This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
It's Getting Hot In Here: 2012 Hottest Year On Record
2012 was a historic year for extreme weather that included drought, wildfires, hurricanes and storms. But, as NOAA reported yesterday, 2012 marked the warmest year on record for the contiguous United States. The average temperature for 2012 was 55.3°F, 3.2°F above the 20th century average, and 1.0°F above 1998, the previous warmest year. Rainfall was dismal also at 26.57 inches, 2.57 inches below average, making it the 15th driest year on record for the nation. NOAA also adds that the U.S. Climate Extremes Index indicated that 2012 was the second most extreme year on record for the nation, nearly twice the average value and second only to 1998. 2012 saw 11 disasters that reached the $1 billion threshold in losses. Climate Central also confirms that fully two-thirds of the lower 48 states recorded their first-, second- or third-hottest years, and 43 states had one of their top 10 warmest years ever recorded. Globally, 2012 appears to be the eight warmest on record.
Hottest Year on Record
And one of the driest (least precipitation) on record...
With very significant events everywhere...
but it's not just the US, the world saw extreme weather everywhere...
Source: NOAA and Climate Central
»
- 17425 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
"It's pretty much irrelevant that temperatures are changing." - you previously
"Even if the climate is warming, I haven't concluded - nor seen anything credible - to suggest it's anomalous or problematic. " you now
Do you see the difference? If the temperatures are changing, it is not irrelevant. What do you define as problematic?
Even if this is just cyclical, a five year famine in America would be massively problematic, and sustained droughts in multiple major food producing regions around the world even more so.
As for what exactly is happening and why, I have no idea. As for what can be done, storing and producing food is the best thing I can think of.
Did you miss a dose of Xanax, Jethro?
The two statements of mine you cite are entirely consistent, both indicating my view that temperature changes are not material/unusual. YOU superimpose the statement that "if temperatures are changing, it is not irrelevant". If you are that insistent on making some point, knock yourself out - just don't try to ascribe it to me.
Some have questioned why Tyler posts these types of articles. But it's plain to me to see that the threads provide more evidence of mass brainwashing than any technical chart can.
More clumsy obfuscation...
Your logical meanderings are remarkable, sort of like an infant boy searching for his pecker....with his diaper still on..
Sorry, Flak. You haven't offered anything meaningful all day other than to further evidence that you cannot articulate a mathematical construct if your life depended on it. But do carry on. It's entertaining.
"But that 150 sample shows, irrefutably, that the temperature of earth's atmosphere is warming"
and So????? Since the earth has been both colder and hotter than it is now, perhaps the climate here on Earth cycles??????????? So we are in that part of the cycle where the Earth warms..... BTW, it is the Sun that causes this....
I have said nothing about causation. I think the cause is still up for debate. However, I do not think it is debatable that earth's atmosphere is warming. I think it is important to recognize the fact that earth's temperature is warming because that fact supports sensible predictions about the effects of such warming, from which people can decide for themselves whether those effects are likely and acceptable.
It is entirely debatable. The junk science is not settled.
I'll give you hint, the deniers publish in blogs because the real professionals see through and identify their bull shit...
The legitimate debate has been over for about 15 years....
Well that happens to be the 150 years that matter to us (humans) the most. Oh and I guess we ought to include the 150 years that follow, when our children and grandchildren have to deal with whatever kind of world we give them as a gift.
I don't really care about non-human beings. And I really like human civilization. The thought of losing civilization bugs me. That's where I draw the line, and fight.
You do not care about "non-human" beings.
Hope you are vegan and own a greenhouse. You'll need 'em.
Oh, and to keep "civilization" afloat, absent care beyond humans...
Sorry, game over.
When someone is drowning they don't care about the fish.
"I don't really care about non-human beings. And I really like human civilization. The thought of losing civilization bugs me."
Such a cocked-up, conflicted and distorted perception on so many levels.
So now that the line is drawn how's that "fight" to pull your skull out of your fundament and saving the world from yourself going so far?
Living under the direction of manipulated voodoo "science" and contrived, programmed doom. Hilarious...
You have my sympathies. I hope your condition improves.
OK, the chart of "significant" weather events above really doesn't mean anything. "Significant" weather events are so normal that normal is bored by them. The only weather event of note in that chart is Sandy. That said, there is so much data substantiating the fact of global warming, that global warming is, perhaps, the most "normal" natural condition there is today.
what if maybe, just maybe, the atmosphere cannot readily accommodate the emissions loads we're putting into it?
I mean, we've ALREADY seen - nobody disputes - rainfall cycles disruption due to smog and aerosol pollution. I don't know why people have so much trouble with the implications of AGW
I don't know what you mean by "accommodate" here. The atmosphere is a physical system that responds to mass and energy changes according to physical laws.
Your choice of words suggest a rather shallow understanding.... somehow, I am not the least suprised...
Don't otherthink it Flak, pursue more productive pursuits. Carlin said it best, "The planet will be fine, it's the people that are fucked."
Yeah, you are indeed correct...
"The atmosphere is a physical system that responds"
yes, and like Trav points out physical systems have physical limits. Take elements compressed down for millions of years into the densest energy form on earth and spew half of it into a closed "physical system" with limits. There might just be an effect.
Was it rainfall cycle disruptions that took out Pompeii?
Since you are into "normal", you might enjoy this...
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003900/a003975/bell_final_comp.m4v
Statistics can be powerful indicators of truth.
And who's to say that global warming is either significant or unusual? 150 years of data, the consistency/reliability of which is questionable, isn't much to go on. Unless, of course, one is a dyed-in-the-wool follower of the church of climatology.
There is more to paleoclimatology than going through old copies of the Farmers Almanac...
Sorry but your ignorance is on display...
Flaky, you must be shy your third cup of organic espresso with green tea extracts. You seem a bit obtuse this morn. I do, however, like the large-word entry "paleoclimatology".
Why don;t you look up what it means and get back to us...
Who is "us"...you got a few others in there with you, Smeagol?
Us refers to the readers of this thread....
Please exclude me from your "us".
Why don't you go elsewhere then and perhaps fuck yourself?
(uh oh...wheels are coming off)
More like patience with fools chiming in from the peanut gallery...
Why would someone have to look it up? Was it something you could not figure out with first glance? I will say in the future it's considered poor taste to mix Greek and Latin.
This is where "warmer" logical fails big time. They simply dismiss long term history and concentrate on the very short term.
The winter of 2010 was known as "Snowmageddon": http://www.loudounhistory.org/history/winters-2010-snowmageddon.html
What short memories these silly global warmers have.
Nice strawman....
Did it occur to you that warmer air holds more moisture which allows more intense snowstorms....
and since 2012 was supposedly warmer than 2010 then why didn't we get MORE snow....Seriously, your logic is flawed
Stop making sense
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJJ9u4yrjvY
Which is simply false. High Pressure fronts form from warmer air. High Pressure Fronts are noted for their lack of moisture.
And what do you think makes the moisture condense, i.e fall out of the sky?
Google Clausius-Clapeyron and learn somehting...
If your city became overrun with organized criminal gangs, there were bodies in the streets, and everyone was afraid to go outside would you be willing to accept that as the new normal?
Maybe you would.
But I would not.
Normal is normal, it is not new and it is not supposed to be lethal. We start accepting lethal things as normal then we're well on the way to annihilation.
Economic Entropy?
The heat-spike in the US did not move the worldwide average temp number.
And even if it did I would just blame Ben Bernanke's meddling for overheating the world temperature index through Thermo-Quantitative Easing. There are nearly twice as many degrees on the market as there were before the 2008 crash. While many of those degrees are merely held as "excess reserves" on bank balance sheets, a significant portion of them have made it to the open market where they have raised overall average world temperature.
In short, buy gold. It doesn't have a very high melting point but it's higher than your melting point. And while you still can't eat it you can certainly wear it, as we found out here recently.
But it was not the hottest globally, which is a requirment for global warming.
Bribe NOAA and they will say whatever you want them to say.
Sorta like S&P, Moody's, and the BLS, no?
They don't really need to be bribed, just check out were a lot of these weather stations are located. Many were once located in open natural areas but over the years urban development has encroached and now they are located in parking lots, next to aircon units, on top of buildings, at the end of runways etc. In other words they don't need to manipulate the data so much as to ignore the unreliability of the readings.
So changing climates near weather stations is the problem? That means with 7 billion+ people on the planet, more than at any time in human history incidentally, and needing to feed all these people (livestock spewing another so called greenhouse gas in methane which incidentally landfills also emit) and transport (every engine creates heat as well as friction from tires and of course the exhaust), air condition (adds heat to the atmosphere when cooling indoors and adds heat during winter), terrain manipulation (buildings and infrastructure like roads change climate as they absorb, hold and radiate heat for longer than plain dirt or grass), producing energy via fossil fuel burning, every electronic gadget used also emits heat...none of that will impact the rest of the world it will only impact the most immediate climate near the weather centers?
So you admit that humans change climate just that it doesn't have an impact anywhere else?
What I don't understand is why humans think they are the masters of the earth, take credit for everything under the sun, have enough hubris to think they are the center of the universe and have their own personal god looking out for them, have direct evidence that their mere existence can impact the planet (dust bowl, poisoned water supplies, smog, overfishing, to name but a few) but can't possibly believe that they have an impact on the planet, atmosphere and temperature.
I don't think humans are the only cause of climate change but to ignore that they have any impact is ridiculous and you don't have to listen to Kochs or Gores to develop an opinion.
Perhaps if it wasn't for some micro particles in the atmosphere reflecting back the sun's rays things would be much worse? Every volcano erruption is proven to change the climate and make it cooler. It may just be that the human damage is being masked and it could be much worse. On the other hand maybe it's just solar cycles and things could be cooler if not for that.
I know only one thing and that is from personal experience in my lifetime there were colder winters and milder summers. I used to dread the early mornings of winter with the frigid air freezing the inside of my nostrils and having to wear a heavy coat to be outside. That hasn't happend in a long time and I no longer wear a heavy coat so frequently. Also people that previously never got sun-burned in summer now roast to red in a mere couple of hours.
I know none of this will prove anything but from my pov it's simpler just to believe that humans are a destructive life force like the planet has never seen. Humans need to hold themselves responsible for far more things because placing the blame somewhere else is proven to have disastrous outcomes. Is it really that difficult to say "maybe we are at fault" and just try to live a life that has far less impact on the planet?
Thank God that doesn't apply to anything or anyone else
Not really. Temperature may fluctuate around a trend line.
It doesn't need to be the hottest year globally to be a problem. It's the trend, not any particular point in the trend, that will unwind you.
It was hotter in many summers of the 1800's that it is now... just when industry was getting started. No cars then either.
Global Warmers are a bunch of morons.
Where is the data that shows earth's atmosphere is not warming?
You'd better check yourself.
The earth has ice ages, then they melt... guess why? It's all completely natural/normal.
Yep, you is a moron.
You have not answered my question.
That's because your question is asinine.
No, you are full of shit...
"No, you are full of shit..."
That from an esteemed expert on what it's like to be full of shit...
An expert doesn't have to treat everyone with courtesy. If your doctor is a trained oncologist and told you that you had cancer, and your response was to tell the doctor he was a crackpot and a fool, he would be well with in his rights to laugh in your face, accuse you of self-annihilation, and throw you physically out of his office with a parting wish that you die a slow and agonizing death and it's only too bad you were allowed to reproduce before you died.
So that's how I do it. Liked it any better?
Except given billions of years of global cancer rates increasing and decreasing, coming and going, knowing historically and paleoclimatologically that it's naturally occurring, knowing that there's nothing to be done about it in any case, some quack doomtard witch doctor could shake his rattles, throw a tantrum and say whatever he wants. Your analogy and your incidious, agenda-backed fairy tale religion sucks.
I'm sorry, but I could not find any coherent thought in your comment, and have no idea what you are referring to.
You wouldn't know coherent thought if it cracked you across the forehead with a bat.
Well you are finally making some sense, data from numerous sources going back many millions of years has shown that that C02 concentrations are intimately tied to global temperatures, and the fact that in the space of ~200 years we have greatly exceeded the observed C02 levels of the past 800,000 years... In fact we will soon be at levels last observed when the sea levels were ~100 ft higher and the equatorial oceans almost devoid of life...
Oh, CO2, the gas that is paleoclimatologically and "chronologically" indicated as being a lagging result of warming not a cause, comprises a miniscule fraction of one percent of our atmosphere and has virtually zero infrared retention dynamics in the first place, etc? That CO2? Yeah, plant food is evil alright... Doooooooom.
You make less sense and prove to have no relevance all the time but it comes as no surprise.
Hey, why don;t you write a paper and explain the C02 thingie and make yourself famous by debunking AGW?
Or did you think everyone here has a grade school level education?
Grade school level education is a badge AGWtards wear as a fucking badge apparently. The whole CO2-based premise is just the tip of the iceberg with regards to unwinding the mire of lies, manipulation and literal "AGW creationist" anti-science you subscribe to you pathetic propagandist, agenda-pandering cocksucker. Better hold your breath permanently, CO2 is evil, like dooooooooom. Fucking idiotic troll-o-rama freak show...
Congratulations. Your posts are truly the most outstandingly ignorant, fact denying on this thread. Quite an achievement with the variety of ignorant math challenged deniers I am seeing here.
The evidence is in & it's conclusive - CO2 is not lagging & there is NO other source of (re)-heating.
The sun isn't putting out more radiation. The earth itself is not getting hotter UNDER our feet. The heat that should be leaving instead of reflected infrared is NOT leaving. Period. Easily measured. Or do you doubt that CO2 reflects infrared? Are you daft? Have you ever tried this experiment?
I suppose you'll argue that the excess infrared is trapped from reflection BEFORE the CO2 is there to reflect it, same for methane? Now without the gases there HOW can the infrared be reflected? The solar output of the sun is measurably NOT increasing so where does this magical heat-source come from?
Correlation does not prove causation. Fallacy is a word, look it up.
I said nothing about causation. I merely asked for data showing the earth's atmosphere is not warming. So far, I haven't seen any.
Clearly the Earth is warming from the last ice age. Only an idiot would argue otherwise.
A great deal of data also show that the earth is warming over the last 150 years. Many people argue otherwise, but I have yet to see data to the contrary.
Are you purposely being retarded? The Earth has been warming and cooling ever since the Earth was formed. 150 years is a fly speck.
And lets examine what the earth has down over the past 800,000 years, i.e the range over which we evolved, you know, stuff like rates of change and the various climate forcings being active....
Nice strawman...
Fuck off idiot.
800,000 years? Have we records that far back shit for brains? Unless you have a time-machine take your propaganda elsewhere.
The majority of humans are idiots, you more than prove it. 800,000 years??? Fucking clown.
Google Vostock ice core data you ignorant fuckhead...
And while you are at it, asphyxiate yourself...
I agree with you: "The majority of humans are idiots"
You know nothing about things like ice-core records and are thus clearly ignorant about the sciences that study pre-historic Earth (really, friggin natural Geographic and Nature channels have programs that mentions ice-cores all the time) and yet you made most assured statments (decorated with some entertaining foul language) about it.
Clearly you and the people that upvoted you so far are proof that plenty of humans are idiots.
that's not the issue. It's the sudden and dramatic rate of change and we should be sliding back into an ice age and we're not.
Would you expect the thin ribbon of air immediately above your frozen marguerita to warm significantly before all the ice melted?
I expect it to go in phases, like it actually does. We came see it as a misting effect as the warm air builds up and then cools in a cycle directly above the ice.The more direct way of seeing this is to get some dry ice and watch the mist boiling off.
ideologues. or zealots.
Why can't humans amplify what would otherwise be? Math-challenged are you? Big picture challeged? Just plain damn dumb? (I am betting it is all three for you)
The universe continues to expand and the Earth's climate continues to change. Geez, is anything ever permanent?
However, when the universe starts to contract, then we're all in a universe of hurt.
The space-time continuum is stretching, giving the illusion that the universe is expanding. Matter imbedded in the continuum appears to be hurtling away as the stretching continues. You are stretching, growing larger, along with the continuum. This is good for you penis, which is growing infintisimally larger every second, albeit so are vaginas.
When the contraction begins, everything will shrink together as the continuum snaps back to the singularity. But it is nothing to worry about.
Ben will keep printing and CNBC will keep reporting all is well until this happens.
Thanks. I feel better now, I think.
Are we sure it ever left a singularity in the first place?
I agree, some things are best left unsaid...
Pray with heartfelt conviction for a warm period you gaia loving monsters.. It may prevent as much of a die off as some are predicting to be coming around the bend. Reference the Medieval warm period for a comparable period, long before SUV's of course.
Where is the global chart then? Didn't look how it should so it didn't make the cut.
This looks like pick and choose (on both sides actually, skeptics also omit everything that looks like warming). Interesting - yes. But is it convincing enough to starve out industrial revolution?
I'll look at AGW from different perspective when proponents publish charts going 20 years forward and get it right. At least general shape and some specifics (like "america warms fastest, while east asia might be stable or even a little cooling). Anyway, going up to Medieval temps is no problem, so any goal of reductions would be to stop warming at slightly higher temps than currently. Even if they are right, but just unable to make some good predictions, it's by no means so dire.
Chew on this
http://skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html
Climate Change is a left-wing hoax and more guns is safer than less guns.
Paraprosdokian personified. Well done, mate!
Temp here in Colorado is about the same as I ever remember it....I'm hardly going to freak out over a 1 degree variation in temperature like some hysterical loonie....we've got way worse things to worry about.
Yeah that's where people go off the rails, thinking their personal experiences of weather-as-climate mean anything.
Means nothing at all. Means no more than a child's perceptions of reality when all they hear are stories and fairy tales.
There is a thing called "science" and if you don't like it that's fine. But lots of people do like it, join in scientific ventures, write papers, discuss matters they discover, propose explanations for observations, and in general move forward our real understanding of the real world apart from personal opinion.
And of the people who do climate science (and a great many more who simply understand the scientific method) many or most are coming unglued with fear at what is now happening in the world, and what we have done.
Have a nice day.
The thing about science and scientists is that many will admit to flaws and try to fix them and explain them. People that are just dogmatists on either side of an argument won't even try to discover the truth.
Scientists also have agendas of course but so does industry (like tobacco hiring "scientists" to prove cigarettes aren't bad).
"Who to believe" is the real question I guess. That is why people use personal experience because when all else fails you only have yourself.
It doesn't matter at all if any particular scientist has "an agenda" in any topic. That's because all that matters is the data and the data goes out to everyone and everyone looks at it. Unless they all have the exact same agenda and overlook everything in exactly the same way, someone notices an issue and points it out.
It just works that way.
Oh and scientists really enjoy flaming each other for having an agenda, if that becomes an issue. Many of the great advances in science started out as one scientist telling another he's full of shit. Though perhaps, politely saying so.
You don't have to "believe" anyone. Really, the data is there. And very often the methods of analysis are as old as the hills, everyone uses them. There is no mystery at all. But I notice that almost nobody in the denier camp bothers with data analysis, going straight to the fear-mongering. Scary scientists! Loch Ness monster! Yeti! Boo!
Silly nonsense. The greatest tool we have for discovering and understanding the world is science. All the silliness about climate science is undignified in an intelligent species.
You fail to realize that collectively we have yet to demonstrate intelligence... ergo...
I take that back, there were the Montreal Protocols that were acted on....sort of...
I do think there is a good deal of intelligence at evidence here.
For example, some of these ZH deniers are extremely good at propaganda. Also, it takes fair intelligence to constructively lie to yourself. Cognitive dissonance is a tough foe, takes real effort to overlook the obvious.
So let's give credit where it is due.
However I continue to lack any hope or faith that humankind will take even the first step to save itself and instead will run straight into the wall of climate-driven limts, and at full speed.
Wow, talk about propaganda.
Note the disclaimer on the page.
"PLEASE NOTE: All of the temperature and precipitation ranks and values are based on preliminary data. The ranks will change when the final data are processed, but will not be replaced on these pages. Graphics based on final data are provided on the Temperature and Precipitation Maps page and the Climate at a Glance page as they become available."
That, and you can't get to these "extreme" temperatures without a 2 degree upward adjustment to the dataset.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/rawurban3.5_pg.gif
Not to mention, the CONUS only covers 2% of global area, far too small to be considered "a global" event.
This will be picked apart easily in the next few weeks.
While the US is about 2% of the area, the data clearly shows that 2012 was the warmest year on record in the US...
You seem to be trying to create a strawman that this is a global event...
Wait for the global SOTC for 2012 to come out next week or so...
In the mean time you should play with this...
http://skepticalscience.com/trend.php
No thanks, that hack site is pure propaganda.
Please link to data that shows the earth's atmosphere is not warming.
You misunderstand.
I'm not saying there has been no warming, I'm saying the data has been fudged and there is nothing significant about the warming we have seen.
Compared to the rest of the Holocene, we are quite cold.
DING-DING-DING!!! - WE HAVE A WINNER!
There are marine sediments all over the world which prove this fact, and most of the last 11,000 years was indeed hotter than now, and sea level ~4 to 5m higher than right now, as recently as 5,000 years ago.
Did it lead to the destruction of life on earth? - Why no, no, it didn't!
Did it lead to the assured demise of the great barrier reef? - Well, no, it's still there.
So what bad stuff happened? - Er, nothing, as far as we can tell.
So that data would imply more ice melted at that time than now, but then reformed glaciers thereafter? - Well, yes, I suppose it would!
So what's the problem? - hmm, ... the problem seems to be that various parasites are lobbying for some public sugar.
Were there 7 billion people around then? Wait till the mad scramble for arable land starts...make that continues. Damn you are dumb.
Stop trying to dodge the physical fact that humans did not drive that sea level change, fuckhead.
Try using your brain for once.
Well o stupid one, explain how even if humans were not involved in the past that would make it impossible for them to be involved now? I have seen Jr High students with better facts and debating skills than you.
It's not my fucking theory that they are! It's yours, clown!
You prove they are! I'm not going to try and prove a negative for you, you bloody idiot!
ROFLMAO!!
You guys, gezus! ...what a bunch of pathetic theory-obsessed ... lol .. I'm lost for words ... which doesn't happen often.
"I'm saying the data has been fudged"
Do you have any data showing that the data has been fudged? Cuz if you do I'm sure there are about 2,000 climate scientists would buy you dinner.
Cuz if you do I'm sure there are about 2,000 climate scientists would buy you dinner.
That tees up a saying I'm particularly fond of:
Just because a large number of people are in agreement does not make it true.
...and of course, it's twin:
Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it false.
A good lawyer once told me that rule #1 is to never try to make your case on cross examination. I'm still waiting for the link to an affirmative case that there is any relevance to changes in the temp of the atmosphere. (BTW, the earth's atmosphere warms acutely every morning on most days. I don't know how we carry on...)
Another good lawyer told me that pleading ignorance doesn't work and to plead insanity may only get you life in the looney bin...
...and did that lawyer get you acquitted? Or are you in a cell of padded walls reading L. Ron Hubbard novels?
So, you admit that all you have left is Ad hominems...
Law is not a science. In science there is no defense for none is required.
LOL...yeah, because the thousands of deniers that post to the site are being squelched (like they do to scientists on their sites)?
If you can find a more even-handed discussion with links to objective evidence, please bring it forward; until then, you're an ignorant troll who can't be satisfied by any amount of real proof and therefore can be ignored as completely as you do even the most basic science.
I can be satisfied by real proof. I'm positive water freezes at 32 degrees farenheit. Show me the equivalent in your conjured up theories and I'm all in.
(Take your time...y'all been at it since, what, the 60s?)
Whats the matter, you don't grasp what a ~14 sigma significance trend over the past 100 years means?
http://skepticalscience.com/trend.php
You know you're in the wrong distribution when you believe something to be discernable to 14 standard deviations. And I thought you were good at math.
Are you acquainted with the least bit of experience with statistics? Your statement would suggest otherwise...
Yeah...because someone not familiar with statistics would know that sigma means standard deviation.
No shit...
And what would be the significance of this trend expressed in units of standard deviation?
0.077 +/- 0.010 C / per decade (2 sigma)
I have no doubt that you are clear as to what that string of numbers and words is intended to say. For those who weren't in the room when you cooked them up (which is pretty much everyone), it's pretty hard to discern what you are saying (although it appears to be some sort of question).
Now that was a pathetic rejoinder on your part...
Face it you are out of your league...
Or is enjoying the game. I think some of these "idiots" are smarter than they pretend.
The game will end when it is over, and not before. I am afraid that nothing will be resolved in the public sphere.
If you cannot figure out how smart the "idiots" are, then it's a good bet they are smarter than you.
"it's a good bet they are smarter than you."
Not at all. I'm just a trusting person by nature.
The thought that people around me are playing out dreadfully evil fantasies takes a while to sink in. I consider that a virtue, not a vice.
Dreadfully evil fantasies like climate change being caused by people, the solutions for which must be deployed through central control and include and population controls, regulating consumption, mis-allocating capital to things like electric vehicles and wind farms, and so forth? Or did you mean the evil fantasies that take the form of seeing through the hoax that all that stuff is?
Funny, you are doing what you are accusing me of, yet somehow I'm the troll.
The use of the term "denier" proves it.
Happy reading.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting...
Oh, just FYI there's a paper in the works showing about half of U.S. warming is fudged.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/publications-and-projects/watts-et...
Yum. Fudge.
(oh...)
A denier site, paid for by energy companies. Who I should add are the largest, best organized and most professional league of liars the world has ever produced.
Funny how the asshats never noticed the AGW deniers have close ties to the same clowns that claimed smoking doesn't harm you....
Is that your scientific opinion, or just a veil for the reality that you know nothing about energy companies?
I'll agree it's getting hot in here. But does it have to be so dark and why the hell does everything smell like wicker?
Yeah, but what are ya gonna do?
We will all die in horrible weather related events or be forced to listen to people saying we will all die in horrible weather related events.
I don't know which is worse.
Move to high ground. Maybe Pocatello, Idaho.
Toady - comment of the day. Merci beacoup.
WTF?!? Seriously? You post this rubbish propaganda?
Im fucking speachless! POS statist propaganda-coverage on Zero Hedge?!
Fuck this shit!
Yea whats the point of this?
If NOAA had records going back about 4.6 billion years, I suspect last year's weather 'extremes' might look rather trivial. Time to stop worrying about global warming climate change and get started dealing with it in terms of better drainage systems, flooding preventions and growing grapes etc. The latter might even put the Frogs out of business :-)
Re: grapes, very unlikely, the Languedoc alone produces more grapes than the US...
Yeah, I love the Languedoc-Roussillion region, the best wine and sunny all year what more do yu want!
Probabaly the best wine value in the world currently....
Ding, ding we have a winner.. The myth of GW even if true presents unsolvable problems the way our societies are organized, we had better learn to live with it, if true, 150 year sample lol... Fracking has helped the US decline in its CO2 emiisions greatly but strangely I hear no applause from the left on this technology reducing the scary GW.
No, this like gun control is about control, not guns, not climate, control I for one am done debating the left's control fantasies...
Na, na boo-boo you cannot make me do what you want and if you try I will resist that is all your arguments in the end deserve as refutation. Unfortunately for them the left has inadvertently taught me too much about their tactics.
Well maybe because the CH4 leaks are almost more than compensating for any reduction in C02 it...
Anyone ever consider that instruments for measuring heat have simply gotten better and more accurate?
Sorry, but we have had good thermometers for a *long* time and we can measure temperature differences very accurately....
LOl, glass tubes with lines painted on them being read with the mark 1 calibrated eyeball of some teenager being paid a few nickels to write down where the top of some temperature sensitive liquid is between those painted lines is as accurate as the current digital self recording instruments.