May 31, 2016

Climate Alarmist’s Predictions Don’t Match Real-world Data

Another Climate Alarmist’s Predictions Don’t Match Real-world Data

May 31, 2016

TOWN HALL - Whenever there is a new record set, whether rain, hurricane, drought, etc., those in the climate change alarmist camp seem to be quick to point to global warming as the cause and make more dire predictions regarding the future—even when there are other documented reasons and even when hard data (not models) disputes the claim. Such is the case with Lake Mead. On May 20, the federal Bureau of Reclamation announced that the nation’s largest reservoir reached an all-time low. The current level slipped below the previous record set in June 2015.

Despite reports of the mismanagement of the important water resource, USA Today responded to the news by proclaiming: “Due to a long drought and climate change, Lake Mead’s water levels continue to fall.”

Brad Udall, a senior water and climate research scientist at Colorado State University, and brother to former Colorado Senator Mark Udall and cousin to New Mexico Senator Tom Udall, declared: “This problem is not going away and it is likely to get worse, perhaps far worse, as climate change unfolds.” According to the Desert Sun, he added: “Unprecedented high temperatures in the basin are causing the flow of the river to decline.”

Udall previously stated:
“Climate change is water change. The two go hand in hand. Heat drives the water cycle. …You have to invoke temperatures to explain the current drought.”
While Udall’s statements are dramatic and coincide with the climate crisis narrative his better-known family members espouse, they do not, according New Mexico hydrologist Mike Wallace, reflect actual temperature and stream flow records in the Colorado River Basin. (I highlighted Wallace’s work on ocean acidification in December 2014.)

Both Wallace and Udall claim to be experts in the hydrology and climatology of the western U.S. However, Wallace told me: “I’m the only hydrologist who is publishing moisture and temperature forecasts in reaches of the Upper Colorado River, years in advance, with consistently high accuracy.”

Wallace, who counts the city of Santa Fe as one of his forecasting business clients, pioneered the discovery that moisture patterns in his area of study—which overlaps Udall’s—are deeply anchored to ocean indexes and sunspot numbers. He boldly asserts:
“There is no correlation of CO2 emissions history to the moisture time series that I have evaluated. Also, for the same stations that I review there is little or no correlation of temperature to streamflow. Rather, ocean drivers can account for changes in temperature and moisture in this region, and those drivers appear to be driven themselves by solar cycles.”
While Udall believes temperatures are rising and causing reduced streamflow into Lake Mead, Wallace disputes the premise. Wallace says he has three years of successful forecast exercises to back up his claim that, in his study areas, “temperatures are hardly trending in any direction and, in any case, those temperatures are not correlating to streamflow.”

Wallace’s study regions include many of the tributaries of the Colorado River such as the San Juan River and the Green River—both of which are sourced in the Rocky Mountains. He says:
“There haven’t been any unusually low streamflow rates or unusually high temperatures in my area of focus. In fact, flows are going up, not down, compared to two and three years ago and some temperatures are actually trending down over the same recent time frame.”
Using his proprietary method (patent pending) with more than 200 accurate forecasts, and applying to areas near the nexus of the Upper Rio Grande and the Upper Colorado Rivers, Wallace is projecting 3-4 years of generally increased water flows, followed by 3-4 years of generally decreasing moisture (drought). He posits that his innovations help municipalities, flood control authorities, irrigation districts, and resource management agencies better plan for future moisture and temperature conditions.

Wallace has written and presented several papers on his discoveries. But he continues to experience resistance from major peer-reviewed journals to publish any of his findings. The troubles likely lie in his demonstrations that emissions are uncorrelated to climate in his study regions. In any case, scientific papers are often considered as precursors to actual applications, and Wallace already has a working, proven application. He is receiving steady and growing recognition from the hydroclimate community. In April, he was an invited presenter to the 30th Annual Rio Grande Basin Snowmelt Runoff Forecast Meeting, sponsored by the USDA SNOTEL network and attended by top regional hydroclimate scientists from agencies including the National Weather Service (NWS), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

If Wallace is correct, and he has a successful climate forecast record to back up his projections, Udall can’t also be right. Wallace believes most of Udall’s climate assertions, such as the claim that regional temperatures explain everything about the drought, are too simplistic. He also expresses concern regarding Udall’s use of the term “drought.”
“To accept those Lake Mead statements as factual,” Wallace said, “anything short of an epic flooding event, must be an epic drought event.”
The natural processes that Wallace has distilled down to a working forecast system, don’t, in any way, appear to fit the crisis narrative that Udall and many climate “authorities” perpetuate. You should ask if we really need more funding, bigger departments, and greater public anxiety to fix something that, at least, in the western U.S., appears to wholly be explained by natural cycles.

The Largest Emitters of Carbon Dioxide: Volcanic Eruptions, Oceans, Decomposition of Plants and Animals, and Forest and Wild Fires

In a Geological Society of America abstract by Dr. Easterbrook, data showed we were in a global warming cycle from 1977 to 1998, at which time we entered into a new global cooling period that should last for the next three decades. The Pacific Ocean has a warm temperature mode and a cool temperature mode, and in the past century has switched back and forth between these two modes every 25-30 years. This is known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO. In 1977 the Pacific abruptly shifted from its cool mode (where it had been since about 1945) into its warm mode, and this initiated global warming from 1977 to 1998. The PDO typically lasts 25-30 years and assures North America of cool, wetter climates during its cool phases and warmer, drier climates during its warm phases. The establishment of the cool PDO in 1998, together with similar cooling of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), virtually assures several decades of global cooling and the end of the past 30-year warm phase.  

PDO typically lasts 25-30 years:

1. 1945 - 1977: PDO cool phase (27 years)
2. 1977 - 1998: PDO warm phase (21 years)
3. 1998 - 2028: PDO cool phase (30 years)



Water vapor is the overwhelming greenhouse gas [it is 30 to 50 times more important than carbon dioxide (CO2)], and CO2 attributed to man is minuscule. Yet government-paid scientists claim HUMAN-INDUCED CO2 is the primary climate driver and must be eliminated to save the earth. Of course man is prideful enough to think he is a major player when in actuality man is an insignificant producer of CO2.

The greatest amount of CO2 is locked up in plants, rocks and the oceans. It should not be surprising that these each contribute more CO2 emissions than any other sources. This is a good thing, since there is a relatively stable and finite amount of both oxygen and carbon on this planet.

If it weren’t for carbon dioxide, the earth could well be a frozen ball in space, and life, as we know it, would probably not be able to survive.

The largest emitters of carbon dioxide are volcanic eruptions, forest and wild fires, and natural decomposition of plants and animals. Thankfully, ocean water has a great propensity for absorbing this gas, and, as ice melts, it means that the oceans can take in a great deal more CO2.

1. The biggest source of CO2 emissions is volcanic eruptions. At any given time, according to agencies such as the USGS, there are about 13-17 volcanoes erupting somewhere on Earth.

2. Next in line for emissions is the natural decomposition of plant life.

3. The next biggest emitter of carbon dioxide is probably the ocean.

4. Other large emitters of carbon dioxide are forest and wild fires.

A person may wonder where man and animals fit into all of this. Animals and mankind breathe in oxygen and breath out CO2, and their bodies also contain CO2 and carbon, which is released when they die and decompose. Man burns fossil fuels, which release CO2 as a byproduct. Animals and mankind don’t produce nearly as much carbon dioxide as the major producers, with the possible exception of the death and decomposition of animals.

The instrument temperature records since 1850 or so (until satellite measures started in the 1970s) which are used to prove human-induced global warming (AGW) have been shown to be inaccurate, unreliable, and tainted by numerous errors. Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor of Geology at Western Washington University, suggests that since the IPCC climate models are now so far off from what is actually happening, that their projections for both this decade and century must be considered highly unreliable.

Weakest solar cycle in more than a century now heading towards next solar minimum


The current solar cycle, #24, is the weakest solar cycle in more than a century and it is now heading towards the next solar minimum phase which would be the beginning of solar cycle #25.  The last solar minimum phase lasted from 2007 to 2009 and it was historically weak. In fact, it produced three of the most spotless days on the sun since the middle 1800’s (bar graph below).  The current solar cycle is the 24th solar cycle since 1755 when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began.  Solar cycle 24 is currently on pace to be the weakest sunspot cycle with the fewest sunspots since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906. Solar cycle 24 continues a recent trend of weakening solar cycles which began with solar cycle 22 that peaked around 1990.

Top "sunspotless" days since 1849; last solar minimum produced 3 of these years

Solar maximum

The latest solar image (above) shows a rather quiet looking sun with only a couple of visible sunspot regions (indicated by arrows).  With no sunspots actively flaring, the sun's X-ray output has flatlined.  The number of nearly or completely spotless days should increase over the next few years as we continue to move away from the solar maximum phase of cycle 24 and approach the next solar minimum phase and the beginning of solar cycle 25 (current location indicated by arrow below).

We are currently more than seven years into Solar Cycle 24 and it appears the solar maximum of this cycle was reached in April 2014 during a spike in activity.  Going back to 1755, there have been only a few solar cycles in the previous 23 that have had a lower number of sunspots during its maximum phase.  The peak of activity in April 2014 was actually a second peak in solar cycle 24 that surpassed the level of an earlier peak that occurred in March 2012.  While many solar cycles are double-peaked, this is the first one in which the second peak in sunspot number was larger than the first peak.  The sunspot number plot below also shows a clear weakening trend in solar cycles since solar cycle 22 peaked around 1990.

Sunspot numbers for solar cycles 22, 23 and 24 which shows a clear weakening trend; courtesy Dr. David Hathaway, NASA/MSFC

Consequences of weak solar cycles

There can be important consequences from weak solar cycles; especially, if they are part of a long-term pattern.  First, this particular weak solar cycle has resulted in rather benign “space weather” in recent times with generally weaker-than-normal geomagnetic storms. By all Earth-based measures of geomagnetic and geoeffective solar activity, this cycle has been extremely quiet. However, while a weak solar cycle does suggest strong solar storms will occur less often than during stronger and more active cycles, it does not rule them out entirely. In fact, the famous "superstorm" Carrington Event of 1859 occurred during a weak solar cycle (#10). In addition, there is some evidence that most large events such as strong solar flares and significant geomagnetic storms tend to occur in the declining phase of the solar cycle. In other words, there is still a chance for significant solar activity in the months and years ahead.

400 years of sunspots with Maunder and Dalton Minimums; courtesy wikipedia

Second, it is pretty well understood that solar activity has a direct impact on temperatures at very high altitudes in a part of the Earth’s atmosphere called the thermosphere. This is the biggest layer of the Earth’s atmosphere which lies directly above the mesosphere and below the exosphere. Thermospheric temperatures increase with altitude due to absorption of highly energetic solar radiation and are highly dependent on solar activity.

Finally, if history is any guide, it is safe to say that weak solar activity for a prolonged period of time can have a cooling impact on global temperatures in the troposphere which is the bottom-most layer of Earth’s atmosphere - and where we all live. There have been two notable historical periods with decades-long episodes of low solar activity. The first period is known as the “Maunder Minimum”, named after the solar astronomer Edward Maunder, and it lasted from around 1645 to 1715. The second one is referred to as the “Dalton Minimum”, named for the English meteorologist John Dalton, and it lasted from about 1790 to 1830 (below).

Both of these historical periods coincided with colder-than-normal global temperatures in an era that is now referred to by many scientists as the “Little Ice Age”. One of the reasons prolonged periods of weak solar activity may be associated with colder global temperatures has to do with a complicated relationship between solar activity, cosmic rays, and clouds on Earth.  Research studies in recent years have found that in times of low solar activity - where solar winds are typically weak - more cosmic rays reach the Earth’s atmosphere which, in turn, has been found to lead to an increase in certain types of clouds that can act to cool the Earth.


The increasingly likely outcome for another historically weak solar cycle continues the recent downward trend in sunspot cycle strength that began over thirty years ago during solar cycle 22. If this trend continues for the next couple of cycles, then there would likely be increasing talk of another “grand minimum” for the sun which correlates to an extended decades-long period of low solar activity. Some solar scientists are already predicting that the next solar cycle will be even weaker than this current one which has been historically weak. However, it is just too early for high confidence in those predictions since many solar scientists believe that the best predictor of future solar cycle strength involves activity at the sun’s poles during a solar minimum phase – something we are now rapidly approaching.

Meteorologist Paul Dorian
Vencore, Inc.


  1. "The Merchants of Doubt", or see the documentary of the same name.

    "Obama, other democrats, their legions of agency puppets, and billionaire crony greenie weenies with greedy snouts gorging in the federal trough, all cortically challenged economic and STEM illiterate self-anointed saviors of the world, conjure up a spurious threat from climate change to justify their tyranny over the American people. Whether you are a corporate CEO, government bureaucrat, unskilled entry level employee, on the central planning committee, or any of the vast array of roles individuals fill the overwhelming number of them are focused on their personal profits. Maximizing one's individual quality of life based on one's individual values is the driving force. They may preach Marxism, but they benefit personally by accumulation of power in centrally planned systems. People have an unbelievable ability to rationalize, so they nearly always come to the conclusion that whatever is good for me is good for everybody."

    oil industry has been rigged for decades ... yes, by private hedge funds.

    "Rigged, manipulated and opaque: the $3 trillion oil market needs reform"

    "Rigging The Oil Market: ‘Perhaps 60% of Today’s Oil Price is Pure Speculation"

  2. NYT suggests just two years ago snow would end. I guess Mother Nature doesn't read the New York Times, as she just dumped 30 or so inches on us here in DC.



    The EPA estimates the regulation will prevent as many as 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks, and 130,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms every year.

    But Republicans can’t be bothered about people’s health when corporate profits are involved. Their fraudulent, anti-science platform is funded largely by Big Oil and Big Coal, a world of Know-Nothingism and greed that spends millions to mobilize human stupidity.

    Government is Great!

    Private anything is terrible!

    Here’s a few and there are many more.

    Competitive Enterprise Institute –
    Cornwall Alliance –
    Friends of Science –
    George C. Marshall Institute –
    John Locke Foundation –
    Liberty Fund –
    Global Warming Policy Foundation –
    National Center for Policy Analysis –
    Principia Scientific International –
    The Heartland Institute –

    Perhaps this article in the WSJ:

    “Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.

    Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama's first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.

    Maerton’s is far from 100% correct and you make the classic progressive two-faced political argument while trolling.

  3. I read the work of two Canadian researchers, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. They and others have shown, as confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, that the hockey stick graph, and others like it, are heavily reliant on dubious sets of tree rings and use inappropriate statistical filters that exaggerate any 20th-century upturns.

    You leave out the flood of emails that were leaked in 2009 showing some climate scientists apparently scheming to withhold data, prevent papers being published, get journal editors sacked and evade freedom-of-information requests, just as sceptics had been alleging. That was when I began to re-examine everything I had been told about climate change and, the more I looked, the flakier the prediction of rapid warming seemed.

    I am especially unimpressed by the claim that a prediction of rapid and dangerous warming is “settled science”, as firm as evolution or gravity. How could it be? It is a prediction! No prediction, let alone in a multi-causal, chaotic and poorly understood system like the global climate, should ever be treated as gospel. With the exception of eclipses, there is virtually nothing scientists can say with certainty about the future. It is absurd to argue that one cannot disagree with a forecast, but that is what we get from eco-fascists like you.In fact, the science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming. Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”That reinforces my contention that eco-fascists like you cannot tolerate dissent

    However, be it known the consensus is that climate change is happening, not that it is going to be dangerous. The latest IPCC report gives a range of estimates of future warming, from harmless to terrifying. My best guess would be about one degree of warming during this century, which is well within the IPCC’s range of possible outcomes.

    Yet most politicians go straight to the top of the IPCC’s range and call climate change things like “perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction” (John Kerry), requiring the expenditure of trillions of dollars. I think that is verging on grotesque in a world full of war, hunger, disease and poverty. It also means that environmental efforts get diverted from more urgent priorities, like habitat loss and invasive species.

    The policies being proposed to combat climate change, far from being a modest insurance policy, are proving ineffective, expensive, harmful to poor people and actually bad for the environment: we are tearing down rainforests to grow biofuels and ripping up peat bogs to install windmills that still need fossil-fuel back-up. These policies are failing to buy any comfort for our wealthy grandchildren and are doing so on the backs of today’s poor. Some insurance policy.

    So, when you write such drivel as this: “and wrong for you to make claims about the Science when you don't understand it.Instead of rejecting Science, read it.”

    Makes me howl with laughter at your narrow minded and lame attempts to dismiss other points of view because they do not line up with your fantasy ideology especially when based on science.Instead of rebutting arguments you hide behind the stale and false talking points that all the alarmists are sanctioned by the state so therefore not prone to bias and corruption is delusional when evidence exists to the contrary.GFY, chump.

    William Schulze

  4. "Patrick J. ("Pat") Michaels (born February 15, 1950) is an American climatologist. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute. Until 2007 he was research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, where he had worked from 1980.[2][3]"

    And an elderly white man who could afford to take money for lying about global warming since he was already retired and wouldn't ruin a career in legitimate science.

    Michaels acknowledged on CNN that 40 per cent of his funding came from the oil industry.[39] According to Fred Pearce, fossil fuel companies have helped fund Michaels' projects, including his World Climate Report, published every year since 1994, and his "advocacy science consulting firm", New Hope Environmental Services.[40]

    A 2005 article published by the Seattle Times reported that Michaels had received more than $165,000 in fuel-industry funding, including money from the coal industry to publish his own climate journal.
    Patrick Michaels: Cato's Climate Expert Has History Of Getting It Wrong

    "A review of claims made by the Cato Institute's Patrick Michaels over the last quarter century shows that he has repeatedly been proven wrong over time. Michaels is one of a few contrarian climate scientists who is often featured in the media without disclosure of his funding from the fossil fuel industry."

    Let me guess: you probably also think Rush Limbaugh gets $40 million a year to "inform" people.


    Big deal, so does Obama, Clinton and Sanders. So, what? Heck, nearly all Climate Change studies are funded by oil. How do you think they get their funding? Money does not grow on trees. That is just a Far Left Fantasy propagated by your handlers.

  5. Frederick Farnbach
    Jan 25, 2016

    I have never gotten a satisfactory answer from global warming alarmists to either of the following two questions.

    Assuming the basic premise of anthropogenic global warming alarmism were true, and the surface was warming due to an increasingly insulating atmosphere:

    1) What would that mean about the temperature lapse rate moving up through the atmosphere?


    2) What would that do to the moisture content of the low atmosphere?

    Bonus question: How do the answers to those two questions not undo this most fundamental premise of AGW?

    @Frederick Farnbach - Got another one for you. The IPCC reports do not take into account atmospheric moisture and its effects on the Earth's albedo. So, what is the effect of cloud cover on temperature, a net increase (albedo lessened) or a net decrease (albedo increased)?

  6. It is important to use a proper "normal". California's climate for the last 100 years was markedly abnormal, and the current drought is more a reversion to the norm than an aberration brought on by AGW.

    Scientists who study the West's long-term climate patterns say the state has been parched for much longer stretches before the current 163-year historical period began.

    Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years -- compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell.

    The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.

    So how do they report that it was? Start with raw data, feed it into a climate model based on your assumptions, then report the result you created yourself.

    You see no matter what raw data says, it is adjusted by a climate model to show warming.

    You see, in the past, the 1930's were the warmest years, even warmer than 1998 according to NASA at the time. Then we started adjusting the raw data. Like magic, the past appears cooler and the present warmer. Same with GISS, NOAA, NCDC, etc.

    Here is a book where one can pick up the facts:

    It's global warming freaks who deny the Sun. The warming crowd replace the Sun's dominant position as the source of all the heat with relatively small changes in the concentration of atmospheric CO2. The Sun's energy output varies a great deal, as does the amount of energy the Earth receives from the Sun due to very long term cycles of orbit perturbations.

    The problem with theories of anthropomorphic global warming is that the models don't predict future observed events. They also ignore historic weather events which occurred before temperature records began about 135 years ago. Finally, we have less than 30 years of experience with all global climate models because we didn't have the computing power to run predictions for such complex models before about 1985. Here's a link to a description of the climate over the last 18,000 years. See what you've been missing.

  7. Thank God, that the weather is warming!

    Read world history and discover why warm periods are termed, officially, 'optimums'; most cold periods are times of disaster when the four horsemen of the apocalypse truly roam! Pestilence, Famine, War and Death.

    I like to trot this link whenever a big storm hits since when it's hot it's climate change and when it's cold it's weather:

    Although there was an uptick in global ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy) last year, the earth has had no increase in hurricanes for the last 120 years which contradicts the catastrophic AGW message.

    another interesting place to go for information about climate science, if you are into the weeds of statistical analysis by people who do it without an agenda is

    Just look at the Satellite data;


    Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison (hell-hole of progressivism) 1979. Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming (1992), The Satanic Gases (2000), and Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media (2004). He's also the co-author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know (2009)

    Energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2012 were the lowest in the United States since 1994, at 5.3 billion metric tons of CO2 (see figure above). With the exception of 2010, emissions have declined every year since 2007.

    The largest drop in emissions in 2012 came from coal, which is used almost exclusively for electricity generation (see figure below). During 2012, particularly in the spring and early summer, low natural gas prices led to competition between natural gas- and coal-fired electric power generators.

    Just get out of the way of free markets. Simple.

    But that would put lots of bureaucrats and "scientists" out of work, Ms. Norris. We can't have that, can we? Let's just elect Bernie. Then the government will control everything and life will be grand. Wait...didn't the USSR already try that?

  8. NOAA -- located in Boulder, Colorado mind you -- decided to toss out satellite data and start relying on ships' cooling-water-intake-tubes for ocean temp readings, despite evidence that these measurements are prone to errors. Are they smoking something there in Boulder? Oh, wait...

    It's worse than what was reported.

    1)The measurements are taken from different nationality ships using different measurement techniques. Brits use bucket measurements whereas US uses intake sensors.

    2) There is NO calibration data on any of the sensors and yet NOAA is trying to tease out 0.1% differences in temperature. NO WAY;

    3) The ships transit over shipping channels at irregular intervals which means several things: a) the gulf stream creates eddies which can change local temperatures by several degrees; b) there is no observation of sea state which can also change surface temperatures by several degrees; NOAA has the audacity to extrapolate these temporally and spatially sparse temperature measurements into global models. BS

    This is the kind of "science" YOUR earnings are paying for!

    It's 100% politically motivated.

  9. Hound Dog • 17 hours ago

    I've never understood some of these climate alarmists. How can they claim that our current temperature is ideal. Centuries ago, the world went through a mini ice age. For generations, many people considered their climate to be the norm. Would scientists back then decry global warming as being horrific?

    If there is one thing the Earth has plenty of is water. Increased efficiencies and technologies such as desalination makes ocean water more available for drinking and farming usage. Temperature rises might just mean longer growing seasons in northern climates. Climate alarmists are chicken littles.

    Jim Lloyd • 12 hours ago

    The belief that temperature rising implies that man is causing the rise is the basis for most of the "climate change" alarm and condemnation of fossil fuels. This slight of hand by the climate change folks is never challenged. That slight of hand is worthy of a RICO investigation because of the fraud that has been perpetrated on the public. The claim that 97% of the scientists believe that man is causing climate
    change is itself a fraudulent cherry picking of data. Anybody who quotes that figure is himself participating in the fraud.

    Ernest Hathcock Jim Lloyd • 11 hours ago

    What should have been said is 97% of the scientists we polled say that climate change is man made. There are a random number of 100,000 scientists but 92 of the 100 we poled say climate change is man made. Oh, we forgot to mention that if they say it is not man made they lose their funding. As I always say, follow the money and you will get close to the truth.

    Regarding, "resistance from major peer-reviewed journals"

    From: Phil Jones
    To: "Michael E. Mann"
    Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

    Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY - don't pass on. I didn't say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all. Keep quiet also that you have the pdf.

    I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
    them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

  10. oldguy52 Jonathan Goodman • 11 hours ago

    Well.... at least Mike Wallace can figure out that CO2 isn't "a pollutant" and isn't causing gorbull warming. IF anything had gone the way warmists predicted since the 80's, all our coastal cities would have been awash in seawater by now. But what do you see? Yep, absolutely nothing.

    How many times do their models have to be wrong before you wake up and realize they are clueless or more likely, deceptive. Since they keep pushing these obviously wrong ideas perhaps you'd begin to wonder what hidden agenda they just might be trying to advance.

    Ernest Hathcock oldguy52 • 11 hours ago

    oldguy52 Ernest Hathcock • 7 hours ago

    Well the warmists never mention that agenda (money and power). It seems they'd rather you didn't think about that too much. Hence the "hidden agenda".

    beethoven#5 • 7 hours ago

    Why did the progressives change the phrase from "global warming" to "climate change?" Can someone answer that? Is it because climate change is much easier to defend since the climate is always changing? It much better fits the narrative of the left to say climate change, because the global warming did not happen as all of these "experts" predicted. Yes, watch Al Gore's documentary, and according to him the world should have been close to evaporating by now. But I will be sure to look over my shoulder at airports and train stations not for any ISIS terrorist, but for deadly high temperatures!

    John in OK Matthew • 12 hours ago

    It became political for one reason: politicians like Al Gore saw that they could use it as a way to bludgeon us into giving up more of our freedoms to government. As such, learning the truth became secondary to creating the perception that the world is in a desperate crisis, in order to intimidate people into giving government all the powers it 'needed to solve the crisis.'
    And coincidentally, Al and his friends could make millions from the 'crisis'...Al Gore alone has made over $100 MILLION off 'climate change'-related businesses since 2000.

    The simple reality is that the earth has been much warmer and much colder than the climate change crowd predicts, with no input from mankind at all. The primary driver of our climate is not mankind or our doings, but rather that massive fusion plant one AU from us -- the sun, which generates more heat than everything on earth combined.

    John in OK Matthew • 11 hours ago

    And 'scientists all over the world' disagree with the theory that mankind is responsible for 'climate change.' More than 30,000 scientists, including over 9,000 Ph.D.s, have signed a petition stating that there is no proof that mankind is responsible for 'climate change.'

  11. Sensible Solutions • a day ago

    Anyone that took a course in Constitutional Law well remembers that the Supreme Court ruled that there ARE limits to the Right of Free Speech. The most popular example is that you do NOT have the right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, as it could cause a panic and harm others. Remember that one?

    Based on that precendent, I would submit that it is the AGW alarmists that are shouting "FIRE!" on a crowded planet, and trying to cause a panic that will harm billions.

    The AGW sceptics, on the other hand, and just saying, ''Wait a minute, and let's be sure there is really a fire before we flood the entire theater and cause irreparable harm.''

    So which side has the law on their sides?

    John in OK Matthew • 10 hours ago

    Your precise words that started this discussion: "I don't understand why or how this topic became so political and controversial."

    Then I explained why it was political. You responded with "Oh so AL Gore is behind all of this....nothing to do with scientists from all over the world."
    I responded with my own list of scientists (note I never claimed they were all climatologists) who disagreed, which you promptly tried to discredit because they disagree with you.

    Maybe you 'don't defend climate change,' but you use the talking points of those who do.

    And while I don't do research for a living, I have been taught the scientific method (one of the benefits of growing up when they still taught science in school) and use it every day as part of my job. I am capable of looking at history and the evidence and drawing conclusions by that method.

    And the reality is that while there is a theory that human beings are causing climate change, the theory is far from being proven true. We have less than 200 years of hard scientific data on the environment out of 4 billion years of earth's history. Basing massive societal and fiscal changes on that minuscule sample of data is analogous to putting all of your money in the stock market based on an analysis of the last ten seconds' stock prices. Both are equally foolish.

    oldguy52 Matthew • 10 hours ago

    I guess you haven't noticed that algore's wealth has multiplied 400 times (to 400 million or so) or more since he left the vice-presidency and started preaching to his flock.

    Apparently preaching to the gullible is fairly lucrative.

    dogmant • 8 hours ago

    pish posh - another scientist with "facts" - meh
    global warming is a sustainable progressive environmentalist narrative with its own legs now, no facts will bring it back
    and al gore is re-surging - his propaganda film is getting new air time and is being injected into a new generation of true believers who don't care about facts or science or even the planet, they believe in the narrative and the beautiful delivery of lies by al gore.

    global warming fantasy is being distributed around the globe, in all forms of media, to all demographics, in legislation, in every progressive political body on the planet. progressives are great at propaganda - and bad at the truth - but they are so good at the propaganda we now have at least two generations of people who don't know the truth and don't care - they love the narrative and what it means to love the narrative and how believing in the narrative makes them FEEL and how belonging to a group that believes in the narrative makes the FEEL. Global warming doesn't have to be true, and facts disproving it can be presented so obviously that any idiot could see the falseness of the narrative - but, these people aren't just any "idiots", they are USEFUL idiots - and they are the most dangerous idiots of all...

    factsh smactsh - who needs 'em when believing the lie FEELS so good.... lies are renewable, sustainable, and "organic" and packaged in green AND the cost more and the quality of the product is less - perfect, great... a marketing bonanza.

  12. Ernie • 2 days ago

    We all need to do more to "stop" Al Gore and his cronies from overstating climate change in order to get more money from poor people and the middle class. He and his "the sky is falling" cronies have continually fooled everyone so they can fill their pockets with "your" money. Remember "follow the money" and you will know. Stop believing Al Gore and folks as it is not that bad. The Earth is fully capable of dealing with climate change over the very long run. All the ice will not melt this year and may never. The ice that is breaking is normal over a larger period of time and will increase again. Antarctica is making more ice. Man cannot substantially change the weather and a few wind mills and solar energy will never put a debt in the weather.

    Robert • 8 hours ago

    "You should ask if we really need more funding, bigger departments, and
    greater public anxiety to fix something that, at least, in the western
    U.S., appears to wholly be explained by natural cycles."

    Well, of course we do. That's what this whole global warming alarm is about, no?
    Nobody can claim the proposed solutions will be effective -- evaluation of Paris "accord" shows max expected temperature remediation in the range of 0.1 (zero point 1) degrees centigrade.
    It can't be about "fixing" global warming. All that's left is creating global bureaucracies to continue misdiagnosing the problem and applying the wrong "solutions".

    Jerome E. Goodwin • 9 hours ago

    Truth look at the chart here we are coming out of one of the longest cool periods ever.

    Steve Muckler • 9 hours ago

    In Australia, the gubmint decided that since the science on climate change was "settled", they could shift funding from climate research into measures to deal with its effects. Al of a sudden, the nearly 300 researchers who were being cut off the gravy train discovered that the science wasn't so settled after all.

    oldguy52 Shane Falco • 8 hours ago

    Sure, get rid of all the CO2 and see how long all your "natural habitats" last.

    FederalFarmer • 9 hours ago

    Just follow the money on global warming. Government benefits through higher taxes and greater power, so government paid scientists come up with data to support global warming.

    Eric Haulenbeek • 10 hours ago

    Global warming is as big a lie as is Hillary always tells the truth! The problem is that the "warmies" just don't know how to get people on board with them. They can't tell the truth because their money-grubbing scam would collapse. So instead they continue telling these outrageous whoppers, with equally outrageous explanations, in the hope that someone somewhere will buy into their nonsense. The truth is our temperatures aren't changing, the sea's aren't rising and Barry Soetoro cannot "heal" a damn thing! By the way there are more polar bears on the Earth since any time in recent history. What's that all about!

    Roger Reid • 5 hours ago

    No matter how hard they try government types just can't seem to control the oil industry. That business got too big and out of hand under free markets before this current push to control what is left of the productive capacity of our once great country. The only way left to gain control of the energy segment is to demonize the oil industry and promote renewables which are already under the thumb of tyranny through the huge subsidies offered. Government control of health, education, and energy are the foundation of transferring to a socialist "for the government, by the government, and of the government" system. Control of the individual is but a byproduct of socialism. The target is control of wealth production. And we are well on our way to that nightmare!

  13. Avatar
    OP • 2 days ago

    Do not miss
    the last line.

    Good thing we have newspapers to report
    information we would not have known if it weren't for them.

    The Washington
    Post: The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing
    scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot,
    according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from
    Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.

    Reports from
    fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change
    in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the
    Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any
    ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29

    Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters
    showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice
    have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report
    continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely

    Very few seals and no white
    fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring
    and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being
    encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
    Within a few years
    it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make
    most coastal cities uninhabitable.

    * * * * * * * * *
    I must apologize, I neglected to
    mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by
    the AP and published in The Washington Post –almost 93 years ago.

    OP • 2 days ago

    For nearly thirty years climate activist have been warning us the we
    have just five years to act. Think about that for a minute.

    Lucille55 • 2 days ago

    The sky is falling!
    We need a global sky tax right away.
    If we don't cede all sovereignty to the Unite Nations, the temperature might rise by one degree a hundred years from now. Al Gore and Maurice Strong are going to save the world!
    Actually Al, Carbon dioxide isn't pollution. Try growing crops without it.
    Photosynthesis is settled science and global warming is a BS theory.

    We The People Lucille55 • a day ago

    You are right but facts mean very little to the carbon folks. It come down to one simple thing no matter how they try to serve it to the people, NWO. It is hard to control wealthy nations with educated citizens. But tax them more and more then you bring them down to a position they no longer can resist. The more advance a nation is the more it needs to be taxed. Emissions are the key, affluent nations emit more than non-affluent nations. Carbon tax can only be done by governments and between governments. Very simple.

    Kevin rachelw • a day ago

    I saw an interview with that idiot, Bill Nye The "Science Guy," where he blamed "Climate Change" for the 130 people who were murdered in Paris by Islamic terrorists! He claimed that 1. Global Warming has caused a drought in the Middle East, so the farmers can't raise their crops. So, 2. they had to "flee" to the cities, where there are no jobs, so then 3. they had to flee to Europe, where they're unwelcome, so they had no choice but to 4. line up 130 innocent people and murder them. Of course, his stupid comments are immediately disproved when you realize that the entire Middle East (except for the "Fertile Crescent" region) is a desert! That region has had water shortage issues ever since the days of Abraham! (which represents almost 4,000 years of recorded history) It looks to me like liberalism is increasing in the intensity of their arrogance and stupidity at an exponential rate, and if we don't do something soon, our civilization itself is at risk.

  14. Get to Work People • a day ago

    If you took the BILLIONS AND BILLIONS out of the Cult of AGW, you would only find total eco-nuts still Believing.
    The rest would go onto the next money making scam.

    Deb joeb • a day ago

    It is your ignorance. There are thousands and thousands of ppl who have lost good paying jobs because of the Epa's overreach. The EPA is not a government agency and should have no authority. The earth had 4 ice ages before ppl used coal, before industries and before vehicles. If there was not money in it Gore would not be involved. Just like with Jackson and Sharpton...if there was not money in hollering racism neither of these fools would even be known. If Gore and the other crazies really believed in climate change/global warming (whatever the title this week) then why do they still use their sun's and their planes. We have Skype and conference calls and other technology to use to have their global parties. They continue to use them 1) because they are making billions of dollars off ppl like you so they have the funds to live richly 2) because they know they are scamming ppl like you because they don't believe it either.

    Bevos cken • a day ago

    ACTUALLY, we ALSO have global COOLING!! The temperatures are much cooler now than they have ever been in my lifetime. And I am 71! I live in Alabama now, and I don't even turn on my air-conditioner in the summer. Haven't for the last 6 yrs. My pipes FREEZE in the winter, for the last 6 yrs.,which they NEVER did when I moved here 17 yrs. ago!! I remember when you could not "breathe" in summer here, w/out an air-conditioner

    The Globe goes through this change every 30 yrs. or so then it switches back the other way.
    I grew up in Mich. and when we were little we sometimes slept out on the ground in summer, because it was so hot. Then by the time I grew up, we thought 85 was a hot day in summer, then yrs. later for several yrs. it got up into the 105, 106, 107s, now it is back down. It RARELY gets to 100 here. Maybe 1 or 2 days out of the yr.
    This is what it does. And HAS for as long as I can remember!!!
    I use COMMON SENSE, w/regard to things like this. AND I remember when Al Gore was running for POTUS, and he used EVERY LIE IMAGINABLE! I would not believe him if he told me the sun was shining on a hot day. I would go look out the window!!!

    WychDoctorGeorge cken • a day ago

    Really makes no difference whether the changes improve the situation or not - the real goal is power and profit for the controlling elite, and forcing the peasants to accept any lie that the gubmint spews out.

    used to be a liberal Lucille55 • a day ago

    If Al, the jolly green giant, Gore, and his followers were at all correct in their assertions, then using threats of prosecution/persecution would be totally unnecessary. The fact that they have to resort to these tactics, proves that this whole thing is nothing but a scam, a con job used to gain more power, and control of, and over populations.
    If anyone should be prosecuted it should be them for perpetuating this outright fraud.

    Bowserb abobinmn • a day ago

    The old democrats have become the new communists. The old republicans are the new democrats. Welcome to the USSA. Union of Soviet Socialist America. "Free" is in. Freedom is out.

    rjazz p0rkch0pian • 2 days ago

    He and Obama are part of this "cult" along with all the so called 97% scientists looking for grant and research money...period. Yes, tackle climate change without demonizing all fossil fuels...dumb dumb dumb......challenge anyone of the climate gurus to go without any fossil power for a month !!!

  15. LittleMoose • a day ago

    Don't be fooled, Global Warming is nothing more then a new tax policy to bring billions of dollars to the government coffers. The elitist Democrats love to walk in lock step to stop any opposition to their radical tax policies.

    Get to Work People LittleMoose • a day ago

    WRONG!!!!! Its not billions... its TRILLIONS!!!! Yes, they want TRILLIONS of dollars by 2050... at this point, they are raping us of $100 BILLION a year....

    This is the biggest tax scam in the history of the world...

    David • 2 days ago

    When the tax-loving eco freaks start blowing their hot air it not only melts ice, it melts steal.
    By the way...Al bought a $15 million dollar mansion on ocean front property. How is that working out for him as the dreaded sea's rise?
    The eco freaks are too stupid to fool smart people, and John Gruber, Obama's Obamacare Czar identified people that vote for Democrats when he said, "We rely on stupid Americans to support and pass our programs."

    Sirdirkfan • a day ago

    Surely judges are preparing to sue on behalf of the nation's Constitutional right to Free Speech and preparing a special cell for Gore.

    HAMBONE • a day ago

    Welcome to the Soviet Union. Re-education camps for dissenters.
    Where is Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn when we really need him?

    warren1967 • a day ago

    Here is question for people to ponder on. If we global warming deniers are wrong then do we not make ourselves look stupid? WHY is there a need to silence deniers? Serious why is there a need. Sounds more like someone has something to hide.

    RD Black Arrow • a day ago

    Then let's go ahead and criminally investigate the environmentalists to see if they are getting paid from some big agency. Like, say the government, to further their agenda?

    Genevaroth • a day ago


    warming is a hoax promulgated by environmental wackos and COMMIE liberals like;
    Al “Jazerra” Gore, Tom “Oil Drilling” Steyer, Barbara “Tree hugger” Boxer,
    Vinod “Government Subsidy” Kosla, George “Commie” Soros and others. These
    COMMIES want all of you to live like paupers by using a lawn mower engine car,
    living in a 400 sq. ft. home and reduce your standard of living, while they fly
    around in private jets, have multiple mansions and are all multi-millionaires or
    billionaires. Their remedy for this hoax is higher taxes and redistribution of
    wealth. Typical COMMIE liberal programs to enrich the government at the expense
    of the middle class. The earth is 4.5 billion years old and the climate has
    always changed and it’s because of plate tectonics, the sun and gravitation of
    the moon. Ten thousand years ago the US was a sheet of ice. The science these COMMIE
    wackos use is based on flawed and bogus computer models and they are a bunch of
    anti-capitalist communists.

  16. paul meyerhoff • a day ago

    CO2 is heavier than atmosphere and so it sinks, also it is very soluble in water so it washes out when it rains...volcanoes and solar cycles have more to do with climate change than CO2

    Lawrence • a day ago

    ANY group that needs to shut down the 1st Amendment to make its point is more dangerous than anything their opponents are espousing. ment?Not to mention that Al Gore sold out his company to Islamists! And you "progressive" lemmings want MORE government by hypocrites like Al Gore?

    Bowserb Lawrence • a day ago

    No. The progressives just want the government to tax us and use that money to give them electric cars, free Internet, free cable TV, free college, free food, free health care, and of course, free luxury housing.

    StolenSSN • a day ago

    So, all these atty. gen. walk to work, don't fly, use a composting toilet, heat with solar and live off the land, right? THAT RIGHT THERE is all you will ever need to know about their BS. If they're arent LIVING it, they don't believe it.
    All they are looking for is a big payday...same as every other politician.

    Katamanthano Ernie • a day ago

    "And will never put a DEBT in the weather" was a Freudian slip perhaps? I like it! - as what will happen is that the "Climate Change" agenda will add more than just a DENT to the already massive national DEBT.

    "Man cannot substantially change the weather and a few wind mills . . ." Are you accusing liberals, like Don Quixote, of "tilting at windmills"? Actually, in addition to not substantially changing the weather, wind mills and solar energy negatively impact the environment in other ways; for example, cooked and cut up birds. There is no way to generate energy that has no impact on the environment.

    Sick and tired • a day ago

    Facism is alive and well. The not so tolerant left. Free speech is okay with the left as long as you agree with them. Otherwise you will be demonized and shouted down. They don't realize they will be the first to be silenced when they have finally finished off the constitution and the bill of rights.

    1American1st • a day ago

    What's even worse is that they are indoctrinating our children to believe that this scam is real & it is OK for the government to tax Americans $Billions to "solve the Climate Change dilemma".

    How do they explain the Ice Age & glaciers melting when humans weren't manufacturing anything or driving cars?

    Ron 1American1st • a day ago

    If the U.S. Government would quit throwing money at these boondoggles and others like them, all taxpayers could receive a 75% reduction in the taxes they pay.

    Leo • a day ago

    Maybe we will see a bit of "fight fire with fire", if one or more State AG's decide to pursue criminal charges against scientific groups that have been caught falsifying temperature data. Some of these groups are funded through various Federal and private grants and one could make a case for fraudulently "winning" various grants based on bogus data.

  17. Right2foot paul meyerhoff • a day ago

    Of all the gases that make up the "greenhouse gas" category, water vapor comprises 95% with CO2 at 1%. Educate yourself folks, Al and the U.N.= snake oil.

    cdf • a day ago

    Sorry I can't remember where I read it, but there was an article about a communist women who in an interview unabashedly explained how their push for communism has to be veiled in something else...and she said that is why we have global warming!!!!! Wake up everyone. It's not only taxation and power for the evil corrupt elites, it's also the driver to bring communism here!!!

    atkins • a day ago

    Follow the money. Gore & former Goldman Sachs execs have a publicly traded carbon exchange to be listed in London financial markets. There's a monstrous amount of money to be made by silencing climate control critics.

    M-PEACH-BAROKKO atkins • a day ago

    "Carbon credits" don't do anything to reduce energy usage. they are Al Gore's scam to tax people into poverty.

    Get to Work People • a day ago

    So what is the "optimum" global temperature??
    We have had an ice ball Earth and a zero ice Earth, so that is considered "optimum"???
    Please Believers, explain to us what is that perfect sweet spot for our climate.

    Rhysingup • a day ago

    This is no different than what Germany did in the 1930's. Lock up anyone who disagrees with you. Today's liberals are just another terrorist group.

    On top of wanting to lock up anyone who disagrees, they also run around destroying any monument or building that they don't like. They publish the names of dissenters. It is no different than what ISIS is doing in the middle east.

    Jack Coyote • a day ago

    Our founders gave us the 2nd amendment right so that we can protect our first amendment rights. If this article doesn't give you chills you're an ignorant, compliant, meek and obedient fool.

    rachelw • a day ago

    The sad thing is that like everything else liberals/white house administration does is delegetimize actually serious and important issues.

    Take this issue; environment is a serious issue. Is this fear-mongering/hysteria over the end of the world accurate, no. Its important to live in a clean and pollution free environment and alot of things have been done since the 1950s in terms of policy and societal responses to reduce pollution which have all been effective and more can be done.

    When you make it into a political issue, when you exploit it, one hand you create opposition and the other its just seen as manipulation and therefore the problem of pollution and taking care of the environment is not addressed or solved.

    Another example of an important and serious issue tarnished and trashed by liberals.

    Katamanthano rachelw • a day ago

    This consequence of "delegetimiz[ing] actually serious and important issues" is real. People unfortunately do write off legitimate environmental concerns because of the liberal distortion and exploitation of issues.