Duluth Breaks All Time Record for Consecutive Days Below Zero

A weather report?

How nice of you to share! All my friends in Deluth have yet to tell me about it.

Over yonder a ways, Alaska is going through a warm spell.

"Looking to escape the deep freeze this week? Chill out — in Alaska. The Last Frontier is in the midst of a January warm spell that’s keeping temperatures in the mid-40s in parts of the state that should be about 20 degrees lower."

Now if Frosty is being so silly (or purposefully ignorant) to claim that weather events equal climate, well, perhaps her five year old can fetch up a dictionary app on her iphone.


More WEATHER for dear old Frosty: " JUNEAU EMPIRE - Why did Southcentral Alaska hit record highs in January, while people on the East Coast, in the South, and in the mid-west pulled coats from deep in the closet?

Some are calling it a polar vortex. But Juneau meteorologist Edward Liske prefers to call it the jet stream."

Here's a great example of the far fringe climate deniers using weather as their 'evidence'!

Last year the fringies said Alaska was heading into a new ice age, completely ignoring the climate shift over the last 50 years (warming) because of one cold year.

Now, with Alaska setting heat records in January? Nary a peep from the "weather events is real gosh durn climate, honest injun!" crowd.

Last year: Alaska Dispatch - "Forget global warming, Alaska is headed for an ice age."

The actual chart for the last FIFTY years of Alaska climate: Web Link

A clear warming trend in the last 30 years, despite the fringies last year bemoaning a new ice age.

Oh, the facts must hurt, eh, poor Frosty?

Alaska this year? Ripening strawberries in November. Anchorage Daily News: "Record warmth, confused plants: An Alaska January to remember."

Some of the record heat in Alaska. The Weather Channel's 10 day forecast for Pt. Barrow;

Today it will have a balmy high of 21 degrees below zero with a low of -24
Monday: High -23 Low -29
Tuesday: High -27 Low -31
Wednesday: High -26 Low -32
Thursday: High -25 Low -31 (A warming trend)
Friday: High -21 Low -24 (better break out the sunscreen)
Saturday: High -18 Low -20 (Need a fan)
Sunday: High -16 Low -21
Monday: High -14 Low -20 (A sure sign of global warming)
Tuesday: High -15 Low -21

@OakCt makes the point about WEATHER and CLIMATE perfectly!

As the jet stream shifted, so did the WEATHER!

Nice cherrypicking of the northernmost Alaska town! How about Juneau? Going to be +43 degrees next week! Web Link

Or this? "...Alaska. The Last Frontier is in the midst of a January warm spell that's keeping temperatures in the mid-40s in parts of the state that should be about 20 degrees lower."

@OakCt: any comments on the 50 year trend listed in the graph from Alaska(dot)edu? Web Link

It's a clear trend, even using the deniers fantasy 2012 laughable "New Ice Age"!

Too funny! You fringe deniers keep reaching and missing! Like Shean boy Hannity saying last week that his INTUITION tells him 9,100 scientists and their facts are wrong, but Shawny is right (what a fool!)!!!

Love the previous threads you fringies posted on, using the same stupid weather based arguments - Web Link

Every one of your ridiculous claims was debunked by simple fact checking! Rather than debate the point, they went on to even stupider claims!

Shut 'er down, editors.

Om igosh! Thanks A2oakct!! Picking Barrow was a PERFECT example of warming climate!

(you really should google your RIDICULOUS claims first!! it's so simple a child can do it.)

"Small lakes and ponds around Alaska’s North Slope are freezing up later in the year, thawing out earlier in the spring and have ice that is thinner than in past decades, a change attributed to a steadily warming climate in the area, according to a new study led by University of Ottawa scientists.

Long-term monitoring and weather modeling shows that annual ice coverage on hundreds of shallow lakes near Barrow shrank by 24 days a year between 1950 and 2011, the result of a gradual -- though fluctuating -- warm-up over six decades, said the study, published in the Jan. 30 issue of scientific journal The Cryosphere. Freeze-up is occurring an average 5.9 days later and spring break-up is coming 17.7 to 18.6 days earlier, the study said."

alaskadispatch(dot)com
Web Link

Good gawd, mohn! You make it too easy!! You should really try harder, or get someone with more intelligence to find better examples - because that just made the Climate Change case!

The Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory announced that "The Great Lakes in the last week reached its broadest ice coverage in 20 years at 88 percent, with Lake Superior at about 95 percent." Lake Superior is the largest fresh water lake in the world by surface area and the 3rd by volume.

So if we are having global warming then why is this the greatest accumulation of ice in the Great Lakes in 20 years?

The answer is in the Al Gore Global Warming Playbook which says if it is really cold outside then it is the weather and if it is really warm then it is global warming. Of course the Al Gore Playbook ignores the fact that in 7,000 out of the last 10,000 years the earth's climate has been warmer than it is now.


Web Link

Oh, Frosty, the typical Al Gore as boogieman, tin foil hat conspiracy theory? That's the best you have? Sheesh!

from the last thread, NOAA ends your silly conspiracy theories: "Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013, and all of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported last week."

read it again:

"Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013, and all of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported last week."

Meanwhile New York City has had the second snowiest February on record with more than one-third of the month to go.

Web Link

And Philadelphia has had the third snowiest winter on record with more than one-third of the winter to go.

Web Link

Darn that global warming. If we have more more global warming we are all going to freeze to death.

Poor Frosty, still hasn't been able to afford a dictionary to look up the differences between WEATHER and CLIMATE! (maybe he's just too cheap?)

Hey, poor frosty, which is it?

"Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013, and all of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported last week."

Global Warming Strikes Again!

Web Link

It's getting really sad, poor frosty - the few people who read this thread just shake their head at your inability to decipher weather from climate.

They feel for you. And instantly think of how your school failed to instill critical thinking skills. So sad.

For every one of your weather examples, such as a snowstorm, you obviously know there is a counter report such as:

AUSTRALIA GOING THROUGH RECORD HEAT WAVE - Monday, January 7, was the hottest day in Australian history, averaged over the entire country, according to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Web Link

Enough of the weather. Let's talk climate!

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


FROSTY: why have you never commented on this?

"Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013, and all of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported last week."

Lake Superior has frozen over along with lake Huron and Erie. With the brutal cold winter, the Great Lakes are now mostly the Frozen Lakes. The wave heights of Erie, Superior and Huron now read 0. That's because there are no waves on the ice. The widespread extent of this freeze to the Great Lakes, hasn't happened since the winter of 1978-1979 deep freeze.

Today (Saturday)Sydney, Australia will have a high of 73 degrees F and a low of 64 degrees F. Yes it is broiling over in Australia. Perhaps he had Cairns in mind where it is always hot year round. But even Cairns will have a high of 88 and a low of 75. Hardly hot by Cairns standards.

The liberal lemmings know they are losing the propaganda war on global warming. But they won't give up. Just ignore those idiots. Remember it has been warmer in 7,000 out of the last 10,000 years. We are just warming up a little from the last little ice age. It will get warmer and it will get cooler and man has relatively little influence over what occurs naturally.

For all the hot air those liberal lemmings put out, it is nothing compared to the Sun, the tilt of the Earth's axis and its orbit around the Sun.

Australia has a record heat wave in January according to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, and Frosty dismisses it. Alaska has record warm in January (November also) and Frosty dismisses it, and reads another weather report of cold.

Question 1: Frosty - what is the difference between climate and weather? Why do you keep posting about weather?

Question 2: FROSTY: why have you never commented on this?

"Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013, and all of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported last week."

I'm done here, this is just stupid, ignorant repetition of weather reports, by someone without critical thinking skills..

Frosty is a troll.

As far as I can tell, the global warming cult narrative is as follows: First we had global warming predictions that did not come true, despite pervasive fraud in the data published by the zealots. So they changed the name to the ridiculous "climate change", for which they should have been laughed off the stage of public discourse. Then when we have one of the coldest winters on record, they blame it on the earlier miniscule, if any, global warming (even though they had abandoned that term). And now they are predicting a cooler spring than normal because of the severe cold that was caused by global warming. Meanwhile, the sun is in a cycle of low activity, a fact that the global warming cult seems to ignore or heavily discount.

Frosty: "As far as I can tell, the global warming cult narrative is as follows:"

"Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013, and all of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported last week."

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Yup. Ignore it some more, Frosty. You'll be dead when you grandkids pay the price for your ignorance and obstinance.

Do your grandkids a favor - post your weather hogwash publicly somewhere under YOUR NAME, so they can look back and see what the family fool was 'thinking'...

Castalano

The ten hottest years - what up wit dat, frosty?

They lying to you? Ha!

Some one here is a tool of he American petroleum institute. How much they pay you a year for this noise?

Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is really on track to have the highest minimum in the modern satellite era.

Antarctic Sea Ice Extent as of Feb 7 2014 was 904,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean and 220,000 sq km above 2008.

904,000 sq km above normal is 27.4%. Day 37 was the 20th daily record of the year.

Meanwhile the frigid Bering Sea has gotten colder and icier in recent decades.

That’s according to scientists at the Alaska Climate Research Center who reviewed 35 years of sea ice records in the Bering Sea, the body of water between Russia and Alaska where the ice melts each spring and begins forming again in October. There is more ice in the Bering Sea today than there was in 1979.

[Portion removed.] Reporting on weather incidents and calling it climate.
And then cherry picking sentences out of the whole report!

READ THE WHOLE REPORT on the Bering Sea: Web Link

"We found a slight increase in ice area over the time
period, which is in stark contrast to the significant
retreat observed in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska
and the Arctic Ocean as a whole. "

KEY POINT: "which is in stark contrast to the significant
retreat observed in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska
and the Arctic Ocean as a whole."

A minor Bering ice changechange amongst a much larger climate change impact in the Arctic Ocean.

Castalano was right in asking Frosty the troll - what's up with this:

"Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013, and all of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported last week."

[Post removed; unoriginal material.]

[Portion removed; refers to material removed from the forum.]

Not only does Frosty display a complete lack of critical thinking skills and intellectual curiosity, he just rips off the copyrighted intellectual property of others.

Just like the norm of debate - Frosty was presented with the top ten hottest years evidence, but refuses to comment, because he knows he's wrong.

The opinion piece, not a science article, Frosty stole from starts: "I repeat: I’m not a global warming believer. I’m not a global warming denier. I’ve long thought that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere."

Stealing the words of chucky krauthammer, a well known fox gasbag is frosty's only reply to:

"Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013, and all of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported last week."

You lose, Frosty.

The Religion of Global Warming is reciting its mantra. Krauthammer made some excellent points regarding fallacies of the Cult of Global Warming. There is a lot more to climate than the ocean and the winds such as the Sun, and the Earth's orbit around the Sun.

The Global Warming Cult would like you to believe that the Earth revolves around Al Gore. Now Al Gore is pretty large but even the porcine Gore can not approach the mass of the Sun- albeit he exudes almost as much hot gas as the sun. As previously noted the Earth has been warmer in 7,000 out of the last 10,00 years. The Global Warming Cult got caught red handed in fudging the data with the University of East Anglia scandal which it continues to try to sweep under the rug-- but we ain't buying it.

The Antarctic has record ice and the Arctic is recovering from the lost ice. Remember it was the high Priest Al Gore, who jets around in his G-5, who preached that all the Arctic ice would be gone by 2012. Well there is plenty of ice left in the Arctic and more to come.

Some of Krauthammer's more memorable quotes:

"Even Britain’s national weather service concedes there’s been no change — delicately called a “pause” — in global temperature in 15 years".

"Obama ostentatiously visited drought-stricken California last Friday. Surprise! He blamed climate change. Here even the New York Times gagged, pointing out that far from being supported by the evidence, “the most recent computer projections suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier, in the winter.”

And in the eyes of the Global Warming Cult the New York Times is the equivalent of the"Ten Commandments" with the first Commandment being "Thou shall not question Anthropogenic Global Warming" and Al Gore, their fearless leader being an improved more omniscient Moses.

These Global Warming idiots are hysterical and desperately want you to believe their fiction so that they can gain more control over your lives. Liberals, for the most part, are unhappy people and the key thing that makes them happy is to make sensible people unhappy. Yes man contributes a small amount of global warming but compared to what occurs naturally it is merely in the noise level.

Oh, my... are you sure you want to line up behind Krauthammer?

Some of Krauthammer's more memorable quotes:

- "Time is running short. Saddam HAS weapons of mass destruction. He IS working on nuclear weapons."

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

More bull**** from Chucky:

2/1/02:
Iraq is Hitlerian Germany, a truly mad police state with external ambitions and a menacing arsenal.

Wrong, no arsenal.

4/19/02:
Saddam survived, rearmed, defeated the inspections regime and is now back in the business of building weapons of mass destruction.

Wrong, again.

9/13/02:
Kissinger says that regime change in Iraq is an appropriate goal. The point he made in his syndicated column, and which he continues to make, is that in its "declaratory policy" -- i.e., public posture -- the United States should emphasize weapons destruction rather than regime change in order to garner allies for the war. But our actual policy is to achieve both. After all, the goals are inseparable. Given the nature of Hussein's rule, destroying these weapons requires regime change.

What weapons, you moron?

9/20/02:
The vice president, followed by the administration A Team and echoing the president, argues that we must remove from power an irrational dictator who has a history of aggression and mass murder, is driven by hatred of America and is developing weapons of mass destruction that could kill millions of Americans in a day. The Democrats respond with public skepticism, a raised eyebrow and the charge that the administration has yet to "make the case."

And the Dwms were right. Also, if Saddam hated America so much, why is there a photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with him?


10/7/02:
Hawks favor war on the grounds that Saddam Hussein is reckless, tyrannical and instinctively aggressive, and that if he comes into possession of nuclear weapons in addition to the weapons of mass destruction he already has, he is likely to use them or share them with terrorists. The threat of mass death on a scale never before seen residing in the hands of an unstable madman is intolerable -- and must be preempted.

Wrong, again. All the Iraw Hawks were in fact - chickenhawks.

11/1/02:
[W]hy does the president, who is pledged to disarming Hussein one way or the other, allow Powell even to discuss a scheme that is guaranteed to leave Saddam Hussein's weapons in place?

Fool, Powell knew, and knows, more than you ever will.

11/15/02:
President Bush remains apparently sincere in his determination to rid the world of Hussein and his weapons.

Except,as we know, Bush was wrong, just like Chucky.

1/24/03:
The president cannot LOGICALLY turn back. He says repeatedly, and rightly, that inspectors can only verify a voluntary disarmament. They are utterly powerless to force disarmament on a regime that lies, cheats and hides. And having said, again correctly, that the possession of weapons of mass destruction by Hussein is an intolerable threat to the security of the United States, there is no logical way to rationalize walking away from Iraq -- even if the president wanted to.

So, Chucky's LOGIC says we couldn't turn back and SAVE FIVE THOUSAND AMERICAN LIVES.

1/31/03:
Blix never really found anything big in his scavenger hunt through Iraq, but he reported to the Security Council that Iraq's regime had failed to cooperate and disarm.

Under Resolution 1441, that is a material breach. It is a casus belli.

So let's kill 5,000 Americans and spend a couple trillion.

2/14/03:
On Sept. 11, 2001, the cozy illusions and stupid pretensions died. We now recognize the central problem of the 21st century: the conjunction of terrorism, rogue states and weapons of mass destruction.

Wrong,, Central problem of the 21st century was the August 6 PDB and Bush ignoring it: Bin Laden Determined To STRIKE iN US

3/12/03:
The reason you [President Bush] were able to build support at home and rally the world to at least pretend to care about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is that you showed implacable resolve to disarm Iraq one way or the other. Your wobbles at the United Nations today -- postponing the vote, renegotiating the terms -- are undermining the entire enterprise.

Bush almost made the right choice, then perpetually wrong chickenhawks like Chucky kept pushing to spend trillions and kill 5,000 Americans.

6/13/03:
The inability to find the weapons is indeed troubling, but only because it means that the weapons remain unaccounted for and might be in the wrong hands. The idea that our inability to thus far find the weapons proves that the threat was phony and hyped is simply false.

What the????? "The inability to find the weapons is indeed troubling" as it was the reason you killed 5,000 American soldiers, and you knew it all along.

On December 16, 1998 Bill Clinton (after an alleged session with Monica Lewinsky) went on national television to declare that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. No one disagreed with him. The next day U.S. and British forces launched a four day attack on Iraq called Operation Desert Fox. No one objected to his actions. In fact he had wide bi-partisan support for his actions. (It seems that Bill Clinton did some of his best work when he had his pipes cleaned)

On March 10, 2003 the UN reported that Iraq had drone aircraft capable of delivering WMDs to its neighbors. It was previously proven that Hussein had WMDs. It was never proven that he got rid of them. The only thing we know for sure is that he had positively had WMDs and later we could not find them. Maybe he got rid of them or maybe he hid them very well. Non one knows. Iraq has a lot of desert to hide them. Given that Safddam Hussein has always retained his WMD delivery arsenal of drones and al Samoud II missiles it is reasonable to assume that even if Hussein got rid of all the WMDs he had the capability, and most likely the intention to restart the WMD program because he never got rid of the delivery systems.

And AGW is mere guess work. In a speech that Michael Crichton made at Cal Tech on January 1`7, 2003 he most poignantly stated:

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.”

c'mon....

Using Chucky Krauthammer as a science expert, followed by bringing up Monica Lewinsky?

Topped off with the (admittedly) creative writer of fictional Jurassic Park as your expert?

The only facts you have listed, are local weather reports. The rest is unsubstantiated opinion.

Give it up, frosty.

What's your opinion on this?

"Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013, and all of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported last week."

You lose, Frosty.

“The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE [Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie]) based in Germany has issued a three-part rebuttal* to the German Ministry of Environment’s (Umweltbundesamt - (UBA) alarmist pamphlet.

A summary of the third part translated:
“The claim made by the UBA over the supposed scientific consensus of dangerous climate damage caused by CO2 is ABSURD, BASELESS AND FALSE!”

Frosty want to get an idea of the big issues of your day. ...

Do you think flouride is a commie conspiracy?

Frostys EIKE is funded by big oil.

What a dumb example. Using a denier front group funded by Exxon. Next thing we know, frost will be putting up heartland quotes from the Kock brothers front group.

Pretty stupid. Like referring to Monica. Wow. Hiding in the nineties closet.

Yes, EIKE is funded by the "Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow" (CFACT). CFACT takes a LOT of Exxon money, and Scaife money as well.

Carthage Foundation — $1,305,000
Exxon Mobil — $467,000
Sarah Scaife Foundation — $535,000

EIKE partnered with Heartland Institute a lot of denier events, including EIKE's Conference on Climate and Energy.

Yes, Exxon and the Kochs fund Heartland as well.

Frosty - you in on that Koch gravy train money for deniers? Everyone willing to ignore math and science is getting some of that loot, why not you?

Frosty - still waiting for your response:

"Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013, and all of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported last week."

Polar sea ice increased 50% over last year, growing from 6,000 to 9,000 cubic kilometers when compared to the same period in 2012. Moreover, this year’s multi-year ice is 30 cm thicker than last year, and scientists claim that thick, multi-year ice indicates healthy Arctic sea-ice cover.
The results were revealed by the European Space Agency (ESA) CryoSat satellite mission. The CryoSat-2 was launched in April 2010 and is designed to measure sea-ice thickness across the entire Arctic Ocean. The satellite’s findings indicate that the volume of Arctic sea ice has increased substantially.

“We didn't expect the greater ice extent left at the end of this summer’s melt to be reflected in the volume. But it has been, and the reason is related to the amount of multi-year ice in the Arctic,” said Rachel Tilling from the UK’s Center for Polar Observation and Modeling, who spearheaded the study.

So what about the Oracle Al Gore's prescient statement that the North Polar Ice Cap would be gone by 2013? It is 2014 and it is still there. Some more Anthropogenic Global Bull Sh*t!

Frosty - still waiting for your response:

"Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013, and all of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported last week."

For all the garbage and silly claims that frosty posts, all gleaned from fringe websites that use Big Oil and Coal funded "think"tanks as "experts"...

One would think they had at least some cheezy response to -

- Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013, and all of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998

Case closed. Deniers are loons.

Frosty - tell us - do you thing POTUS was born in Hawaii?

Fluoride of the Commies got it wrong. It is the liberals who are against fluoridation of water. Just check out the February 19, 2014 Opinion in the San Jose Mercury News where Katja Irvin of the Sierra Club uses "scare tactics" to make the argument against fluoridation of water. The last time I checked the Sierra Club was a very liberal organization.

BTW, Obama was born in Hawaii but his heart is in Manchuria.

@buckybeaver - frosty never addresses the facts, in fact he runs away like a little girl (no disrespect to little girls, of course)

what do you think of the facts?

-> Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013, and all of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998

Global Warming hits Chicago with a vengeance. The standing record low for Chicago on Feb. 26 is -1 degrees, set in 1963. Forecast models show that record could be broken in the early AM tomorrow.

Source: Web Link#ixzz2uML5ahPn">Web Link


Web Link

You can also watch the Great Lakes freeze courtesy of Global Warming and Satellite Imagery.

Web Link

All these trolls, listing snowstorms and individual weather events as proof of climate, are crazy.

As Rome (and the globe) burns, they keep fiddling with Fox and ignoring reality.

January was the 4th warmest January on record.

That's a fact. No stupid listing of weather events changes it.

January was the 4th warmest January on record.

Again: January was the 4th warmest January on record.

Reality: Web Link">Web Link (see page 2 for data on January's global warmth)

January 2014 Temperatures:
• 4th warmest January globally
• 38th consecutive Jan. warmer than 20th Century average.
• Land: 4th warmest; Ocean: 4th warmest.
• S. Hemisphere land record warmth.
Regional Analysis:
• France and China: 2nd warmest January.
• Alaska: 3rd warmest January.
Snow Cover:
• Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent below average – 10th smallest in 48 year period of record.
• N. America: 19th smallest; Eurasia: 11th smallest

Web Link">Web Link (page 4)

US Temps: Temperature: 30.3° F, 0.1 ° below 20th century average
Warmth in the West balanced cold in the East

????????????

Deniers are complete and utter fools (tilt of the earth? in other news, the the sun is hot?) At least the ones getting paid for it are doing it for a reason, however corrupt. The trolls who do it for free? Only their therapist knows why... is it an insanity defense?

It is beyond comprehension that folks who appear literate (maybe someone is typing for them?) can be SO EASILY fooled by Fox, and Exxon/Koch funded fronts like Heartland and EIKE.

Not just fooled, but duped into repeating the lies with friends and strangers on the net.

Just remember when these fools post about a snowstorm last month, or any weather EVENT...

"January 2014 Temperatures: 4th warmest January globally"

"January was the 4th warmest January on record."

Sorry, folks, let's try it this way so no one misses reality, as they scan the noise from the denier trolls:


"January was the 4th warmest January on record."
"January was the 4th warmest January on record."
"January was the 4th warmest January on record."
"January was the 4th warmest January on record."
"January was the 4th warmest January on record."
"January was the 4th warmest January on record."


Clear?

;-)

Climatology has been falling on its face lately. In addition to the failure of global warming predictions to come true in the last 16 years of “pause,” this year's severe winter for most of the country came as a surprise to the Climate Prediction Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That taxpayer-funded climatology center “predicted that temperatures would be above normal from November through January across much of the Lower 48 states,” according to Bloomberg Business Week.

“Not one of our better forecasts,” admits Mike Halpert, the Climate Prediction Center's acting director. The center grades itself on what it calls the Heidke skill score, which ranges from 100 (perfection) to -50 (monkeys throwing darts would have done better). October's forecast for the three-month period of November through January came in at -22. Truth be told, the September prediction for October-December was slightly worse, at -23.

So you can go ahead a believe some leftist blog on the Washington Post which conveniently only refers to data going back to 1880. Meanwhile the Earth has been warmer in 7,000 out of the last 10,000 years.


Weather.com has a slightly different take on the weather.
Web Link

Frosty: you seem literate. Why so obtuse? Seriously, are you getting paid for this, or is this the passive/aggressive thing your people are working on?

Reality, from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, is not a "leftest blog". You are a liar, as well as obtuse.

Your CLIMATE 'evidence' is weather(.)com. Bad news for you - when it comes to climate, American Exceptionalism in weather events doesn't count for much.

The rest of the world uses global data for global climate, not American snowstorms like you and Fox, and the results are in:


Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013
Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013
Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013


- and -


January was the 4th warmest January on record.
January was the 4th warmest January on record.
January was the 4th warmest January on record.


You're a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist, granted, a tin foil conspiracy theorist with access to a weather website. Sorry, Frost, that doesn't make you special, no matter how often or how loudly you lie to yourself and others. When did you first realize everyone is laughing at your conspiracy theories?

A Global Warming Alarmist is someone who will pee on your leg and tell you that it is raining outside and then further elaborate that the reason the rain is so warm is because of Global Warming.

Well said Singin'. Whenever you mix science and politics you get politics. The Obama Administration in order to win over the radical left is granting funds based on the scientists' allegiance to Global Warming rather than the quest for truth. Instead of conducting a socratic inquiry in search of the facts the research scientists are stating Administration's political opinions as proven facts to reinforce the Administration's desired conclusions.

Research scientists dependent on Government funding to obfuscate the real trends are using a miniscule timeline to support the Government's specious conclusions. 1880 to the present is woefully inadequate period of time, especially considering, as a previous poster stated, the Earth has been warmer in 7,000 out of the last 10,000 years.

Additionally the research scientists are "adjusting" the raw data to support the Obama Adminstration's mandated results. Instead of adjusting the temperatures upward for the earlier part of the 20th century to compensate for population growth they have adjusted it in the opposite direction to compound the error.

It is truly a sad state of Affairs when the Obama Administration has politicized Climate Resaerch.

"Whenever you mix science and politics you get politics." No politics, just science. The politics are from the morons on the right.

Why was it the last two GOP presidential candidates agreed at one point on climate change - then found out they couldn't get nominated in the GOP freak show primary without changing their position?

Why did Newt sit on a love seat with Pelosi and declare Climate Change real (then also changed his mind when he ran?) Quoth Newt: “...but we do agree we must take action to address climate change.”

"Research scientists dependent on Government funding" -- BULL! Scientists making millions a year on research? In what world? It's Exxon, Koch and Coal that use millions for fake research, with billions at stake.

So, lmftfy: Not "Research scientists dependent on Government funding", it's

"BIG OIL and COAL dependent on fools who can't understand simple facts"

You have nothing but idiotic, childish sayings ("who will pee on your leg"). Face the facts - from above:


Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013
Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013
Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013


- and -


January was the 4th warmest January on record.
January was the 4th warmest January on record.
January was the 4th warmest January on record.

International Falls, MN has just tied the all time record of the number of days with temperatures below Zero Degrees Fahrenheit at 70 days.

Web Link

Meanwhile a headline from the Detroit Free Press says “Record-low temperatures set in Michigan” “It was 33 degrees below zero in Pellston in the northern Lower Peninsula. It was 30 below in Grayling, 16 below in Traverse City, 12 below in Grand Rapids and 10 below in Lansing.”

Web Link

Now Minnesota officially has the worst winter in 30 years.

“According to the Winter Misery Index, a measuring stick developed by State Climatologist Pete Boulay, the Twin Cities are officially dealing with the worst winter in 30 years”.

Web Link

Sheesh!

The little fella still can't understand the difference between weather and climate. Look up the term "conservative media snow-trolls". Is this the same poster Peter Carpenter has been complaining about?

@frosty, why don't you comment on climate reality? - Web Link Will every snowstorm result in @frosty whining like a kid: "waaaa, but it's cold somewhere, it can't be warming!"

Allow me to help out @holycow:



Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013
Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013
Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013


- and -


January was the 4th warmest January on record.
January was the 4th warmest January on record.
January was the 4th warmest January on record.

Green Bay Wisconsin officially has the coldest winter ever with a record 49 days below zero breaking the previous record set in the Winter of 1976-77. Also, today (February 28) Green Bay shattered its all time record low for the date at -21 degrees. The previous record cold for the last day in February was -17 degrees set in 1962.

Thursday February 27th Green Bay set the record for the lowest high temperature at + 8 degrees for that date breaking the previous record of +9 degrees set in 1888. It also set the record low for that date at -15 degrees breaking the previous record of -14 degrees set in 1887.

Web Link

CBS News in Cleveland shows a picture of a frozen shoreline in Lake Michigan with a headline “Brutal Winter Is Causing ‘A Certain Amount of Desperation"

Web Link

Meanwhile a Brutal March snowstorm is gathering to dump a huge swath of snow from Kansas to Massachusetts.

Web Link

snow-trolling for fun and profit! @frosty, do you get a monthly stipend from the faux-tank Heartland?

@frosty, why don't you comment on climate reality? Will every snowstorm result in @frosty whining like a kid: "waaaa, but it's cold somewhere, it can't be warming!"

Focus on the numbers, the global reality, not a local storm (hat tip to @holycow on a great set of unassailable points:)



Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013
Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013
Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013


- and -


January was the 4th warmest January on record.
January was the 4th warmest January on record.
January was the 4th warmest January on record.



Waiting for your comment, @frosty....

Seems to me like y'all are saying the same thing. Hottest? Coldest? You betcha. The common denominator for those sweet lil' superlatives? Change. As in Climate Change.

If I'm getting Frosty's message, it's that all the cold, colder and coldest weather in these places means no Climate Change. Make sense? Nope. Frosty boy, I'd say you're all hat, no cattle. Or maybe just a troll.

Yup, folks, the tea bags and their tea party just turned five years old.

And like all five year olds, you can't trust them with a pair of scissors.

So when your local fringy cuts and pastes without the application of intellectual curiosity, you get weather site snow news, and zero thought.

The top tea bag 'intellectuals' (no comment on their being funded and used by billionaires against their own self interest/Koch/Freedomworks/etc..)

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link

Happy birthday, baggers! Please be careful with your scissors - you can hurt yourself. And take a nice nap after your graham cracker.

Below, is a list of just 50 former IPCC experts whose voices the prejudiced ears refuse to hear

1. Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).

2. Dr. Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”

3. Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”

4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”

5. Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”

6. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”

7. Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers.”

8. Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3,000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”

9. Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”

10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”

11. Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”

12. Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”

13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

14. Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA's James] Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980′s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”

15. Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”

16. Dr Vincent Gray: “The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”

17. Dr Kenneth Green: “We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority.”

18. Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ’2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen.”

19. Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”

20. Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”

21. Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”

22. Dr Georg Kaser: “This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,”

23. Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”

24. Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”

25. Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”

26. Dr. Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”

27. Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

28. Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”

29. Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”

30. Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”

31. Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”

32. Stephen McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a “consensus of thousands of scientists” are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”

33. Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”

34. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”

35. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”

36. Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”

37. Dr Jan Pretel: “It’s nonsense to drastically reduce emissions … predicting about the distant future-100 years can’t be predicted due to uncertainties.”

38. Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”

39. Dr Murray Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the “science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”

40. Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”

41. Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites–probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models?”

42. Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”

43. Dr Roy Spencer: “The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause global warming are only a means to that goal.”

44. Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”

45. Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”

46. Dr Robert Watson: “The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”

47. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”

48. Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

49. Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”

50. Dr. Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines… a few of my future studies will not see the light of publication.”

Cut and paste of copyrighted material without attribution in violation of the rules of the forum?

Looks like 5 year old tea bag partiers shouldn't run with scissors, after all!

Since it will be removed by the editors for violation of terms, allow me to address the first on the list (as the rest are pretty bogus anyway, go ahead and look them up.)

Dr Robert Balling: "readers might be better able to judge the quality of his input if they knew that he has been the eager recipient of funding from such philanthropic organizations as ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC. ... Sourcewatch lists his take from these sources at a little over $400,000 in the last 10 years."

$400 Large? That's quite a racket, selling your soul to Exxon! How much you getting paid Frosty?

What?!?!? Exxon stiffed you? Oh, so sad, seeing you trolling for a living and not getting paid like the big boys!

Be careful with those scissors!!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

from the guys and gals above, the facts @frosty refuses to address:





Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013
Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013
Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013


- and -


January was the 4th warmest January on record.
January was the 4th warmest January on record.
January was the 4th warmest January on record.




Waiting for your comment, @frosty....

"Experts" who take money from OPEC? Doesn't seem kosher.

So Amuuurican!

Can I play too?

I like #43, He's the one who wins the Godwin award for bringing Nazi's into the noise. He takes money from the Koch Bros via Heartland Institute, and one imagines, others as well. Do not know how much he takes from OPEC.
------
43. Dr Roy Spencer: his atrocity? from his website: "When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”, they crossed the line. They are still doing it. They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened."

Sorry, Mr Spencer, the word denier was in dictionaries over one hundred years prior to the Holocaust. But Roy's agreement that Earth is warming raises a question.

So I have a question for Frosty. Half his oil paid list denies warming, the other half denies it is man-made.

Which side is correct?

There has been warming and cooling since the Earth was made billions of years ago. There has been Governments heaping billions of dollars upon global research scientists to provide the governments with the desired conclusions. Oil money is less than 1% of what the Governments of the world have collectively provided to perpetuate the myth of AGW.

AGW is nothing more than a scam to tax people more and have more control of their lives. Don't drink the Kool Aid.

"Oil money is less than 1% of what the Governments of the world have collectively provided to perpetuate the myth of AGW."

Any facts here, or just a bunch of tea party fringe hysteria? Prove it.

Yup, none. Exxon's 2012 profit was how much, good ol' boys with tea bags hanging from hats?

"The No. 1 U.S. oil company posted full-year earnings of $44.9 billion. .... below the all-time annual earnings record ..., the $45.2 billion Exxon Mobil earned in 2008."

Who has the incentive? Bad ol' scientists, making thousands in salary, so they can literally be THOUSANDAIRES, or the millionaires and billionaires who control oil and coal.

OPEC supports the deniers out of GREED, and to protect their BILLIONS.

OPEC bribing a couple fringe scientists? or the 95% of nasty scientists and their devious use of reality?

The scam is this?



Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013
Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013
Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013




Facts kill the deniers, every time.

Well done, posters! Frosty and his 'buddy' are still doing weather reports, and will not address facts.

Let's looks at the future. How is America served by a pipeline to allow China to burn the dirtiest oil on the planet?

answer: we're not. Web Link

"The Chinese economy consists of taking raw materials and energy, making that into stuff, and then selling that stuff -- a/k/a "manufacturing." Chinese leaders understand that in order for that model to work, China needs steady supplies of raw materials and energy. But how do you get a steady supply of energy, in a world where those supplies are dominated by a cartel, and are concentrated in a part of the world prone to war? In America, we've been trying to puzzle that out for four decades, without success.

Well, the Chinese have figured it out. They're going to get their energy from Canada, a stable country, and pass it through the United States, another stable country. They will pay the Canadians the world price for oil. They will pay us nothing, or next to nothing. So Uncle Sam is Uncle Sucker."

Why spend money on a pipeline for Communist China?

Spend the bucks for America and create jobs and energy in America by putting solar on a million homes in the South and Southwest.

In science, the debate is never closed and there are always new theories and causes to be found. In our daily lives, we have heard of many products, such as eggs, that were bad for you, which now are considered good for you.

The same scientists predicting a global warming catastrophe today predicted global cooling and a new ice age in the 1970s. Climate predictions are based on computer models, in which the extent a variable affects the result is an educated guess. Therefore, by varying multipliers, you can get any desired result. The most often claimed consequence of global warming is that the oceans will rise by one inch in 100 years, and not 3 feet by the end of the century, as Secretary of State John Kerry states.

Global Warming Alrmists also claim that the eight hottest years occurred within the past decade. According to NASA, average global temperatures rose at the end of the 20th century, but they have not changed during this century. Hurricanes and tornadoes, by actual count, also occur less frequently. Global warming theory predicts wet weather where we now have a drought.

We know that the earth was much colder at one time and we had glaciers covering much of the U.S. There were not enough people to increase greenhouse gases, yet the earth warmed to the extent that Vikings were able to farm in Greenland.

Then we were in a period called the Little Ice Age. People were dying of plagues and starving due to diminished food crops.

We started warming again in the 19th century, which brought on prosperity and unprecedented human inventions, which we enjoy today. So, a warmer climate is most likely desirable. It will allow for us to grow more food and feed the increasing population. Warmer oceans will contain less carbonic acid and will be good for the fish as well.

"So, a warmer climate is most likely desirable. " Wrong.

Backing off now, eh Frosty? It is NOT desirable for those who will be inundated by rising sea levels, with hundreds of millions of refuges and the political upheaval caused. It is not desirable to have present agricultural infrastructure have it's growing seasons disrupted.

Frosty refuses to address:





Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013
Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013
Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013


- and -


January was the 4th warmest January on record.
January was the 4th warmest January on record.
January was the 4th warmest January on record.




Waiting for your comment, frosty.

It rained here today. That must mean global climate change is bogus.

Well, that is, if you're thinking like a 'Moran' ( Web Link )

A warmer world will cost us a fortune. Here's a look at the costly Sandy type storms Europe can expect:

"The UK has been hit hard by major flooding over the last few months, weather one Met Office scientist called the “most exceptional period of rainfall in 248 years.” Now, new research says extreme floods could become more common in Europe by 2050, causing the financial losses from these weather events to quadruple.

The study, published Sunday in Nature Climate Change, found that instances of very extreme floods now occur around once every 50 years in Europe but could shorten to every 30 years by 2050, and that instances of extreme weather-related damage that now occur every 16 years could occur every 10. That means that Europe’s financial losses related to flooding, which now total about 4.9 billion euros a year, could increase almost 380 percent to 23.5 billion euros by 2050."

Web Link

But hey - good news! @Frostey will be gone by then, so his grandchildren can deal with it, if he has any.

Kansas City had the lowest temperature for March in the history of the city with a -3 degrees.

Meanwhile Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace has something to say about the hypocrisy of the AGW cultists. Dr. Moore described AGW as:

"“a kind of nasty combination of extreme political ideology and a religious cult all rolled into one”

He further said:

“It is a powerful convergence of interests among a very large number of elites, including politicians who want to make it seem as though they are saving the world, environmentalists who want to raise money and get control over very large issues like our entire energy policy, media for sensationalism, universities and professors for grants – you can’t hardly get a science grant these days without saying it has something to do with climate change,”

This is the biggest scam going since Reverend Ike was conning poor people out of their money. He further righteously complained about how money is being diverted from more productive purposes that benefit society greatly to the alter of the AGW cult.

“There are millions of children dying every day from preventable vitamin deficiencies and diseases and we’re spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a problem that may not exist.”

Then Dr. Moore talked about how unreliable the AGW weather models are:

“You could learn more about the future by throwing a bunch of bones on the ground.”

Another weather report as evidence of climate? Schnikes!

Patrick Moore? A former member of greenpeace who now takes money from Big Oil - double schnikes!

Moore absolutely did NOT found Greenpeace - he was not even there AT THE FOUNDING of Greenpeace. Given he is LYING about that, why trust an oil-sponsored mercenary? Oh that's right, we have to believe Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

From U.S. Senate testimony:

"Moore has repeatedly claimed that he left Greenpeace because their policies shifted to the radical left, saying for instance in his testimony, "I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective." But Greenpeace has a different view of the situation, saying "what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters." [U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 2/25/14] "

To be clear, Moore takes most of his money from nuclear groups, more than from Big Oil, or as fees from Fox.

The Tech Times, a politically neutral on line publication sides with Dr. Moore. Dr. Moore was indeed a co-founder of Greenpeace. Greenpeace has managed to revise it web site material to purge Dr. Moore's involvement as a founder, unfortunately for Greenpeace there remains much written information which it can not recall. Greenpeace has been caught lying.

Web Link

"Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of 'extreme certainty' is to look at the historical record... When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an ice age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia,"

"When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time."

And the ocean levels were how high 500 million years ago? Stupid argument. Really stupid. Almost as stupid as some of the tin foil hat conspiracy theories that deniers use above. Not as stupid as using techtimes as an expert on climate, though!

Greenpeace says Moore wasn't, Moore says he was. Moore takes money from energy companies to deny science.

Hmmmm... who has the incentive to lie? Why can't Moore prove it with tax records, or old expense reports, or something? No, Frosty sees another tin foil hat conspiracy, when the simplest explanation is Moore is paid to lie.

Let's see who pays Moore to lie:

"Moore is co-chair and paid spokesman for the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CSEC), which describes itself as "a large grassroots coalition that united unlikely allies across the business, environmental, academic, consumer and labor community to support nuclear energy." In fact, as the Columbia Journalism Review reported, CSEC was formed by the Nuclear Energy Institute in 2006 and continues to receive most of its funding from that body."

Moore is completely invested in lying about his past.

Frosty - others have asked, so I will also - explain this:

"Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013, and all of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported last week."

Why are you lying also?

Niagara Falls freezes over
"For the second time in what has been a frigid winter in the Northeastern United States, Niagara falls has come to an icy halt as the six million cubic feet of water that typically flow over the falls every minute has frozen over.

The flow of water over the falls typically can withstand icy temperatures like those that have frozen much of the country this winter, but Monday's high of 9 degrees Fahrenheit brought Niagara Falls to a standstill - and photographers were there to snap some stunning images of the frozen waterfall.

In January, another record-breaking cold front managed to freeze the mighty falls in a 'polar vortex' that turned the cascading water to ice - and affected about 240 million people in the U.S. and southern Canada.

No thaw is expected."

Web Link

"Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport broke a 141-year-old record low temperature, reaching 4 degrees. The National Weather Service said the low reached early Tuesday broke a 5-degree record set on the day in 1873."

Web Link

According to the Des Moines Register "Des Moines Iowa recorded a low of minus-7 early Monday morning, beating the previous record low of minus-6 degrees, set on March 3, 1884."

Web Link

Atlantic City has the coldest March day since it started keeping records in 1874.

Web Link

folks before you respond to Frosty's latest confusion between weather and climate, don't. He's a troll and he enjoys poking you with his "stupid stick." Don't feed the trolls.