England Temperature was the longest continuous instrument record in the world. We have a longer one than that, and better?

        • Central England is about the size of Rhode Island. Always good to respond to what I actually wrote.

          “The US has by far the best long term temperature record in the world”

        • JM says:

          stevengoddard said:

          “Central England is about the size of Rhode Island. Always good to respond to what I actually wrote.”

          OK, I simply asked you why the US temperature record is superior to almost every other one, and all I get is ridicule, along with central England and Rhode Island. I can see why this thread is so acrimonious. I obviously came to the wrong place, from the wrong place (Drudge).

        • philjourdan says:

          No, CET is part of the 2%. And it is longer. And it shows exactly the same pattern as the US temperature record. Imagine that.

        • lectorconstans says:

          We do know that Thomas Jefferson kept good records while he lived in Monticello. I don’t know what Steven means by “long-term”.

          And we do know that Russia closed down most all of its weather stations when they ran out of money. Not having that data would certainly skew the averages upward.

        • The hockey stick goes back to about 1910. The US has by far the best records covering a wide area going back for over a century. No place else comes even close.

        • JM says:
          July 29, 2014 at 11:25 pm

          OK, I simply asked you why the US temperature record is superior to almost every other one, and all I get is ridicule, along with central England and Rhode Island. I can see why this thread is so acrimonious. I obviously came to the wrong place, from the wrong place (Drudge).

          I don’t quite understand your post but I suspect that you did not understand Tony’s response. He did not ridicule you or the English but pointed out the surface areas of the Earth being reliably temperature-monitored. All the regular readers of this site know that Central England has an old and continuous temperature record. The same readers also know about the history and quality of the US records, on a continental scale. This is not some silly jingoistic argument about temperature record bragging rights. It’s just how things evolved, for very practical reasons.

          A poster above tied herself in knots trying to discount the US record not because of its quality or continuity but because it doesn’t represent a large percentage of the Earth’s surface. True, but the problem is that we have only a miserable amount of good historical data on the rest of the globe, Central England being one of the exceptions.

          If you are interested in more information about the history of the United States volunteer organization we can point you to some sources describing its origins.

  20. jgdp says:

    Facts and truth have never been a concern of the LIAR in the Whitehouse!

  21. DakotaKid says:

    Here in North Dakot we will have to move away from corn and wheat to rye and oats(cooler weather crops. I think bison will still tough out the weather just fine though.

    • ChrisGC says:

      Bison are leftovers from the last Ice Age and will do just fine in the one that’s coming! LOL! 😉

      • Carmen J Bernardo says:

        I want to go hunt bison for some meat before this winter hits, though. I think they’ve been coming along just fine for a while now. If not, let me see if that surplus of whitetail deer can use a little thinning out…

  22. Dan Dawe says:

    We have had ice ages and 10 degree warmer temperatures while the carbon percentage in the atmosphere was at much higher levels. When are we just going to come back to reality and stop trying to steal peoples hard earned money????

    • Millions of “we” never left reality.

      And many of us in that population remain infuriated by the politicized scientists who, having jettisoned their integrity and dismissed the scientific method, continue their funded scams to support the madness of CAGW.

    • Sgt Stryker says:

      When we start hanging the “thieves” from the lamp posts.
      A country of sheep waiting to be slaughtered for their wool.

  23. Jeff DeWitt says:

    Pesky global warming.

  24. RickA says:

    Much of the nation experienced a rare July cold spell last week which will be followed up by another next week. The way this pattern is going expect fall to commence in August and winter to follow close behind. They readily admit last winter was brutally cold (to excuse the failure of the Obama economy) but we will be facing a longer and even colder winter this year. It is getting harder and harder for the scammers to conceal the obvious from everybody much longer.

  25. Tsk-tsk. 29 replies and not one person asked the only question that actually matters:

    Where did the chart come from?

    I did a Google search for “percentage of 90 degree days all us hcn stations” and came up with a bunch of articles, but nothing on this particular subject. Then I did the same search, this time putting “percentage of 90 degree days” in quotes, so it would look for that exact phrase, and came up with exactly one article — another article by the same author.

    Without a link to the source, this article isn’t worth the pixels it’s printed on.

    • Latitude says:

      eric….try clicking on some of the buttons in the header of this blog
      the rest of us know how

    • _Jim says:

      re: Eric Jennings says on July 26, 2014 at 11:12 pm
      Tsk-tsk. 29 replies and not one person asked the only question that actually matters:

      Where did the chart come from?

      ‘Hand-holding’, so, like kindergarten or first-grade even.

      I now defer to the response by Latitude …

  26. Rock T. Boat says:

    But, but, but…….?! This is the most critical and urgent thing for America to fix! That, at least according to Obama & Kerry. Never mind about Russia, ISIS, Terrorism, Iraq, China Aggression, Illegal Immigration, The Economy, or all the chaos in the Middle-East! Nope! Global Climate Change!!!

  27. Wally Lind says:

    Glad to find your blog. I think I will learn a lot about the Global Warming thing. It does seem to be losing its public support, a little at a time. Wearing long sleeves in July, might have something to do with it. lol

  28. Pat Loudoun says:

    You have to love the Gore Effect.

  29. Jamman says:

    It’s always sunny in Utopia

  30. bjchip says:

    I suggest you look up what a “ninety degree day” actually is. What the term actually means.

  31. Maybe in SOME parts of the US it’s cooler than normal. Out here in parts of the Peoples’ Republic of Kalifornia, it’s sweltering….106F at the moment here in Fresno. I’m not blaming “Global Warming” because that’s just a ploy for elites like Al Gore to get richer and for Progressives to enslave the rest of us using “climate change” as an excuse to take away our rights and freedoms, but really, it’s not cool everywhere! Too much generalizing doesn’t work in a huge country like this.

    • mjc says:

      I’m pretty sure that actual temperature readings and heating/cooling degree days are what are being discussed here.

    • ChrisGC says:

      Oh joy! A link to a site run by the governmental agency that was caught red handed changing the numbers in historical temp data to support glowBULL warming! And after they were caught they quietly replaced the correct numbers when they thought no one was looking!
      The funny thing is that the REAL numbers show a slight cooling trend going as far back as the 1930’s!!!

      http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/

      This was even reported on right here!

      http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

      • Ron says:

        NOAA methodology is all in the public record. All temperatures in all graphs are computations (yeah, even the ones put out by deniers), not absolute measurements. As time goes on, the consensus as to the best methods changes and computations get updated. There’s no conspiracy, its just the way science has always worked and will always work. And the ignorant can howl at the moon all they want. No one with any sense is listening.

        http://www.livescience.com/46643-climate-update-resets-heat-record.html

        • geran says:

          Ron, you’ve snarfed too much methane, try CO2. It’s a much cleaner gas.

        • Scorekeeping methodology is constantly changing,and it turns out that Brazil actually won the world cup. That is just the way cheating and fraud has always worked.

          “Useful idiot” comes to mind.

          On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Real Science wrote:

          >

        • pesce9991 says:

          I agree with Ron. Just ask Albert Einstein and Steven Hawking what it takes to advance science. I don’t agree with Tony who hasn’t met a fact yet that he trusts! (unless it has less than credible deniers at work on it.)

        • philjourdan says:

          actually fishy, Tony trusts facts. He does not trust manipulation. That you cannot figure out the difference is your ignorance.

        • Misrepresenting my position will get you banned, pronto. I have zero tolerance for bullshit like that.

          Einstein made a joke once “If the data doesn’t match theory, change the data” You apparently didn’t understand it was a joke. Comparing the NASA/NOAA fraudsters to Einstein indicates a severe lack of intelligence.

        • geran says:

          Ron and p, is it possible you can be so confused that no one can help?

          Yeah, thought so….

        • samuel cross says:

          Believe what you will Ron; I will believe my lying eyes before you.

        • philjourdan says:

          So is the raw data. The raw data contradicts their “computations”. I am sure for some clown appealing to authority that means reality is wrong. But for most people they would have a second look at the computations to see where they went wrong.

          But that is just the sane ones.

    • _Jim says:

      Thanks for the comity -er- comedy bjchip.

    • Always interested says:

      That link describes heating and cooling degree days. What this article is discussing couldn’t be in the same context. According to NOAA (and who is actually sourcing a USAToday article) 90degree day would requires a 90degree difference between the high and the average for the day. Since this is not Mars, I doubt that they are the same.

    • glenp says:

      NOAA?? didn’t they COOK BOOKS to “PROVE” AGW?

      • Dave says:

        yes, they also took down another lie where they published that the month of July 2013 was the hottest on record and very recently and very quietly took it off their web site and replaced it with the truth… July 1936…. this retraction of course did not get even a small fraction of the press the original lie got a almost a year ago… so again they continue to manufacture fear.

      • Ron says:

        No. You’ve been duped by the oil companies’ minions again.

        • geran says:

          How do I get to be “duped by the oil companies’ minions”?

          Does it involve more than billions?

          (Ron has no clue.)

        • tom0mason says:

          Oil companies are busy keeping all the Big Greens in line with the chant of no to coal and all the other bulcarp.

        • _Jim says:

          I wonder whee Ron buys his gasoline? Oh, silly me, HE RIDES THE BUS (or subway, or streetcar etc). Gee, from whom do you suppose the transit authority buys their fuel?

          (Silly liberals never ‘think’ that far into a ‘problem’ …)

        • philjourdan says:

          And now we get unsubstantiated innuendo. Prove it little ron.

  32. But, but Obama said the debate was over…

  33. ronnyshoots says:

    When “Climate Change” does not come to fruition, the new call to arms will be “Climate Stagnation,”
    Bumper stickers, placards, pompous Hollywood stars and starlets, all calling for an end to the dreaded “Climate Stagnation.”
    Tomorrow I am meeting with my bag men, we are ordering one hundred thousand T shirts, “End Climate Stagnation Now!” We’re getting ahead of the curve on this one. Eat your heart out Michael Moore.

  34. Dave says:

    You won’t see this anywhere else or reported on in any other medium…. the “warmers” have fooled enough useful idiots and they have brainwashed enough kids in school that man is the cause of all climate issues… this despite the lack of solid empirical evidence and the immense changes in global climate before the first homo sapiens ever built a campfire…

    Its about two things folks… CONTROL and MONEY… if the elites can control the use of bountiful and cheap carbon based energy like natural gas, coal and oil, they can control the world economy and if a global carbon tax is levied it will make thousands of TRILLIONAIRES.

  35. john says:

    How I long for the days my youth in which all summer days were exactly 77.6 F, nights were a constant 61.3. Leave it to mankind to F everything up. The only thing that can save us is a benign dictatorship with the authority to enforce all human behavioral standards and the power to impose the death penalty for any violators.

    • JBSPuddintane says:

      Ah, the good ol’ days. When plate tectonics took a break. And fluid dynamics acknowledged our munificent presence.

  36. Tom Thumb says:

    Coolest summer? Guess Al Gore mouth is shut.

  37. Robert says:

    Don’t tell that snake oil salesman, Al Gore, about this. He’ll be out of business if this gets out.

  38. Emerson says:

    The only way to stop global weather is to tax the United States into ruin. Then it will be room temperature all day and unicorns will rule paradise.

  39. JBSPuddintane says:

    GE e wiz. AljazeeraGore is not gonna like it.
    The “science” was settled.
    Now who is stirrin this up?
    Aren’t we supposed to be fryin?
    Not just in Cauliflornia?

  40. BallBounces says:

    Only a non-climate-scientist would doubt global warming causes cooling.

    • JBSPuddintane says:

      Wowee! You didn’t have to wait long for your comment to get “mod” “erated”! Wowee!
      It must be because you are a real scientist.

    • Piquerish says:

      Cool!

    • Dave says:

      That’s it Ball…. up is down and down is up… as long as the far left narrative stays alive… that’s all that matters… Antarctic ice flow GROWS because of global warming… the threat of hurricanes increases …. wait… NOT? and that too is Global Warming…. brush fires in CA, prolonged menopause in women, tornadoes, earthquakes, its all due to Global Warming right Ball? Meanwhile the fat “warmer” hypocrites fly around in their personal jets spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the air but the working stiff coal miners they are out of luck….

  41. Oldbithead says:

    The sun is hardly ever mentioned. Why? The global warming socialists can’t blame it on conservatism, corporations, guns, Phil Robertson, Bush or Reagan. But rest assured they are working on it! Stay tuned.

    • mjc says:

      They do blame it on conservatives…

      Here’s how.

      CAGW is caused by industrialization, specifically the Industrial Revolution, which as we all know was kicked of by a bunch of greedy white guys who didn’t give a damn about anything else, except money…the current definition of Conservative. And most of those guys spent large amounts of that money on hunting lodges and safaris (being doubly evil by shooting noble, rare animals) which means they had guns.

      And gun-toting, rich, white guys with no morals, compassion, tolerance or any redeeming qualities were evil incarnate, of course.

    • ron says:

      and the Sun won’t pay any taxes…..just like methane-emitting termites, volcanoes, etc…….

  42. Steve says:

    Whatever is happening to the climate it’s definitely a man made disaster!

  43. icansayitnow says:

    Is anyone, anywhere able to see how…No matter what is happening. Somebody always has to add their supposed, scientific EXCUSE to explain WHY it’s too hot, why it’s too cold, why we have heat in Summer months that create thunderstorms, tornado’s, and hail. Then, they do the opposite when it oddly gets colder…DURING THE WINTER, and they make excuses for SO MUCH SNOW, FREEZING temperatures, and GOD FORBID…we get a HOT day in February, or a cold day in August. WE’RE DOOMED….I SAY..WE’RE DOOMED because suddenly…we have FOUR seasons that happen to affect the weather across the North American continent.
    WHAT WILL WE DO? WHAT WILL WE DO?

    Let’s ask AL GORE. He knows everything.

  44. Owl Bore says:

    Global Warming? I know it’s true,cause I saw it on TV. You must learn to believe, don’t be blue.. Sometimes even fairy tales come true. Cross my fingers and hope to die! Al Gore and Barrack Obama? You Lie!

  45. MariKL says:

    Somebody please tell Obama, he said the science is settled and the globe will burn by excessive heating, not from the sun but from CO2. In order to stop it, you have to pay carbon tax and all will end well.

  46. Arcturus95 says:

    Any idea if the graph for Europe or northern Asia looks similar for 2014?

  47. Dropit says:

    It would be funny if not for the push for ever higher taxes due to their socialist/progressive lies.

  48. So me one thing that has actually affected mankind’s behavior as a result of this hoax that isn’t imaginary or precautionary. Just one…

    • pesce9991 says:

      OK, that’s easy! It has exposed the right wingers for the idiots they are when it comes to science!

      • Latitude says:

        and it has exposed NOAA who’s had to admit the temperature history is so FUBAR it has to be adjusted

  49. Chris Long says:

    Wonderfully cool July here. Looking for high 80s next week when it should be high 90s…

  50. Frank Jackson says:

    The “Buzzword” has been changed! It is now “Global Climate Change”. Pretty much covers it all….ehhhh.

  51. Russ says:

    Hey Al Gore! This ‘climate denier’ wants you to step right up and get a slap.

  52. carlb says:

    doesn’t matter at the start if next year we will get the usual pronouncement of the hottest year om record. they have been saying that for well over 10 years to the point you would think we would have become water world in kevin costners movie! so if i was you i would learn how to sail a boat! lol

  53. Glenn Holt says:

    Steve, I agree with so much of what you write, but not this. The “coolness” of a summer should not be measured by the number of days of extreme heat, but simply by the average temperature. What has made this summer remarkable (at least here in MN) is the lack of deviation in the daily high temps. While we’ve only had two 90+ days, the average daily high is actually above normal, and the number of days above average is significantly higher than below.

    The 90+ metric is of more interest to psychologists (as a memory device) than climatologists.

    • KTM says:

      The ‘average temperatures’ are a composite of both the maximum temp each day and the minimum temp each day.

      The Global Warming crowd tells us that CO2 should drive both min and max temperatures higher. But real-world observations show that most if not all of the increase over the past century has been due to changes in the minimum temperatures NOT maximum temperatures.

      One huge problem with tracking minimum temps (or average temps influenced by minimum temps) is the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. Expansion of concrete and blacktop and buildings soaks up heat during the day that can dramatically increase nighttime and minimum temps, without much impact on daytime max temps.

      Looking at Max temps as shown in this graph is an elegant sanity-check, because it removes the corrupting influence of UHI on minimum temps.

      Max temps are on a long-term decline, in direct contradiction to the predictions made by all Global Warming models.

      • Latitude says:

        100%…….

      • “Max temps are on a long-term decline, in direct contradiction to the predictions made by all Global Warming models.”

        I don’t think that’s correct… my understanding is that models tend to predict a slight warming trend during the coldest parts of the day. The belief in extreme weather (max temperatures getting hotter) is more activist rhetoric. (Although many scientists are also activists.) I don’t think AGW advocates want to draw attention to this, as it implies that even the predicted warming is likely to be fairly benign, by making temperatures less extreme, not more extreme.

  54. Glenn Holt says:

    Steven,

    I dropped the ‘n’ on your name! Very sorry!!

    • pesce9991 says:

      That’s OK. His real name is Tony.

      • _Jim says:

        Duh! Where have you been? In Poland?

        • pesce9991 says:

          Jimmy, you’re back! Is there a part of you I haven’t destroyed yet?

        • philjourdan says:

          Pretty much all of him you have not. But I guess you have not learned that petty pejoratives and infantile ad hominems are not destroying the opposition, just yourself.

      • Wow! What a day it’s been, pesce9991. I’ve read somewhere earlier that Mark Twain’s real name was Samuel.

        And there is this recent scandal: A commenter posting as “Quinn the Eskimo” on Watts Up With That disclosed that he’s not really Quinn the Eskimo. All his past statements are now in question until his real identity and scientific credentials can be established.

        Can we put you on the case?

  55. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    But aren’t we at the “crisis”, “tipping point” of “runaway” CO2 induced warming?

  56. LWJR says:

    Al Gore gave up his airplane and looked what happened? CO2 went down and global cooling started up.

  57. pesce9991 says:

    Did anyone notice that the article was about summer being the coolest IN THE US? I live on the east coast and, yes…we’ve had a pretty tough winter, a cool spring and now a much cooler than average summer. I like it!
    But look at how insignificant that is to the global temperatures and you will see that it makes an extremely small change in the overall global temps. The USA is about 1.9% of the surface area of the earth. We would have to be much much cooler to make any change in global temperatures. Even compared to total land mass we are merely 6.5% of it. But global warming figures come from us and about 98.1% of the rest of the world.
    To be fair, we are not the only country feeling cooler this year. But more are experiencing hotter temperatures than lower and that brings the average worldwide temps higher and that in turn is why scientists predict 20014 will be hotter.
    This is how a little bit of knowledge goes a long way towards seeing the global warming picture correctly. All the bs I’ve read on this column is do to willful lack of knowledge.

    • _Jim says:

      ” how insignificant that is to the global temperatures ”

      What global temperatures? Who has as complete a record set as the US?

      And, did you plot the RAW, un-adjusted data? Or just accept what some governmental agency posted to a website?

      All this matters, you know.

      It’s a “verify before trust” thing. And sometimes the “verify” stage shows that someone was cheating, so one can’t very well “trust” them past that point going forward, can they?

      .

      • pesce9991 says:

        We may do a better job than other countries and have a more complete set of records, Jimmy, but all that indicates is that we are doing a better job than they. It’s up to the scientists to take un-adjusted data and make sense of them. For example, they take the raw temps of urban areas which would skew the results higher so as not to exaggerate the total score. I assume you haven’t taken the raw data and extrapolated the results either, Jim boy, so your point is moot.

        Also you have nothing but paranoid suspicion to base your claim that ‘someone was cheating’ was cheating.

        • geran says:

          p, so this is your claim: CO2 from fossil fuels can overheat the planet.

          Please explain how that can happen.

        • pesce9991 says:

          No, Ronnie. Nowhere in my answer did I make that claim. You’re delusional. But since you brought it up, please explain what effect CO2 does have on the atmosphere using sound scientific knowledge.

        • _Jim says:

          re: pesce9991 says July 28, 2014 at 8:45 pm

          I finished with you quite a few hours ago; you have NOTHING to add to this debate, you have NO FACTS only continued, hollow, pointless BANTER, and THIS was by your own ADMISSION!

        • Latitude says:

          It’s up to the scientists to take un-adjusted data and make sense of them. For example, they take the raw temps of urban areas which would skew the results higher so as not to exaggerate the total score. I assume you haven’t taken the raw data and extrapolated the results either, Jim boy, so your point is moot.
          ====
          If you’ve studied this…then you know that if you take away the adjustments to the temperature history…there’s been no temperature increase at all…..
          If you take away the adjustments, algorithms, and infilling…..temperatures have been going down. since the beginning

          There is no global warming without adjustment, algorithms, and infilling……..

        • pesce9991 says:

          But, Latitude, you have no way of knowing this. There has been no experimentation proving this, and so there is no reason anybody should believe it.

        • pesce9991 says:

          Geran: No I didn’t state anywhere what the effects of CO2 are on the atmosphere. But it’s a good topic. So you go.

          This is in response to Jimmy, who seems a bit flustered now. He says (or blurts):

          “I finished with you quite a few hours ago; you have NOTHING to add to this debate, you have NO FACTS only continued, hollow, pointless BANTER, and THIS was by your own ADMISSION!”

          You haven’t answered even one point I made in my posts to have surrendered so easily, Jimmy. Your straw dog was answered when I said in effect that neither you nor I are in a position to take raw scientific data and make claims with it. I also said you are not logical and can’t reason your way out of a paper bag which is why you spend your time mired in delusion. I’m waiting for an intelligent reply but all I get is sound signifying nothing.

        • _Jim says:

          re: pesce9991 says July 28, 2014 at 11:53 pm

          No, rather, I have no time for f*cking idiots like you who have nothing to contribute (by your OWN admission even) to the debate.

          BTW, Note: You have earned the deserving moniker f*cking idiot along with rug-chewing, ankle-biting liberal (contrary to your PRIOR assertion to the contrary) by your actions, deeds and words in this thread. Some of you REALLY ARE low-life cockroaches with NO redeeming (social or otherwise) value.

          (Caps are for emphasis, since I think you really are that f*cking stupid that you would misread what has been written here.)

          .

        • pesce9991 says:

          Oh Jimmy, I rather think you’ve lost it. I was hoping you could get past your short fuse and actually engage me in a reasoned discussion. But that’s not to be, I see. I’m not going to call you names even though quite a few come to mind. It’s always the one who can’t control his/ her emotions that loses the debate. Pity.

        • philjourdan says:

          So you are admitting defeat already. Pity.

        • Latitude says:

          But, Latitude, you have no way of knowing this. There has been no experimentation proving this, and so there is no reason anybody should believe it.
          ====
          Your host on this blog has been posting about it for years…..
          ….

        • _Jim says:

          re: pesce9991 says on July 29, 2014 at 12:59 am

          Ever heard the words “Bugger off” spoken your direction? You have now …

          You’re past the point of any redemption, you f*cking idiot. I say this with clean conscience and full knowledge of what it means. I actually pity liberals such as yourself, unable to think or move outside of narrowly confined memes defined by your ‘contemporaries’. Who is the ‘conformist’ today, it is the liberal who dare not speak out against his party or his party’s position. You will be struck down swiftly as a heretic.

          So tell us again how ‘enlightened’ you are, how much more you know than us ‘peons’ down below … tell us again, oh great f*cking idiot one …

          .

        • pesce9991 says:

          Ha! Jimmy! I only go by what you have presented to me on this forum. I see a mind clouded by emotion, anger and bias rather than led by intellect. If I saw something else I’d be sure to tell you about it. So please don’t blame me for your shortcomings.

        • Shazaam says:

          @Jim – I loved the line from this video: “Debating with idiots only reduces your own IQ”

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0mMRXr1Gog&list=UUCFKjJhc1_xKh7QItJC1k1w

          Williams is rude, crude and not PC. I like that.

        • Shazaam says:

          Wrong URL….

          He must have uploaded a new one while I was typing…..

        • _Jim says:

          I found it, Shazaam –

          Don’t Debate Idiots – It Does No Damn Good
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0mMRXr1Gog

          Peace1999, this means YOU.

          .

        • pesce9991 says:

          Yeah, Jimmy, but debating them is a lot of fun.

        • philjourdan says:

          Then go debate them. I am sure you are on equal terms.

        • Shazaam says:

          Thanks. I was beginning to think I needed to check my forehead for an “idiot” tattoo…

          I really wish there were a 5 minute post edit feature…. It might look like I could spell better 😉

      • geran says:

        pesce9991 says:
        July 28, 2014 at 11:35 pm
        No, Ronnie. Nowhere in my answer did I make that claim. You’re delusional. But since you brought it up, please explain what effect CO2 does have on the atmosphere using sound scientific knowledge.
        >>>>

        I will have to answer for Ronnie. (There is no “Ronnie”, p is delusional, but, let’s keep it a secret.)

        CO2 has not enduring effect on the atmosphere. QED

        • pesce9991 says:

          So sorry, geran. There is a Ron but I met to send this reply to you…..

        • geran says:

          p, do you also see little green men? How about 8′ tall rabbits? How about your great great great great great grandmother?

  58. ARNOLD CARL TAPP says:

    >>> BLAME IT ON ” GLOBAL WARMING ” . WHAT A CROCK OF COOCOO CRAP . <<<

  59. Rick Taylor says:

    Green is the new Red. And Green, Red or otherwise is all about having a good time, on other people’s dime. The lazy gravitate toward the Global Warming hysteria, which really gravitates around govt subsidy. Govt subsidy is eventually about the transfer of power from the Private Sector (the non-connected) to the Bureaucracy (and the well-connected).

    Look at Mr. Obama’s buddies and then look at the venom he spews. Supposedly he spews venom at his buddies; really it’s just cover or ignorance. The Reds & Greens they kill the middle-class which only gives more power to the Ruling Class; who they supposedly despise. Paradoxical.

    The Reds & Greens should be knocking down the monopolies (govt & crony) and supporting the Private Sector; instead they support the REAL Trickle-down economy; Socialism/Fascism.

    To me it’s easy math to understand. But for most people it seems they just don’t see the equation and therefore support the wrong variables.

    • Adolfo Gomez Cala says:

      It’s not paradoxical. They suppose that in the Global Change (in the country) they will become part of the ruling class. It is idiotic but that illusion keep them going.

    • Steve Cripps says:

      Well, as Red Green is wont to say, “If the women don’t find you handsome, they can at least find you handy.”

  60. Teddy Novak says:

    Global warming (aka climate change) is the religion of the stupid.

    http://www.zazzle.com/FirstPrinciples*

  61. Davidio says:

    This should surprise anyone? Air conditioners are much more prevalent than they were 80 years ago. They are working on a grand scale.

  62. Global warming is evolving and learning, much like SKYNET. Only Al Gore and John Connor can save us now.

    • Big Daddy says:

      Climate change has been going on for 4.5 billion years. It will continue with or without us…..What’s the tempature supposed to be ??????

  63. Zesko Whirligan says:

    “Level-headed” Science is in the pocket of world governments whose agenda is to manipulate economies, to restrict civil liberties, and to impose global taxation. Only 43% of climatologists in the world insist that climate change is “man-made,” which is absurd on the face of it. Climate change is a FACT — it is the only ongoing, undeniable fact in the entire history of the planet. Earth’s climate is in a perpetual state of change. However, for a minority of government-subsidized “scientists” to declare that the Earth is warming up due to manmade causes is LAUGHABLE. They’ve been predicting hotter weather and more violent storms for nearly 20 years now, but it’s NOT HAPPENING. The Earth is growing cooler, the polar icecaps are expanding, the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and other storms is DIMINISHING. Manmade Global Warming is becoming a harder and harder sell because the EVIDENCE for it DOES NOT EXIST; or, even worse, the evidence is being FABRICATED.

  64. gunnyginalaska says:

    How can this be? Owl Gore SWEARS: “two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, ’cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot.” We should all be burning up…

  65. bobj says:

    What have the scientists been smoking? The earth is not warming or cooling it suffers from Global Constipation! And with that we have Global Hemorrhoids!
    If we can clear both up, then we are back to normal.

  66. It would add credibility to the Numbers if the Author gave the source of those numbers…don’t you think? I guess we’ll just have to take his word on it …who ever He is

  67. Jerry says:

    It’s Bush’s fault — Obama

  68. Mark L says:

    Global warming = Global tax = Global government = NWO run by the elites… Any questions?

  69. Warming and cooling, ok.

  70. New hampshire says:

    This was another example of a meaningless propaganda headline. A low percentage of 90 degree days doesn’t make it the coolest summer on record. How about a chart the shows the average temperature in the summer? Then the data might match the headline. You wonder why people question both sides of the climate argument.

  71. Nice to see so many AGW “truthers” We were voices in the wilderness in 2007. The worm has turned.

  72. Reg Dunlop says:

    Al Gore has made millions off of this junk science thingy. …….like the “Pet Rock ” guy….

  73. Any One says:

    Wasn’t last summer one of the hottest on record?

  74. Joe Byden says:

    Man-Bear-Pig !

  75. Jay Veritas says:

    Running contrary to what the mainstream media lead Americans to believe, this attached website predicted a cool summer with below average temperatures 6 weeks ago. They also had 9 other predictions that all seem to be coming true.
    http://www.frontlineofdefense.com/10-summer-predictions

  76. asachild says:

    “Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out. This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.”
    Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California. These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort. All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected. Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.
    The theory was known a eugenics. As Margaret Sanger said, “Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty … there is not greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles.” She spoke of the burden of caring for “this dead weight of human waste.” California was one of twenty-nine American states to pass laws allowing sterilization, but it proved the most-forward-looking and enthusiastic — more sterilizations were carried out in California than anywhere else in America. Since the 1920s, American eugenicists had been jealous because the Germans had taken leadership of the movement away from them. The Germans were admirably progressive. They set up ordinary-looking houses where “mental defectives” were brought and interviewed one at a time, before being led into a back room, which was, in fact, a gas chamber. There, they were gassed with carbon monoxide, and their bodies disposed of in a crematorium located on the property. But in retrospect, three points stand out. First, despite the construction of Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory, despite the efforts of universities and the pleadings of lawyers, there was no scientific basis for eugenics. In fact, nobody at that time knew what a gene really was. The movement was able to proceed because it employed vague terms never rigorously defined”.
    They say history repeats itself. Today the theory is called “Climate Change”.
    RIP Michael Crichton. http://michaelcrichton.net/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html

  77. Laney Bee says:

    Can’t wait for the global warming thieves to become the global cooling thieves.

  78. Jim Lively says:

    US population = ap. 320 million
    World population = 7.1 billion
    That means ap 15% of the worlds pop. lives in the US, with the highest concentrations of people in India and China.

    If I removed the entire landmass of North America the charts would not change. If everyone in North America disappeared, and our carbon footprint reduced to zero, IT WOULD NOT STOP their imaginary trend.

    So, you REALLY want to save the world? Learn Chinese. They obviously need the wisdom of Gore much more than the US does.

  79. Jim Lively says:

    population = ap. 320 million
    World population = 7.1 billion
    That means ap 15% of the worlds pop. lives in the US, with the highest concentrations of people in India and China.

    If I removed the entire landmass of North America the charts would not change. If everyone in North America disappeared, and our carbon footprint reduced to zero, It would not stop their imaginary trend.

    So, you really want to save the world? Learn Chinese. They obviously need the wisdom of Gore much more than the US does.

  80. What does it matter? the fact is, Pope albert has spoken-according to him, the earth is warming! Nothing else matters!

  81. Please send some of this cooling our way in Jacksonville, FL. Current temp 84 at 8:30am. High today 98. Low tonight 77.

  82. Bart Hall says:

    I’m not super-impressed with your linear trend line. At least cough up an R-squared to go with it. Presumably this was done in Excel, so that should be easy. More interestingly, throw a 3rd or 4th order polynomial at it. Certainly your R-squared will about double, and it will reflect better the dynamic nature of climate systems.

    I farm for a living and track phenology quite closely. In our part of the world there’s been a two-WEEK delay in the heading out of winter wheat simply from the previous solar peak (Cycle 23, 2000-’02) to this current fizzle for Cycle 24. Given the timing, we’re planning for a Maunder Minimum type cooling. Ask me in about fifteen years. Current cooling could be simply PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation), but I doubt it, given the fairly steady Maunder cycle of some 325 years ±~10%. The world has been in a long-term cooling cycle for the last 55 or 60 million years (the Eocene Arctic Ocean was about like the Louisiana bayous of our day) and I doubt it will change any time soon.

    Disclosure … though I farm for a living, my first two degrees were in Geology, followed by Soil Science and then Agronomy. That included several courses in Meteorology, Climatology, and Paleo-Climatology, so my professional expertise in this area is non-trivial. Too much alphabet soup for a farmer, but I’m a curious fellow. These days my passion is economic history, and the events tracking Maunder-cycle cooling include (14th C) the death of a third of the world population and the rise of a truly militant Islam; (10th C) the rise of serfdom and monasteries as over-indebted farms failed, utter dynastic instability in China and massive migrations such as the Hungarians; or (4th C) persistent dynastic instability in China and the fall of the Roman Empire, in both cases due to failing food supplies.

    Serious stuff, and we need to pay attention. Linear trend lines for just a century or so do not add much to the discussion.

    • _Jim says:

      Common sense says you don’t need to see an “R-squared” to draw conclusions from looking at the graph and see the obvious peak in the 1930’s.

      Do you do the same looking at your bank statement or the cost of apples at the supermkt? I thought not …

      .

  83. This has been a particularly mild summer here in Texas. We are nearing the end of July and have yet to see a single hundred degree day. It is yet more proof that for postmodern liberals debt is wealth, diversity is strength, and cooler is warmer.

  84. Mike says:

    Gore fixed global warming…but overshot a little. Give him a more time and money. He will make the climate consistent…like the economists have made the economy consistent. Send him a check today.

  85. RotalSnart says:

    Climate = THE WEATHER prevailing in an area…….GOOGLE CLIMATE DEFINITION FOOLS!

    So Democrats are so braindead that they have just now figured out that THE WEATHER CHANGES?

    WOW, the sheer stupidity and the boldness of the Democrat lies, all to raise taxes on working people…..

    • tom0mason says:

      The truth of CAGW (aka Catagorically Absurd Global Warming) –
      It’s only weather when it’s not hot, when hot weather=climate.

      OK, now pay your carbon tax.

  86. Mike0oSS says:

    This simply can’t be! Just last week I heard that NOAA was dropping past temperature records to make the new highs look like record highs….no B.S. either.

  87. Nam Marine says:

    BULL CRAP ! It’s been hotter in Florida than I ever remember ! (over 20 years) !

  88. Htos1 says:

    Not here in n.Florida, it’s been 105 for weeks.

  89. NotAGolfer says:

    What does this mean?? Is this a frequency chart of days with a high of exactly 90 degrees? Or days with a high above 90 degrees? Or days with a high in the 90s? Days when it hit at least 90? Days with an average of 90? Are these numbers the average of all US stations? Or days when at least one US station got to 90?

    On a “science” blog, it’s best to be a little more clear.

    • _Jim says:

      – – –
      Graph labeling:

      Percentage Of 90 Degree Days Through July 23 At All US HCN Stations

      The text above it says:

      Coolest Summer On Record In The US
      Posted on July 26, 2014 by stevengoddard

      The frequency of 90 degree days in the US has been plummeting for 80 years, and 2014 has had the lowest frequency of 90 degree days through July 23 on record. The only other year which came close was 1992, and that was due to dust in the atmosphere from Mt Pinatubo.

      – – – – –

      Given the above describing the data, I would write the equation thusly showing the percentage of days in a year (a per anum calculation which is then graphed) for temps recorded/reported at 90 deg or above for the US Historical Climate Network stations:

      Percent_days_90deg_and_above = (Count_of_stations_with_days_90deg_and_above / No_of_Stations * 365) * 100
      .
      Vars for each year:

      . . Count_of_stations_with_days_90deg_and_above

      This would be an accumulated ‘count’ of the number of days that stations (plural) reported 90 degrees or higher throughout the year.

      . . No_of_Stations

      Number of stations in the network. Between 1200 and 1300 if I recall correctly.
      .
      Note:

      The value 365 is adjusted downward from 365 to the number of days through July 23 for the year 2014.

      Corrections, Tony or anybody?

      .

      • 80 years is insignificant when it comes to measuring climate cycles. It would fall more under the catagory of weather. Climate takes place on a much larger time frame of Geologic Time. For example; The last Glacial Maximum ( LGM ) took place 20,000 years ago. Scince then, the continental Glacier wich extended from greenland south to St. louis and from the the north atlantic shore to the great pacific northwest up to Alaska. The continental Glacier melted to the extent that only about 1% of the continental glacier remains itoday in isolated,disassocited,tatters and remenants virtually unrecognizable in ice age terms.Further, This 20,000 yr warming trend is characterized by periods of rapid rates of deglaciaiton;periods of extremely slow deglaciation; and even periods of reglaciation under the much larger 20,000 year warming trend. In Geologice time 80 yrs, 100 yrs, 200 yrs is a nano-second of brevity wich can barely constitute a trend in the larger context of geologic time. Here is a movie of the modeled deglaciation of north america in the last 20,000 years. It is interesting to note that virtually 99% of the virtual deglaciation of North america takes place prior to the industrial revolution and in absence of any anthropogenic forces much larger than a camp fire.

        From an even larger perspective of geologic time of the 4.5 billion year history of the earth it is interesting to note that Polar Ice and Glaciers on the planet earth occupies such a small amount of time as to almost be an asteric in the history of the earth. This is to say that the absence of Polar Ice and glaciation on earth is the ” Norm ” for the exceedingly vast majority of the Earth’s 4.5 billion year history. Further, In absence of any climactic factors of hemispheric or global proportion wich would not only interrupt the warming trend of the last 20,000 years but change to a trend of significant cooling, it is predictable that the tiny amounts of fragmental glaciation in north america and indeed globally will totally disappear thereby reuniting the earths conditions to its long standing historical norm of an Earth without Polar Ice and glaciation.

        Modeled Deglaciation Of north America Movie: Again, 99% of the deglaciation of north america occurs prior to the industrial revolution. This is all one needs to know to dismiss the anthropogenic climate change kooks.

        http://www.physics.mun.ca/~lev/glacmov.html

        • _Jim says:

          I don’t think that’s the point; why does every government plot-of-the-data show an increase in temp whereas an unadulterated plot of the data does not show an increase of temps?

          Can you riddle me an answer to that?

          SINCE the ‘sales’ of CAGW as sold to the public is BASED on the GOVERNMENT plots over less than an 80 year time span even, I think you message is wasted HERE and needs to be directed to NOAA and NASA GISS.

          .

  90. Tom says:

    Maybe the author could obtain a comment from demoRAT-COMMUNIST party operative and colossal fraud, algore.

  91. Temperatures over the past several years have been getting cooler, not warmer. The warming trends all of those computer models and man-made global warming climate change alarmists were advancing were not accurate. This is what happens when a theory is supported by simple consensus of opinon, rather than being validated by science.

    Here’s a link that explains why temperatures have been trending lower the past several years. The results are sure to fascinate you:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LgdKxk9Tkgk

  92. Ed says:

    My theory based on much research states we are heading towards a ice age but the human factor is indeed warming the planet. So what does this mean? Earth will undergo radical temperature changes and we my be able to stabilize effects but the truth is over time it may cause irreversible harm to mother earth.

    • tom0mason says:

      “… it may cause irreversible harm to mother earth.”
      https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/coolest-summer-on-record-in-the-us/#comment-394370
      The earth and life on it has proved to be extremely resilient.

    • lectorconstans says:

      At the risk of being pedantic, your copious research states that we are heading toward AN ice age.

      OK, there’s the theory. In the strange world of science, a theory is a proposition that can be either proved or disproved. (So, we have the THEORY of relativity, which so far has passed all its predictions, and never been disproved.) A good theory also has to show some fundamental cause and effect relationship.

      For your theory to gain acceptance, it has to make predictions (we’re going toward an ice age, but really we’re going toward a heat age). To flesh out your theory, you’ll need to show some cause and effect – backed with experimental observations.

      There’s also a difference between a theory and a hypothesis; I’ll leave that difference as an exercise for the reader.

      • geran says:

        Here’s a prediction for you: Glaciers will not exceed more than 1000 feet in height, below 35º latitude.

        (For more exact predictions, please subscribe. Limited subscriptions available.)

        • lectorconstans says:

          Here’s an even better one: The entire universe (including the Earth &c), was created just 15 minutes ago, in exactly that state – 6 million year old rocks, stars bilions of lightyears away, all of us with the memories (false, of course, and implanted) that we had at that moment.

        • _Jim says:

          The entire universe (including the Earth &c), was created just 15 minutes ago, in exactly that state – 6 million year old rocks, stars bilions of lightyears away …

          I would be compelled to then ask: Why the facade?

      • lectorconstans says:

        Jim: “the facade”… It’s part of the Interstellar Conspiracy.

  93. M says:

    The cooler days are a result of the damage the humans have done to the earth during our industrial revolution and our rapping of the earth’s resources. The Global Climate change, a.k.a. Global Warming, is a direct result of our greed. So enjoy your so-called cooler weather now. Someday it will get hotter. How did I do Mr. Gore? 🙂

  94. D. Bowman says:

    I’m sure some “expert” will claim this is a result of globull warming somehow.

  95. M says:

    The cooler days are a result of the damage the humans have done to the earth during our industrial revolution and our raping of the earth’s resources. The Global Climate change, a.k.a. Global Warming, is a direct result of our greed. So enjoy your so-called cooler weather now. Someday it will get hotter. How did I do Mr. Gore? 🙂

  96. oracle2world says:

    “Extreme weather” has now superseded “climate change” as the correct terminology in the field.
    FYI

  97. MoonBat says:

    At this morning’s U.N. economic forum Al Gore warned that climate change was going to cause million’s of people’s heads to explode. Maybe the cool summers will delay that. http://www.thedailyrash.com/al-gore-global-warming-will-cause-millions-of-peoples-heads-to-explode/

  98. Big daddy says:

    I think one of the most common mistakes in analysing climate is failing to use the correct time scale. To give credibility to any climate changes one must use geologic time as a reference point. For example; The end of the last great ice age is generally considered to be 20,000 years ago. 20,000 years is a nano-second in geologic time.This moment in time is referred to as the LGM ( Last Glacial Maximum) At that point in time the Glaciation of North america was continental in size. This is to say The Continental Glacier extended from Greenland south to St. louis: From The north atlantic seabord to the great Northwest Pacific coast up to Alaska. In the last 20,000 years over 99% of the continental glacier has melted due to a 20,000 year warming trend. This trend is characterized by periods of increased rates of deglaciation; decreased rates of deglaciation, and even periods of reglaciation all under the umbrella of a larger warming trend and massive virtually complete deglaciation of the north american continent.. Interestingly 99% of all deglaciation of the north american continental ice sheet occured before the industrial revolution. This is to say virtually the entire continental ice sheet melted in abscence of anthropogenic factors. This does much to poo-poo any notion of mans roles in any deglaciation. The remaining glaciation is best described as tiny,disassociated, fragments and remenants of the last great ice age making up less tham 1% of its former size and mass.

    Here is a model of the deglaciation of north america in movie form. Again, note that 99% of this deglaciation occurred prior to the industrial revolution and in abscence of anthropogenic forces.

    http://www.physics.mun.ca/~lev/glacmov.html

    In abscence of climactic changes of hemispheric or global proportions there is no reason to believe the warming trend of the last 20,000 years will abate and the total melting of any remaing glacial fragments still existing in north america. this is the “norm” of the last 20,000 years. Further, If one looks at the entire 4.5 billion year history of the earth, Abscence of polar ice and any glaciers has been the norm for the vast majority of the earth’s history. This is to say that the abscence of polar ice and glaciers is the planetary norm wich the earth has historically resided in for vitually all its history.

    Thanks for reading, you now have the scientific basis with wich to totally dismiss any and all climate alarmist kooks.

  99. Yukiko says:

    Bush is making this cold weather just to thwart the good works of Global Warming Flat Earther’s every where.

    • Dave says:

      yes,,, since they can’t actually call it man made Global Warming anymore… it would seem to anyone with even half a lobe that if you are passionately trying to convince someone of the veracity of your claim …. you shouldn’t have to change the term used to describe your position

      unless of course… your first position was weak and scientifically unsupportable.

  100. Bo says:

    Al Gore you bullshitter

  101. Mike Hammer says:

    When looking at ice records and CO2 levels, if you place your head squarely up your butt you can see that CO2 causes temperatures to rise, just as when shadows come out they cause the sun to shine. Now, remove your head from your rectum and clearly you see that as climate naturally changes, warming causes the release of CO2 just as the sun causes shadows.

    A recent article on the hole in Siberia that has formed actually had the alarmist state the facts correctly saying that the warming of permafrost is causing the release of CO2.

    http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/melting_permafrost.asp

    Just had to point out how they continually contradict each other and rely on the idiocy of the masses for their continued funding.

  102. Piquerish says:

    The Earth relentlessly has been undergoing “climate change” since it was a primordial cloud of dust and gas and that continues to this day. No change at all means stasis and that does not happen in time and space. But it ain’t my fault or yours. Meanwhile, now that libs are thinking of a new catchy control-freak phrase du jour, the disgusting sweat stains under Owlgore’s armpits continue to spread unabated.

  103. Big Daddy says:

    STRAIGHT TALK ON CLIMATE ALARMISM

    80 years is insignificant when it comes to measuring climate cycles. It would fall more under the catagory of weather. Climate takes place on a much larger time frame of Geologic Time. For example; The last Glacial Maximum ( LGM ) took place 20,000 years ago. Scince then, the continental Glacier wich extended from greenland south to St. louis and from the the north atlantic shore to the great pacific northwest up to Alaska. The continental Glacier melted to the extent that only about 1% of the continental glacier remains itoday in isolated,disassocited,tatters and remenants virtually unrecognizable in ice age terms.Further, This 20,000 yr warming trend is characterized by periods of rapid rates of deglaciaiton;periods of extremely slow deglaciation; and even periods of reglaciation under the much larger 20,000 year warming trend. In Geologice time 80 yrs, 100 yrs, 200 yrs is a nano-second of brevity wich can barely constitute a trend in the larger context of geologic time. Here is a movie of the modeled deglaciation of north america in the last 20,000 years. It is interesting to note that virtually 99% of the virtual deglaciation of North america takes place prior to the industrial revolution and in absence of any anthropogenic forces much larger than a camp fire.

    From an even larger perspective of geologic time of the 4.5 billion year history of the earth, it is interesting to note that Polar Ice and Glaciers on the planet earth occupies such a small amount of time as to almost be an asteric in the history of the earth. This is to say that the absence of Polar Ice and glaciation on earth is the ” Norm ” for the exceedingly vast majority of the Earth’s 4.5 billion year history. Further, In absence of any climactic factors of hemispheric or global proportion wich would not only interrupt the warming trend of the last 20,000 years but change to a trend of significant cooling, it is predictable that the tiny amounts of fragmental glaciation in north america and indeed globally will totally disappear thereby reuniting the earths conditions to its long standing historical norm of an Earth without Polar Ice and glaciation.

    Modeled Deglaciation Of north America Movie: Again, 99% of the deglaciation of north america occurs prior to the industrial revolution. This is all one needs to know to dismiss the anthropogenic climate change kooks.

    http://www.physics.mun.ca/~lev/glacmov.html

    • _Jim says:

      re: Big Daddy says on July 27, 2014 at 3:53 pm
      STRAIGHT TALK ON CLIMATE ALARMISM

      80 years is insignificant when it comes to measuring climate cycles. It would fall more under the catagory [sic] of weather.

      As I wrote up-thread to one of your posts:

      I don’t think that’s the point; why does every government plot-of-the-data show an increase in temp whereas an unadulterated plot of the data does not show an increase of temps?

      Can you riddle me an answer to that?

      SINCE the ‘sales’ of CAGW as sold to the public is BASED on the GOVERNMENT plots over less than an 80 year time span even, I [still] think you message is wasted HERE and needs to be directed to NOAA and NASA GISS.

      – – – –

      And I’ll add, I don’t expect you’ll actually address any of the ‘principles’ pushing the CAGW agenda (in government OR academia) and correct ‘them’ as you attempt to correct ‘us’ here.

      .

  104. juan says:

    It’s Halliburton’s fault!

  105. Evil Klown says:

    Funniest part is, they could start screaming “Global cooling” and the same clucking pinheads that believed them before would believe them again.

  106. Where’s al gore and the gorons on this? Not a peep. Global warming is about control and a money grab.

  107. Mike Mangan says:

    No arrogant Alarmists here? No ignorant, bigoted little pricks regurgitating standard SS talking points? What worthless, pitiful opponents you have, Steve. Is this thread indicative of a trend?

    • _Jim says:

      … usually, it seems (to this observer), when RealSci links appear on Drudge; this is proof positive though, that the SS types *do* read Drudge, and furthermore, feel that any sources he links to with info contrary to their CAGW dogma must be ‘countered’ as it is seen as substantive, substantial opposition and likely to ‘harm’ the CAGW cause if not countered.

      Wear it as a badge of honor, then, Tony et al, that they consider RealSci as ‘the opposition’.

      .

    • pesce9991 says:

      Here ya go. One arrogant little prick to burst your balloon and send you hurtling back to earth in a hurry.

      “Coolest Summer On Record In The US
      The frequency of 90 degree days in the US has been plummeting for 80 years, and 2014 has had the lowest frequency of 90 degree days through July 23 on record. The only other year which came close was 1992, and that was due to dust in the atmosphere from Mt Pinatubo.”

      Let’s start with the above article which gets mindlessly repeated over and over here. First, the author is a commentator not a scientist. He’s not even a meteorologist! Second he gives nothing to back up his claims. No references or citations. Yet he is repeated over and over as some sort of authority we should take seriously at face value. His first statement about the frequency of 90 degree days plummeting is pure bunk.

      Next, and this is your fault, you are pretending that a report on USA climate is the same as a report on Global climate. This is complete horse hockey.

      Although reading seems to be a chore for you (plural) the report below should straighten out your warped brains.

      The 2014 world map shows that the US is clearly cooler than the rest of the globe. But the US accounts for only 1.9% of the worlds surface area! You would get a failing grade in science if you did not catch that error. You can’t extrapolate a global trend from only 1.9% of the data. That’s like calling and election with only 1.9% of the precincts reporting.

      I suggest reading the science behind global warming rather than some creative writing bs from unqualified ‘authorities’:

      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/6

      • Sharpshooter says:

        As a “scientist” yourself I suggest you look up “Argument from authority”.

        The look of “fraud” and take a peek in the mirror.

        Then, we’ll go through about 30 odd other fallacies and legal definitions.

        Arrogant prick, indeed.

      • _Jim says:

        re: pesce9991 says on July 27, 2014 at 5:47 pm
        Second he gives nothing to back up his claims. No references or citations. Yet he is repeated over and over as some sort of authority we should take seriously at face value. His first statement about the frequency of 90 degree days plummeting is pure bunk.

        Pure assertion and no follow-up with a formal ‘proof’. (You have an opportunity to ‘demolish’ Steve and his ‘rep’ by doing this one thing, ya know? Just sayin …)

        Pure argumentum ab auctoritate (argument from authority; ‘believe me because I say so because I am a a credentialed expert’).

        I might also say we finally have a perceived ‘player’ show up in this thread, but, he (could be a she) has fallen just ‘short’ of the runway; crashed. Didn’t come anywhere close to ‘putting it on the numbers’ let alone crossing the runway threshold. (A/C pilots reading this know what I mean.)

        .

      • tom0mason says:

        Another empty CAGW true believe rant. From someone who, unlike a real scientist, can not keep an open mind, or indeed go and prove what he says. No he only believes. Such an arrogant little know nothing.

        More to be pitied than blamed, poor thing.