Hard times for the Church of Global Warming

By John Hayward

In response to Hillary Clinton Does ‘Hard Hitting’ Climate Change Interview With Hollywood Actor:

You know the global-warming fanatics have hit a low point when they’re reduced to asking Benghazi Rodham Clinton and an antique actor to shovel their silly propaganda.

One more time, for the benefit of anyone who remains honestly bamboozled by this nonsense: THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE. None of the doomsday predictions, from blatant frauds like Michael Mann’s “hockey stick graph” to relatively serious efforts at climate modeling, have held up. There’s hard data now, and the hard data is disastrous for these fanatics and their anti-growth ideology. Climate scientists are currently spending their days fretting about a bit of global cooling, caused entirely by natural forces, and wondering if a tiny bit of heating from human activity might have been beneficial because it staved off the new Ice Age.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

13 Responses to Hard times for the Church of Global Warming

  1. NEILIO May 22, 2013 at 7:02 pm #

    This is pathetic. She sounds so boring talking about it. It’s worse than my social studies teacher in high school. Four droning sentences was all it took for me to fall asleep. I have a tremendous dislike for Eyeore, but he at least sounds like he’s alive when he’s lying about climate change. I’d rather sit through a two hour lecture on proper hand washing from my high school social studies teacher, than listen to Hillary drone on about anything. YAWN!

  2. Rob N. Hood May 27, 2013 at 1:33 pm #

    yada yada yada Brietbart. blah blah blah Hillary is boring…

    “The evidence linking Arctic Amplification to extreme weather in mid latitudes costs $569 billion and creates 4.5 million construction-phase jobs, with earnings (in the form of wages, local revenue and local supply-chain impacts) of $314 billion, along with 58,000 permanent jobs with annual earnings of $5.1 billion per year. This is before the health and environmental benefits of $33 billion per year, savings to the United States of $1.7 billion per year because of reduced global warming impacts (a savings which increases to $12.1 billion per year in 2100), and increased tax valuation due to eliminating the fossil fuel industry.

    Some of the latest climate research shows that Hurricane Sandy was definitively enhanced by climate change and suggests its path may have been wholly determined by global warming. More research from Rutgers and the University of Wisconsin tells us that after the turn of the century, Arctic amplification began to emerge and upper-level weather systems began to move more slowly. This was likely in response to diminishing sea ice and more rapidly melting winter snow cover in the Arctic.

    Arctic amplification – a meteorological process in which waves in the jet stream get bigger and slower as the Arctic’s temperature warms, causing weather patterns to stay one place for longer periods – is something climate scientists have been warning us about for decades. It caused changes which created specific extreme weather events from 2003 to 2011, including snowstorms in Europe, northern Asia and the US Northeast; increased precipitation during storms worldwide – even in places where total annual precipitation is decreasing; heat waves in Moscow, Texas and Europe and flooding in Pakistan and on the Mississippi.”


    • NEILIO May 30, 2013 at 4:40 am #

      The STERN review you are citing above is absolute nonsense. It is entirely predicated upon false assumptions, flawed computer models, and junk science.

  3. Rob N. Hood May 31, 2013 at 8:04 am #

    Of course it is. Just keeping you on your toes…

    • NEILIO May 31, 2013 at 5:34 pm #

      Huh? Whatever.

  4. NEILIO June 1, 2013 at 5:45 am #

    National Academies of Science defines a scientific theory as “a well-substantiated explanation of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” Dr. Richard Feynman, Cornell Physicist in a lecture explained how theories that failed the test of data or experiment are falsified (“wrong”) and must be discarded.


    (1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only
    (2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s
    (3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated.
    (4) Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimize cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanization, instrumentation contaminate the record, producing exaggerating warming. The GAO scolded NOAA for poor compliance with siting standards.
    (5) Those who create the temperature records have been shown in analysis and emails to take steps to eliminate inconvenient temperature trends like the Medieval Warm Period, the 1940s warm blip and cooling since 1998. Steps have included removal of the urban heat island adjustment and as Wigley suggested in a climategate email, introduce 0.15C of artificial cooling of global ocean temperatures near 1940.
    (6) Forecast models have failed with temperature trends below even the assumed zero emission control scenarios.
    (7) Climate models all have a strong hot spot in the mid to high troposphere in the tropical regions. Weather balloons and satellite show no warming in this region the last 30 years.
    (8) Ocean heat content was forecast to increase and was said to be the canary in the coal mine. It too has stalled according to NOAA PMEL. The warming was to be strongest in the tropics where the models were warming the atmosphere the most. No warming has been shown in the top 300 meters in the tropical Pacific back to the 1950s.
    (9) Alarmists had predicted permanent El Nino but the last decade has featured 7 La Nina and just 3 El Nino years. This is related to the PDO and was predicted by those who look at natural factors.
    (10) Alarmists had predicted much lower frequency of the negative modes of the AO and NAO due to warming. The trend has been the opposite with a record negative AO/NAO in 2009/10.

    (There are 15 more. Read the rest at the link above.)

    Given the failures of global warming science, just a few mentioned here, the most disreputable alarmists like Oreskes, Cook and Trenberth and the demagogue party have tried to convince the uniformed by using the consensus argument. See the latest failed attempt here. It was also described on Forbes here.

    “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.” Michael Crichton 17 January 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology.

  5. Rob N. Hood June 3, 2013 at 2:11 pm #

    Wha? Whatever…

    • NEILIO June 3, 2013 at 7:08 pm #

      So original! Should I now say that I’m just keeping you on your toes? Not……………….

  6. Rob N. Hood July 8, 2013 at 1:08 pm #

    How quickly it degenerates to school-yard mentality. And yes, it’s all my doing…me, always, all the time. Like I’m a menace or something…

    • Neilio July 8, 2013 at 2:49 pm #

      Haven’t you noticed? I’m the menace. Libtard says so. No you are our resident Lefty. Much as I hate to admit it, your posts, while infuriating, can be entertaining and every once in a while you have a good point. And even though we do not think alike, you sometimes do make me think, though most of the time I would never say so. So, good to see that you’re back.

  7. Dan McGrath July 8, 2013 at 4:50 pm #

    Neil- I thought you were supposed to help enforce the rules!

    • Neilio July 9, 2013 at 5:20 am #

      Ok, I self edited. But it was meant as a term of endearment! I always say I hate RNH, but I really love to hate him. You know?

  8. Libtard July 9, 2013 at 11:34 am #

    I am not the one who called you a menace. You crowned yourself that.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.