Another “Global Warming” Update

| December 3, 2014

Well, let’s take a look at some climate news from the past couple of weeks.

Buffalo Snowfall:  7+ Feet In Places.  In November.

Snowfall Forces Move of NFL Game from Buffalo to Detroit

Disaster Declared in Western NY; 13 Confirmed Dead

Grand Rapids, MI:  New Record for Snowiest November Ever – With 9 Days Left in the Month.

9,000 Low-Temperature Records Set During November.

That “Collapsing Glacier” In Antarctica?  Um, Turns Out That’s Not Due to Global Warming.

And Remember:  That Global Warming Is Making Antarctic Sea Ice . . . Both Thicker and More Extensive Than Expected?

Maybe it’s just me.  But if the planet is getting warmer, shouldn’t measured climate data show that – rather than a modest decline since the 1930s or 1940s? And shouldn’t we be seeing thinner, less-extensive sea ice at the poles?

But as you might have guessed: yeah, they’re still claiming all this excess cold and growing ice is due to “global warming”.

That last shouldn’t really be any surprise. When someone has their head firmly inserted in their fourth point of contact, all they have is hindsight.  Actually seeing anything right in front of them becomes damn near impossible.

“Follow the money.”

Category: "Your Tax Dollars At Work", Global Warming Voodoo

Comments (22)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. MaeWestWoodie says:

    ” When someone has their head firmly inserted in their fourth point of contact, all they have is hindsight.”

    PLF – Politician + Lies = Funding

  2. Ex-PH2 says:

    9,000 records set! And that’s just in the USofA, folks!

    We aren’t even talking about Siberia’s records, although I’m sure that the people who live in various places in Siberia and the Caucasus have some perceptive – er, snarky things to say.

    Coidest December 1st since 1896.

    180 hours of continuous sub-freezing temps in November 2014 beats 172 hrs. in 1903.

    High of 19F on 11/18/2014 is the COLDEST HIGH temp since 1871.

    It’s not just temperatures that count. It’s also the relationship to previous records going back more than a century.

    I’ve said this before, the only real and tangible benefit coming from climate science is better, more accuate weather forecasting.

    We’re having a brief but welcome warm spell right now, and I am using it to clear the decks for winter and check around the base of my house.

    Bring it on. Snow is welcome here in my kingdom.

    • rgr1480 says:

      We’re having a brief but welcome warm spell right now, and I am using it to clear the decks for winter and check around the base of my house.

      AHAA!!!! …. proof of global warming!


      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Sweetie, have you seen the map of windtracks in the Pacific?

        Most of it is pushing warm air into Alaska and the rest is flatlining across the lower CONUS, holding Siberian-level temps (-70f) up there. Usually we get a chinook like this in January, not December.

        Now, be nice or you won’t get any oatmeal-raisin-nut cookies. <3 <3 <3

        • Roger in Republic says:

          Ex PH-2, I don’t consider 23 F in the range of a Chinook. Up here it has to get above freezing to qualify. We have not been as cold as you folks in Montana and the Dakotas but, this is January type temps for us up here in the Okanogon highlands of Washington. We never have below zero temps until late Dec. mid Jan. We have had several of those in the last two weeks. Too cold to snow.

          • The Other Whitey says:

            Grandpa once told me that he learned in Korea that there’s no such thing as “too cold to snow.”

  3. The Other Whitey says:

    I just read the articles on Antarctic ice. Thwaite’s Glacier is melting, but the rest of the southern ice cap is getting bigger and thicker. Global warming? No. There just happens to be a Goddamn volcano underneath the glacier! Well, common sense would dictate that this will melt large quantities of ice no matter what the weather does.

    Taken as a whole, the evidence does not support the idea of the world getting warmer. Rather the opposite, in fact. Cue the fine folks who will insist that it does in fact support global warming, and that we unwashed plebeians are just too dumb to get it, AKA “Dazzle them with bullshit so that we can continue scamming obscene amounts of taxpayer money to allegedly ‘study’ this crap.”

  4. Joe says:

    The anti-science, know nothing’s have spoken.

  5. Ex-PH2 says:

    Anti-science? In what way?

    It’s a documented FACT that Thwaite’s Glacier is sitting on a volcanically active ridge, which is melting the underside of it.

    It is a documented FACT that Antarctic sea ice is thicker than the science peeps who did measurments had thought it was.

    It is a documented FACT that the interior continental ice sheets are covering an Antarctic mountain range that is 8,850 feet high.

    It is also a documented FACT that the pressure from the interior Antarctic ice pack is so great, water in a lake UNDER that ice pack has been found to move UPWARD from its source in a lake basin.

    It is a documented FACT that the massive pool of warm water in the Pacific is producing winds that are pushing the jet stream out of its normal pattern.

    Those are recorded, scientific FACTS, Joe, so just where the fracking Hell do you get anti-science out of this?

    Be specific. I’d really like to have something come out of that dormant organ you have for a brain, something that actually has some meaning and isn’t just you running off at the mouth as usual.

    • Hondo says:

      I’d really like to have something come out of that dormant organ you have for a brain, something that actually has some meaning and isn’t just you running off at the mouth as usual.

      Well now – aren’t ye a wee bit auld t’be a-believin’ in Leprechauns, lass? (smile)

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        As any good Irishman (including MCPO NYC) will tell you, you’re NEVER too old to believe in leprechauns… or pookahs, either.

  6. Mister Contrarian says:


    I’ve followed the money to NOAA. Not surprisingly their analysis seems a whole lot different that your slew of links. Who is right? I for one don’t trust scientists, they are just too liberal for me. I just don’t know why science and a liberal bias go hand in hand. It’s annoying.

    After looking at all the links, it seems like NOAA is responsible for perpetrating a vast conspiracy to garner more funding to do research? Damned scientists and their liberal agendas, always on the teet of big gov. So sinister.

    I mean, there’s no way that companies like Exxon, BP, Chesapeake, or Peabody Energy would have an agenda in funding “research” that solely exists to disprove liberal science that could hurt energy consumption. I guess money leads there too.
    That’s the difference – the energy companies (and you) get behind research that starts with the answer and then works backwards, building data to support the conclusion you believe. As opposed to objectively looking at data and then coming to a conclusion.

    • Hondo says:

      Here ya go, Contrarian – an explanation “talking points” style.

      1. NOAA receives funding from the Federal government.

      2. The Federal government today – specifically, the current clueless DC clown krewe Administration – absolutely buys into the “global warming” fairy tale thesis.

      3. Pleasing one’s superiors and pandering to their desires is a time-honored way to get increased funding. Conversely, taking a different POV – especially with this group of fools and tools running the show in DC Administration, which has a record for stifling dissent – is a good way to find oneself thrown “under the bus”. In particular, it’s an excellent way to see one’s budget severely cut or eliminated in the future. As in, “Beginning next year, you have no budget. And your job has been transferred to Bomfaq, Kansas. Have a nice day.”

      4. Organizations and bureaucrats look out for #1. In particular, bureaucrats seek to (a) ensure their job continues, and (b) increase their scope of responsibility. That ensures continued employment for the individual and survival for their particular organization.

      5. Increasing one’s funding is the primary way of increasing the scope of a bureaucrat’s responsibility. Doing so also grows the organization.

      Look at history. You didn’t see this kind of foolishness in the previous Administration. You did in the Clintoon Administration – which also bought into the global warming fairy tale thesis bigtime. Remember a guy named Gore?

      Frankly, I’m surprised you couldn’t see all of that for yourself. It’s pretty obvious, actually. That’s simply basic human nature, applied to any bureaucracy – government or private-sector.

      Any questions?

  7. Ex-PH2 says:

    If you know anything about Galileo Galilei’s relationship with the Church of Rome, and why he was excommunicated for heresy, you know why I despise any science platform funded by any government.

    The view approved by the Church of Rome (the government) at that time was that the Earth was the center of the Universe, and everything revolved around the Earth. Geocentrism was the only accepted theory.

    Galileo’s observations supported Copernicus’s heliocentric theory – that the Sun was the center and the Earth revolved around it. He also embraced Tycho Brahe’s Tychonic system which supported this by showing that the moon orbited the Earth and the Earth and other planets orbited the Sun.

    Galileo also directly observed Jupiter’s moons in orbit around Jupiter, and the waxing and waning phases of Venus, and produced drawings of sunspots crossing the sun’s face through the use of the camera obscura.

    All of these observations and the mathematics supporting them were reviewed by the Roman Inquisition and by the Jesuits, and declared them to be heresey because they appeared to attached Pope Urban VIII. They were particularly offended by the discovery of sunspots, because it meant that the Sun was not perfect.

    Galileo was, in fact, ordered to abandon heliocentrism and the Copernican theory. His refusal alienated his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Church of Rome, the legal government at that time. Supporters equal money, but he stuck to his guns.

    He was subsequently excommunicated, and it took several centuries for the Church to lift the excommunication.

    My point is that while Galileo’s conclusions were primitive by today’s standards, he did not give in for the sake of lining his pocket and keeping the favor of his government.

    When I see reports that say climate scientists are altering their results to the politically correct conclusion, for the sole purpose of getting funding, I view their behavior as a complete lack of integrity.

    Science moves forward through conflicting views. The data available to these people has been collected for decades, but they ignore what does not suit their need, which is getting funding. Nothing else matters to them.

    Unfortunately for them, if their data and results have been altered, it throws their results into serious doubt. The actual events that occur as weather appear to be consistently surprising to weather forecasters.

    If new records are regularly being set now which conflict with predictions by climate science, the obvious question is why are they so surprised?

    One of the most preposterious projections in the 1980s was that the upper half of North America would become a tropical zone and we’d have palm trees growing in Chicago. This is several decades later and ain’t no palm trees anywhere in the midwest unless they’re in greenhouses.

    The most offensive thing I’ve ever seen was the ‘averaging’ of periods of warming and cooling. Those time periods were so erratic in length that to average them down to ‘about 100,000 years’ produces COMPLETELY FALSE RESULTS and ignores all the factors that go into weather (short term) and climate change (long term).

    And this was all in the name of getting funding, nothing else.

    Why are we seeing snow regularly in places where it has not been seen in living memory? I’m referring to the Atacama Desert.

    Why are these science people ignoring a climate history in the American southwest which says, specifically, that a millenium-long megadrought occurred over 3500 years ago, and was repeated on an irregular basis, and which may be going on now?

    Why are they not making a direct connection between the creation of the Pastoruri glacier, the Quelccaya ice cap and the death of Ootzi the Iceman in the Swiss-Italian Alps 5200 years ago?

    Why does overgrazing in western China go ignored, when that is the reason behind the advance of the Gobi Desert toward the east, toward Beijing? We had that problem in the Anerican southwest at the start of the Dust Bowl. Take away monsoonal rains, overgraze or over-develop land, and you get blinding dust storms. It went on in this country in the 1930s and it is going on now in western China. That’s simplified, but that’s how it happens.

    The Darwinian method, direct observation, tells us that there is a massive change underway now, but in what direction? Is this a blip, or a long-term trend?

    If we are going to have endless global warming, the geography is wrong. The continents have to smash back together into one land mass, as they were during the Gondwanaland and Pangaea epoch. Not going to happen in our lifetimes.

    As long as PC answers get funding, these people will ignore what is in front of them.

    They could take a huge lesson in integrity from Galileo Galilei.

  8. Ex-PH2 says:

    Here’s a link to a blog that has links to articles about Australian climate research, in which their climate science guys admit that A) they altered figures; B) there doesn’t seem to be a real connection between drought and global warming/climate change (in Tasmania, but can be considered applicable to elsewhere, too); and C) the GIGO part is just climate variability.

    And maybe the current thousands-of-cubic miles sized pool of warm water in the Pacific is a rebound or recovery from the loss of heat during the 18 months of solar minimum from October 2008 to March 2010. No one has addressed that possibility.

    And MAYBE the control freaks are simply unwilling to admit that this planet can’t be controlled by mere humans, no matter what their agenda is, because this planet of ours has its own agenda.

    We are simply its byproducts.