Global Warming and the Polar Vortex

Cooling WorldBy John Hayward -

As a massive blanket of arctic air brings twenty-year record cold temperatures to the United States, it’s not surprising to see the Church of Global Warming in full-on shrieking panic mode, screaming at the top of their lungs that a blast of cold weather doesn’t disprove their theories.

Well, no, of course it doesn’t. A mountain of scientific data compiled over decades disproves their theories. Nobody has to point to today’s weather to demonstrate that global warming is a fraud. Actual scientists have already done that, using years of climate observations that do not in any way, shape, or form match up with the climate models that cost the industrialized world billions of dollars over the past three decades. The global warming cult has yet to be right about anything, so there’s nothing left to disprove.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

34 Responses to Global Warming and the Polar Vortex

  1. Charles Johnston January 10, 2014 at 9:35 am #

    My position for many years has been that the climate change scammers don’t bother to read and are being led by the nose, and by quacks masqurading as scientists, down the road to massive new taxes to solve a problem that does not exist, and that we could not fix if it did. The real science has been around since the mid-1960′s, proving with “Real science” that the Sun is the driving force of our heating and cooling, in lockstep with the Sun’s magnetic activity and low-energy cosmic ray shielding. But the climate change army is determined to shout everyone else down because their belief system is a religion, not concerned with science really, but mostly with faith. As Carl Sagan mused, “Facts are irrelevant because they have a desperate need to believe.” That’s a paraphrase, but no less true. The bottom line is depressing to these people: We have been warming and cooling for millions of years, but in the last three decades, politicians and professors and researchers have finally figured out how to make that profitable.

    • Neilio January 10, 2014 at 5:06 pm #

      Very well put. Thanks Charles. I agree with you 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999%

    • Jan Lindau January 16, 2014 at 2:42 pm #

      I agree 100 % ! Here in sweden the AGW climate change religion is very strong..scientists who dissagree cant reach media they are cencured but i have learned so much about carbondioxid glaciers storms deserts the atmosphere historic climate oceancurrents fotosynthes the arctic the antarctis etc etc…so im able to say that its all a bluff

      • Neilio January 24, 2014 at 9:15 pm #

        Well, the 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000001% I disagree with is that I don’t think the bottom line is depressing to these people. They refuse to acknowledge reality, and therefore, go on in complete blissful ignorance. If they would get depressed, they may actually try to get at the truth to alleviate their sorrow.

    • Richard Brox January 23, 2014 at 4:09 pm #

      It is so refreshing to read about the pseudo science embraced by Al Gore and his brethren as the pack of lies that it is. Keep up the good work.

  2. Leah January 10, 2014 at 10:38 pm #

    What has happened during winter of 2013, and summer 2013 (it was cold some of the time) and now, certainly doesn’t look like global warming to me!

  3. Rob N. Hood January 17, 2014 at 5:24 pm #

    “The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”

    - Charles Bukowski

    • Dan McGrath January 24, 2014 at 1:27 pm #

      You mean, like, “The debate is over?”

  4. John Birdwell January 21, 2014 at 10:51 am #

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

    http://climate.nasa.gov/

    I encourage you all to glance at these links. I’m sure most of you will dismiss it as left wing evilness. But based on my general “google surfing” (I have only basic college education it the science field) There is scientific consensus. Less than 2% would agree with this website.

    I’m not one to blindly agree with global issues, however based on the research out there, it’s ignorance to say otherwise. Kind of like the Catholic church maintaining that the world is flat.. But I understand why such a stubborn resistance.

    • Rob N. Hood January 23, 2014 at 3:44 pm #

      Well, said. I have said as much before, several times in fact. As you can see, such clear logic for your, and my, belief is wasted upon the true unbelievers. They are a cult created by and for the major polluters and fossil fuel industry.

    • kurt gandenberger January 24, 2014 at 12:49 pm #

      really? we’re freezing our tukuses off worrying about global warming???? thank GOD we’re in an interglacial period at present. if it gets cold again like the early 1800′s that’s when the real suffering occurs. warm (like the 1400′s when Greenland got it’s name) is good and it comes from solar activity…not from the gases in the atmosphere that are small contributors to the overall amount of warmth in the air. the politicians just want more sources of taxation, that’s all they ever want.

      • Rob N. Hood January 24, 2014 at 6:47 pm #

        Well we could actually tax the polluters directly instead, but that’s a non-starter too as they say, because you know, tax. Or we could all pay what things actually cost, figuring in all the negative consequences which the corporations simply have gotten socialized via other means which you and I pay in taxes anyways, but usually not accurately causing greater long term negative consequences than if we did the right things up front.

        • Vic Pfitzner April 5, 2014 at 2:26 pm #

          Polluters? or are you talking about CO2 which is not a pollutant. Your figures are incredibly wrong. 98% of scientists don’t believe in AGW
          even if that was true remember Galileo.
          Why is this foolishness defended so vehemently by the lefties?

    • Neilio January 24, 2014 at 10:13 pm #

      Ok, let me get this straight. This is from the “study” referred to in the link you posted.

      “We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

      The first thing that pops out to me is “We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW.” Ok, so just about 2/3rds of the climate abstracts expressed NO POSITION on AGW, while just about 1/3rd of them ENDORSED AGW. So out of the 33.3% of climate abstracts that HAD A POSITION on AGW, they get 97.1% endorse the consensus opinion?
      Why do they throw away approximately 2/3rds of all the abstracts?
      It seems to me that the real number is 32.6%, not 97.1%.
      Isn’t the real consensus that a 2/3rds majority of climate papers has no position on AGW?
      Talk about cherry picking data, jeez!

      As far as the NASA website goes, it is government run so……?

      Take a look at these:
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/21/sunspots-and-sea-level/

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/team-of-ex-nasa-scientists-concludes-no-imminent-threat-from-man-made-co2/

      http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/nasas_rubber_ruler.html

      As far as the consensus on AGW goes, it came from this:

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
      ” So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

      Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

      That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

      The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?”

      • Fred February 15, 2014 at 4:50 pm #

        It doesn’t surprise me that the left distorts statistics in its own favor. It does it on every social issue it wants to ram down the public’s throat.

    • Dr. Chance February 22, 2014 at 4:52 am #

      I am a doctor and I deal with “EBP” all day every day. Even in the medical world we dont have good data and studies. The hardest part is understanding bias, and yes even in our studies its rampant. Im sorry to tell you this but anyone who tells you science can prove this our that, well they forgot the first rule of science which is science cant prove anything… it can only disprove a theory. Trust me when I tell you, research is not done to find the truth anymore. It is done to validate people and ideas, mostly in an attempt to gain money and status.

  5. Zebo January 21, 2014 at 2:01 pm #

    That’s great for you- Rob N Hood.
    That’s why you are so full of confidence while i always doubt “facts” that are forced down my throat,because history has proven that 99% of all “facts”people are forced to believe by governments/officials/religions/TV turned out to be 100% wrong.

    Saying this as someone who has benefitted because of his origin (muslim/communist)so much from white leftist sociophants who believe in any hoax as long it is done by a minority or pretending to protect nature.
    {Comment edited by moderator. Please refrain from using curse words in your posts. Thanks}

  6. Rob N. Hood January 23, 2014 at 3:47 pm #

    A minority?! Nope. I believe in AGW because it is (currently) the majority opinion in the science world. That is the only reason I do so, similarly why I believe the majority of medical professionals about my health. This is a “duh” moment for you I guess.

    • Dan McGrath January 24, 2014 at 1:23 pm #

      No, it isn’t. Can you provide the names of 31,000 or more scientists who subscribe to the notion of AGW? I can provide the names of over 31,000 who don’t.

  7. Rob N. Hood January 24, 2014 at 6:51 pm #

    Excuse me Dan but I didn’t just make that up. And it is your job/duty to have these things at your finger-tips, so color me unimpressed. The numbers of scientists who do agree with AGW is out there for anyone who wants to honestly discuss this particular example of logic and reasoning. Just because, as Libertarian, you don’t agree with majority rules, doesn’t make my logic less valid.

    • Neilio January 24, 2014 at 10:29 pm #

      Where is the logic and reason in claiming 98% of the worlds scientists agree that there is AGW? Because that number came from an online survey that had 77 published scientists answer “yes” to a vague question. That is the truth behind the “consensus” RNH.
      That fact has been posted numerous times here but you seem to keep ignoring it. Why is that? Can we have an honest discussion about that? RNH?

  8. Dan January 25, 2014 at 12:10 pm #

    Arguments that can not be proven wrong are not worth having. I’m sincerely hoping that the strength of climate deniers denial will keep future generations safe from evidence:) One can hope. Keep going fellas! Scientific American, National Geographic and all those other poo-pooey peer reviewed organizations where legitimate scientists write and speak are so full of it! What do they know? Good thing we can type “climate change hoax” into Google and get this wonderfully credible website on the internet. Keep up the fantastic work! If you keep denying and keep equating weather with climate we’ll be in great shape! Looking forward to a bright future with you guys:)

    • Neilio January 25, 2014 at 7:13 pm #

      “Arguments that can not be proven wrong are not worth having.”
      How do you know if you are unwilling to listen to the argument? I’m sorry but that is just about the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. Ever!
      Do you even realize what you’ve said? You are advocating a course that is foolish, and damaging to science. Look up the scientific method!
      It’s ok, I understand why you fear argument. You are just afraid that you might be proven wrong. And we can’t have that, can we?

    • Neilio January 26, 2014 at 10:19 am #

      Yet another hit and run coward I guess. This is a good example of what I was talking about in an earlier post. Here you have a person, so completely convinced in what they believe, that they won’t even listen to an alternative point of view. They just shut it out and pretend as though it doesn’t exist! It makes me sad.

  9. tex January 29, 2014 at 7:44 pm #

    So is everyone saying the weather is not getting more extreme (like many scientists said would happen)? Or is this just your standard yearly polar vortex?

  10. Nick February 5, 2014 at 5:15 pm #

    Taking an extreme example, if there were no CO2 all plant life would die, then all life, and the whole planet would turn into a lifeless desert. Then we certainly would have climate change. Otherwise I find it hard to believe CO2 emissions are causing extreme weather changes.

  11. Running deer February 15, 2014 at 9:08 pm #

    It’s nothing but a tax scheme. There has been no evidence of global warming . The contribution from the tiny increase in co2 is not possible to have any real effect on global climate. Compare the energy contribution of the sun , water vapor and winds and you will realize how foolish the global warming people are.

    • Neilio February 16, 2014 at 6:35 am #

      I think you are right Running deer, but I do disagree with one thing. It most definitely is a tax scheme, but I think it is so much more than that. I believe at its very heart it is no less than a scheme to control the entire world. And the organization behind it all is the UN.
      But, the good news is that they are failing miserably.

  12. Damien Rhodes February 16, 2014 at 8:59 pm #

    This argument reminds me of a joke whereby 2 people, one of ethnic class A which is the butt of the joke and the other of ethnic class B which is the “wise” one. They are embark on a walk through the forest and come upon a set of tracks. Person A argues that they are bear tracks while person B points out that they are in fact train tracks. In the midst of the argument a train comes along and runs them both over.

    On the balance of probabilities alone, the weight of evidence of climate change as being real (Person B) far out-weighs the argument/evidence put forth by person A. This argument will eventually be settled by mother nature (the train) who will bring back into balance the climate – at the expense of not only us but a lot of other species that are found on this planet.

    Simplistic view, climate change isn’t a gentle warming but rather a shift in distribution of energy (heat) to places we would rather not become heat sinks. One fact that all can agree on is the desalination of oceans. Currently localized but nature abhors imbalance so mixing will occur. That alone will be enough to stop the conveyor belt which moves heat from the equator to the poles which cools the planet as a whole. Remove that and the equator becomes hotter and the north/south become a lot colder.

    • Neilio February 16, 2014 at 10:14 pm #

      You know, the key to good comedy is that there has to be an element of truth in it. Otherwise people can’t connect it to something they have witnessed, or experienced themselves.

      I’m sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but your argument falls flat on its face in the first step. No one is arguing that there is no climate change. The climate is constantly in a state of flux. It has constantly, and consistently changed throughout its entire existence. It is, in my opinion, the one thing that has kept this argument aloft for as long as it has been, because every time there is any kind of change in climate the alarmists say, “See? See? That’s what we said would happen!!” Even though all of the computer models predicted warming, warming, and more warming, they now claim the silliest things like, “The cooling is caused by warming!” And, “Our models predicted more extreme weather events!” Even though records indicate the global average temperatures have not risen in 16 years, and that extreme weather events have actually declined in the last 40 years.

      And, sorry the one fact you presume that we can all agree on is one I can’t agree with you upon. But don’t take my word for it, I’m not a scentist with papers published in scientific journals. But here are a few that are.

      Tropical Stabilization of the Thermohaline Circulation in a Greenhouse Warming Simulation
      (Journal of Climate, Volume 13, Issue 11, pp. 1809–1813, June 2000)
      - M. Latif et al.

      Abrupt climate change: An alternative view (PDF)
      (Quaternary Research, Volume 65, Issue 2, pp. 191-203, March 2006)
      - Carl Wunsch

      Can in situ floats and satellite altimeters detect long-term changes in Atlantic Ocean overturning?
      (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 37, Number 6, March 2010)
      - Josh K. Willis

      UK newspaper (mis)representations of the potential for a collapse of the Thermohaline Circulation
      (Area, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp. 444–456, December 2010)
      - Neil Jennings, Mike Hulme

    • Vic Pfitzner April 5, 2014 at 4:22 pm #

      An even more simple and more accurate view is that many things influence the climate. The sun is the major factor and the least of these is CO2

  13. Bill April 6, 2014 at 9:53 am #

    6/4/14 .Reading the Daily Mail ‘Big Green Con’ today,I find that a crime has been committed by the IPCC.They,with the collaboration of Global politicians,have issued their latest ‘Man-madeDoom ‘ statement which claims that their ‘computer ‘ models are right -YET AGAIN!
    In the Mail article the actual truth is clearly exposed.How can any rational thinking Human be fooled any more by these strange self serving people?-and isn’t it time we told them to ‘get off our backs’ and shut up?
    Our lives have been dominated and spoilt by this false ‘science’ for far too long.Wake up world!!!

Leave a Reply

A project of Minnesota Majority