This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

The US Recorded Its Warmest March In History And All We Got Was This Timelapse Video

Tyler Durden's picture


NOAA just released confirmation that the first quarter of 2012 was the warmest on record. The fact that we rely on 'seasonal adjustments' in macro data that are so critical in our seeming belief in the recovery of the US economy (and its extrapolation into how many iPads will be bought next month) when the temperature is 20% hotter than average is simply incredible.



U.S. records warmest March; more than 15,000 warm temperature records broken

First quarter of 2012 also warmest on record; early March tornado outbreak is year's first "billion dollar disaster"

Record and near-record breaking temperatures dominated the eastern two-thirds of the nation and contributed to the warmest March on record for the contiguous United States, a record that dates back to 1895. More than 15,000 warm temperature records were broken during the month.

The average temperature of 51.1°F was 8.6 degrees above the 20th century average for March and 0.5°F warmer than the previous warmest March in 1910. Of the more than 1,400 months (117+ years) that have passed since the U.S. climate record began, only one month, January 2006, has seen a larger departure from its average temperature than March 2012.

Note: The March 2012 Monthly Climate Report for the United States has several pages of supplemental information and data regarding the unprecedented early 2012 temperatures.

U.S. climate highlights — March

  • Every state in the nation experienced at least one record warm daily temperature during March. According to preliminary data, there were 15,272 warm temperature records broken (7,755 daytime records, 7,517 nighttime records). Hundreds of locations across the country broke their all-time March records. There were 21 instances of the nighttime temperatures being as warm, or warmer, than the existing record daytime temperature for a given date.
  • A persistent weather pattern led to 25 states east of the Rockies having their warmest March on record. An additional 15 states had monthly temperatures ranking among their ten warmest. That same pattern brought cooler-than-average conditions to the West Coast states of Washington, Oregon, and California.
  • Temperatures in Alaska during March, which are not included in the contiguous U.S. average value, ranked as the tenth coolest on record.
  • The nationally-averaged precipitation total was 2.73 inches, which is 0.33 inches above average. The Pacific Northwest and the Southern Plains were much wetter than average during March while drier-than-average conditions prevailed in the interior West, Northeast, and Florida. Colorado had its driest March on record.
  • According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, as of April 3rd, 36.8 percent of the contiguous U.S. was in drought, a decrease from 38.7 percent at the end of February and an increase from 28.8 percent a year ago on April 5, 2011. Above-average precipitation across the Southern Plains improved long-term drought conditions Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas.
  • Warmer-than-average conditions across the eastern U.S. also created an environment favorable for severe thunderstorms and tornadoes. According to NOAA's Storm Prediction Center, there were 223 preliminary tornado reports during March, a month that averages 80 tornadoes annually. The majority of the tornadoes occurred during the March 2nd-3rd outbreak across the Ohio Valley and Southeast, which caused 40 fatalities. Total losses from this event are estimated to exceed $1.5 billion dollars, making this the first event of 2012 to exceed one billion dollars in damages and losses.
  • On March 9, a large weather system impacted the Hawaiian Islands, bringing extreme rainfall and severe thunderstorms. A rare EF-0 tornado hit the towns of Lanikai and Kailua on Oahu, causing minor damage. A hailstone with the largest diameter on record for the state, measuring 4¼ inches, fell on Oahu during this event.

Year-to-date (January-March)

  • The first three months of 2012 were also record warm for the contiguous United States with an average temperature of 42.0°F, 6.0°F above the long-term average.
  • Twenty-five states, all east of the Rockies, had their warmest first quarter on record, and an additional 16 states had first-quarter temperatures ranking among their ten warmest.
  • Numerous cities had a record warm January-March, including Chicago, Boston, and Washington, D.C. No state in the contiguous U.S. had below-average January-March temperatures.
  • Alaska had its ninth coolest January-March period; temperatures were 5.2°F below average.
  • The nationally-averaged precipitation total for January-March was 0.29 inches below the long-term average. States across the Pacific Northwest and Southern Plains were wetter than average, while the Intermountain West, parts of the Ohio Valley, and the entire Eastern Seaboard were drier than average.
  • NOAA's U.S. Climate Extremes Index, an index that tracks the highest 10 percent and lowest 10 percent of extremes in temperature, precipitation, drought and tropical cyclones, was 39 percent, nearly twice the long-term average and the highest value on record for the January-March period. The predominant factor was the large area experiencing extremes in warm daily maximum and minimum temperatures.

Cold season (October-March) and 12-month period (April 2011-May 2012)

  • The cold season, which is defined as October 2011 through March 2012 and an important period for national heating needs, was second warmest on record for the contiguous U.S. with a nationally-averaged temperature 3.8°F above average. Only the cold season of 1999-2000 was warmer. Twenty-one states across the Midwest and Northeast, areas of the country with high annual heating demands, were record warm for the six-month period.
  • The previous 12-month period (April-March), which includes the second hottest summer (June-August) and fourth warmest winter (December-February), was the warmest such period for the contiguous United States. The 12-month running average temperature was 55.4°F, which is 2.6°F above the 20th century average.

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 04/09/2012 - 11:52 | 2328158 bank guy in Brussels
bank guy in Brussels's picture

Paging a delighted Al Gore ...

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 11:54 | 2328169 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

I thought they already changed it to "Climate Change" because they were not sure which way the temp was going?  Drats!  Al Gore is foiled again!

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 12:15 | 2328225 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

The only normal thing about the climate is that it changes.

Ice cores have shown that throughout time the climate changes drastically. In fact the correlation between carbon in the atmosphere and the temperature was completely spun (no shit) to make it appear that carbon led to higher temperatures. In fact, carbon levels LAG global temperature by about 600 years. The higher temperatures actually causes carbon levels to rise.

For whatever the reason, people refuse to concede to the fact that our sun (that big ball of fuck nuclear fission) that warms our entire solar system might, just might, have something to do with how warm (or cold) our planet gets.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 12:18 | 2328265 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Right.  Gore and the thousands of scientists who blame greenhouse gasses and correctly predicted the trend just made a lucky guess while the sun coincidentally picked now to start getting hotter.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 12:24 | 2328297 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

You do realize that the scientists are talking about global trends over years, right?   Let me guess -- you giggle and say "told you so" when Drudge runs stories about global warming marches being snowed out in a particular city, even when the earth as a whole warmed up that same year, right?

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 12:47 | 2328391 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

Let me guess. You giggle when scientists 40 years ago were predicting and ice age and everyone got paranoid about global cooling.

Then it was global warming.

Now it's "Climate Change"

Guess what? The climate changes...that's what it does. That's what it ALWAYS has done.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 12:49 | 2328410 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Surprised all the smart alecks here missed the biggest correlation-does-not-equal-causation reason for this..

Apple released it's HOTTEST product ever, Guranteed to rosast your Gonads AND/OR Ovaries for th enormally exhorbitant cost of an APPle proDUCT.

A Smouldering, Bitten Apple on your LapTops....FTW!!!


Mon, 04/09/2012 - 13:11 | 2328485 iDealMeat
iDealMeat's picture


"(that big ball of fuck nuclear fission)"

Nuclear fission does not produce plasma.Either
the surface of the sun (stars) is not plasma or
the sun isn't nuclear fission.

Sun is more likely an big iron infused carbon ball
stuck in an massive electrical current.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 13:14 | 2328498 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Don't worry 'bout Old Mr. Bob Dabolina...he reduced his carbon footprint by moving into his SUV and the backed up CO is pushing his already meager faculties over the line.

Breathe deep Bob!

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 13:24 | 2328553 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

Yeah, breathe deep Bob, welcome to our shower. It is very good for you :-)

More climate warming BS from the liars extraordinare. Hey, guys like Obamas science czar James Hansen would NEVER lie about the data and promote CAGW, would they????

My advice to the CAGW'ers. Suck off a car exhaust, and learn the difference between CO2 and CO. All of us will benefit from your new found knowledge.


Mon, 04/09/2012 - 13:33 | 2328581 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Do your knuckles drag when you walk?

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 13:49 | 2328637 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

Perhaps, but my dick also drags. Yours is too short except for Kari....

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 13:54 | 2328652 Badabing
Badabing's picture

oops i farted, heres money.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 13:54 | 2328655 narapoiddyslexia
narapoiddyslexia's picture

97% of all climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming.

The ignorati who pretend they know otherwise can't pull their heads out of their asses long enough to study a few minutes. They never will.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 14:20 | 2328760 narapoiddyslexia
narapoiddyslexia's picture

You barking dogs can junk me all you want. It is indisputable that 97% of all climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming. 

Here is an explanation -


Mon, 04/09/2012 - 14:31 | 2328817 SilverFish
SilverFish's picture

Sure.......  and 99 % of economic "experts" said there was no housing bubble either.  Did it ever occur to you that these "experts" livelyhood hinges on promoting the idea that we are causing climate change, and to say anything different would be putting themselves out of a job? Same goes with the so called economic experts as well.


Just about anything can be explained if you simply follow the money.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 15:09 | 2328980 narapoiddyslexia
narapoiddyslexia's picture

"Just about anything can be explained if you simply follow the money."

ExxonMobil money funds the denialist community. Its amazing that the consensus around this site is that banks are somehow bad, but oil companies that fund this denialist garbage are not?

If there are climate trolls here, they are the denialists.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 15:15 | 2328997 SilverFish
SilverFish's picture

Get back to me when you come up with an energy plan that doesnt involve putting trillions in Al Gores pockets and sending us back to the dark ages.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 16:16 | 2329210 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Trillions in Al Gores pockets.... Priceless bit of logic...

Sorry... but it appears that you are already living in the Dark Ages...

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 19:28 | 2329704 SilverFish
SilverFish's picture

So no solutions, huh?


Figured as much.



Mon, 04/09/2012 - 23:08 | 2330287 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Why would I even attempt to discuss solutions when I am surrounded by people that deny there is even a problem...

You might start here

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 23:56 | 2330378 Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

So where's my damn check? I have been denying global warming bullshit for years and so far the U of East Anglia has gotten more oil company money than I have.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 14:33 | 2328822 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

And I thought spring was Rabbit Season instead of Troll Season.

97% of scientists agree, and so that must make it true, just like housewifes on a Tide Commercial.

I thank you for the stupidity of your comment. It saves me a great deal of explanation as to why 97% of scientists agreeing is no more significant than 97% of theologians agreeing on how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 16:19 | 2329224 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Well, >99% of physicists believe in Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.... I guess they are also conspiracies and hoaxes...

Do you get your understanding of science from Conservapedia??

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 17:52 | 2329455 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

Quantum Mechanics and Relativity and CAGW are not the same.  Physicists rely on repeatable, verifiable experiments to support their theories. CAGW'ers rely on faked data, incomplete computer models, and ad hominem attacks to support their theories.  But since you think you are so fucking smart, it might be worth remembering that at one time 99 % of scientists believe in phlogiston and heavier than air flight was impossible.  At least the original physicists were not political activists masquerading as hack scientists.

But Gee, I forget, the science of CAGW is settled....HAHAHAHAHAHAH!  

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 22:45 | 2330242 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The science is very well settled, the quality of the data in some cases could be better....You do know that AGW was predicted in 1898? And you are aware that we verified the Green House effect with C02 in 1969 via satellite IR yes, the science is pretty much settled...

By the way, in all of your postings I don't recall a single bit of science...Please tell why me AGW is incorrect, aside from it impinging upon your sancrosant worldview...

What data was faked? How do you know it was faked? What would happen if you removed this data?


Would you like to discuss this prediction from 1975?

or this one from 1981

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 23:15 | 2330299 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

Sure the science is settled, why the great prophet Gore told us so. 

There are enough knowledgable posters on ZH that have done a very good job arguing your CAGW psuedoscience.  Instead, I look at what is really going on, to wit a fraud created to justify a global carbon tax to be spent by the UN, and a cap and trade market that will make the Banksters trillionaires. By their fruits ye shall know them, and what you offer humankind is servitude, poverty and a dismal future. No wonder outside of promoters like yourself, no one believes your BS. You are just taking your book.


As per the priests of CAGW, Carbon has become the new original sin, and treacherous swine like you want the rest of us to pay indulgences so you can eat while we work. Go fuck yourself.

Tue, 04/10/2012 - 01:05 | 2330449 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Sounds like your problem is with Al Gore....

Sorry that you don't like big government but that has nothing to do with whether AGW is right or wrong...

You cannot even put into your own words why the science (which has been around along time) is wrong...

Tue, 04/10/2012 - 11:42 | 2331336 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

backwards logic. The carbon tax proves nothing other than a universal truth - the government (and others) are  scam artists that try to make money off any tragedy, crises, etc. Nothing new

Please explain the rate and speed of change (not the fact of change) measured by the ice core samples

Please also tell me if mankind has effected his environment and then define the environment.

Finally, tell me why it is absurd to suggest that if you unearth half of the densest carbon energy form ever created, that took million of years to form, and burn it up into the atmosphere, why that would not have some substantial effect  

Tue, 04/10/2012 - 12:35 | 2331465 Revert_Back_to_...
Revert_Back_to_1792_Act's picture

Here is a little something on ice cores. 

This man is obviously committing denialist thought crimes by actually thinking and looking for data points.

He is also obviously a shill for the oil compaines?! I mean you can just see his wait...

Dare you to watch the whole thing.

then watch some of his debates with scientists.  See if you still hold on to your current worldview.



Tue, 04/10/2012 - 02:14 | 2330512 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

Yes! The phlogiston! I thought everyone had forgotten that. How about spontaneous generation, too??? Such a good point. Voting does not make it true. 99% of leftists think they can make it work!

Tue, 04/10/2012 - 04:24 | 2330598 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

If ihad a buck for every time a denialist invoked the 'consensus' strawman, I'd buy out ExxonMobil myself.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 14:32 | 2328825 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Total BS. 99% of climate change scientists believe in climate change. The other 1% are thinking about going into video game development. FACT!

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 15:06 | 2328968 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Let's see... I'm driving my car down the road & hit an unseen slippery patch of black ice... The car begins to swerve & the force of gravity puts the car into an uncontrollable spin... About midway through the spin, I flip on the radio... Then the car careens off the embankement & into a ditch...

Dammit! I should have NEVER touched that radio dial!

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 21:56 | 2330104 narapoiddyslexia
narapoiddyslexia's picture

If you think your little story trumps the work of thousands of scientists over decades then you're even dumber than you appear.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 21:56 | 2330105 narapoiddyslexia
narapoiddyslexia's picture

If you think your little story trumps the work of thousands of scientists over decades then you're even dumber than you appear.

Tue, 04/10/2012 - 12:43 | 2331558 Revert_Back_to_...
Revert_Back_to_1792_Act's picture

Here is a little something on ice cores. It relies on common sense and observation rather than science.  Enjoy.

I think I might get junked so here is some Thomas Dolby.

This clip from Blazing Saddles also comes to mind.


Mon, 04/09/2012 - 17:02 | 2329329 youngman
youngman's picture

And 97% of those 97% of all climate change experts have more than one child.....go figure...and a dog or two..and a cat or 5.....

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 13:40 | 2328604 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture



for all of you, that have not taken the time.. to watch the "SHRINKING" Polar Ice Caps with your own eyes?

for all of you not familiar with what a Gigaton of Poison looks like!

for all of you that have not taken off Your Koch Brothers Sun Glasses and are thusly following your "GUT FEELINGS!"

I would like to say thank you! from the Republicans and the Top 0.00000001% for helping to de-populate the World!

What we need are more Mountain Top Mining Operations!

What we need are Many More Gigatons of Poison Spewed into the Air we Breathe!

What we need (considering you country fuckin bumpkins cannot afford ocean / water front taxes) are MORE COAL Fired Electrical Plants in China (800)!

Without you people who ignore your own eyes and numerical facts! where would Rush Limbaugh and the Koch family be?

So a BIG.. NO!! HUGE!!! Thank You!! from them there kind of people you can see eye to eye with!

and dont forget!

deep down you know the truth! dont let some slick talkin Hippie show you and satellite images or numbers!


Mon, 04/09/2012 - 13:48 | 2328630 Michael
Michael's picture

2012 is considered Solar Max year, although 2011 looked like the stronger solar max at this point. Prepare for much colder winters going forward like the ones we had a few years ago as the Sun goes into a sleepy phase again.

Try some real science headlines;

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 14:07 | 2328702 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yep..... you might want to consider this

I think we are a little ways off from the next solar maximum....

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 14:16 | 2328743 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture



2012 is considered Solar Max year, although 2011 looked like the stronger solar max at this point. Prepare for much colder winters going forward like the ones we had a few years ago as the Sun goes into a sleepy phase again.

Try some real science headlines;


are you saying that Think Progress is not somehow Real?

ok.. but I wasn’t quoting them anyway.. but if I were you?? I would stay away from the Koch Brother Financed Science..

SO! how about we settle on M.I.T.?? or is that to, too technical for you?

as you can see below Cambridge and M.I.T. are trying to educate the World.. given the Fact that the ***Koch Brothers spend $100's Millions of Dollars.. trying to stop legislation that would cut their Billion Dollar Profits Margins by at least HALF! I doubt that M.I.T. / Cambridge will have the market saturation the Koch's easily realize with a war chest of that size.

Saturday, April 21, 2012

Climate Change Awareness Campaign - Rivers of Ice: What's Your Question?

4:00p–5:30p, Kirsch Auditorium, Stata Center

The Cambridge Science Festival is kicking off a question campaign urging festival-goers to voice their questions and begin a dialogue about climate change. "What is climate change?" "Why are glaciers melting and what happens to people who live nearby?"

Send us your questions, and plan to join us on Saturday, April 21st for our "Rivers of Ice: What's Your Question?" symposium featuring mountaineer and filmmaker David Breashears, and moderated by PRI's Marco Werman, with panelists Orville Schell, Susan Solomon, James Wescoat, and Graham Cogley.

Web link:




Lobbying Firm(1 result)

Lobbying Client(22 results)

Hide All

Top Contributor to Member(3 results)

Top Contributor to Candidate(2 results)


Mon, 04/09/2012 - 13:50 | 2328646 Manthong
Manthong's picture

No cosa grande..

The Cesium 137 will get us before the Chinese coal plants do.

Tue, 04/10/2012 - 02:17 | 2330514 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

The poles have melted before. And ice sheets were down in Tennessee. Do you suppose Republicans and conservatives breathe different air or drink different water? Do you suppose they like poison?


Mon, 04/09/2012 - 14:29 | 2328811 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture



Colombian Gringo

Yeah, breathe deep Bob, welcome to our shower. It is very good for you :-)

More climate warming BS from the liars extraordinare. Hey, guys like Obamas science czar James Hansen would NEVER lie about the data and promote CAGW, would they????

My advice to the CAGW'ers. Suck off a car exhaust, and learn the difference between CO2 and CO. All of us will benefit from your new found knowledge.

Obama's Science Czar is PRO! Population Control.

Thulsy Obama doenst do ANYTHING! to stop Global Wamring or anything to stop Poison from being Pumped into our Air Supply by the Gigaton!

which leads us to Sustainability!

which is really just a code word for Agenda 21!

Core Publications
Agenda 21

Links to Agenda 21 Chapters


???? | ?? | English | Français | ??????? | Español


Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.

Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.

The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of UNCED, to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. It was agreed that a five year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by the United Nations General Assembly meeting in special session.

The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio principles, were strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 26 August to 4 September 2002.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 15:46 | 2329110 Reese Bobby
Reese Bobby's picture

What brand of tin foil makes the best protective head-wear?

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 16:03 | 2329156 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture



I understand that you don’t like the facts presented..

I understand that because you don’t like the facts presented that you are angry.

I understand that because you are angry that you need an outlet for your anger.

I understand that like most Sheep you would rather be Blissfully Ignorant than have to come to terms with Reality.

Don’t worry.. There are Lots of Corporate Owned Media Channels to choose from that will help you forget the Truth you suffered here because of me.

You will be back in the Matrix in no time.. Like this never happened.

but! and I know I am reaching here.. if you would like to discuss what Obama's Science Czar has written in his book..

or! if you would like to discuss the United Nations Agenda 21 that ALL! Presidents have signed and agreed too..

I am more than happy to take in your perspective of the Executed Contracts that EVERY American President since Bush has entered into.. Or the writings of our Science Czar, John Holdren.


it is hard to let go of something that makes you feel good..


in favor of having to suffer being informed..


and then ridiculed for being informed because you feel compelled to help others be informed so that when QE 3, 4, or 10 doesn’t work and the markets do come undone (over a missed line of code or other reason) that at least the people.. that you care about?? have a chance of maintaining some kind of quality of life.  


Fox News: Obama Signs Agenda 21 Related Executive Order - Rural Councils


Mon, 04/09/2012 - 20:55 | 2329898 Reese Bobby
Reese Bobby's picture

#1  I too am a Reynolds guy.  If it's not broke, don't fix it.  Right?

#2  I am more fatigued than angry with kooks like you.

Early in this chain an open-minded person explained the simple and beautiful logic of this video:

You should watch it and either refute it or move on down the road.  You bore me, and I doubt I am the only one.


Tue, 04/10/2012 - 01:13 | 2330459 Michael
Michael's picture

I really like your input JW, but the current solar cycle is going to make a monkey out of all the so called carbon credit environmentalists. Did you see the sunspot number today?


Climate Progress forgot about the weather on the rest of the planet this past year.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 13:46 | 2328625 narapoiddyslexia
narapoiddyslexia's picture

The deranged denialists, like Bob, that frequent this site can't pull themselves away from Fox.

See the link -

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 14:36 | 2328833 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

Yeah, whatever.


Bet your gonads quiver when you see Kari Norgaard without her glasses <g>

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 15:05 | 2328964 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

ZH really should have an age requirement, particularly during the school vacation days. . .

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 12:56 | 2328428 knukles
knukles's picture

Si, exactamuno!
I remember sitting in Investment Policy Committee meetings discussing whether the so called projections of a new ice age were valid enough in fact as well as timing as to be considered in the investment process.
Many of the folks today predicting Global Warming (or whateverthefuckitiscallednow) were/are the same folks who were screaming about the New Ice Age.
For fuck's sake people, it's a bloody cottage industry which feed clothes and houses people regardless of the deceit and lies (Think politicians, bankers, big pharma, big agriculture, energy, etc.)


Don't forget that the heat shit storm is manifestly in the 48 lower states as Alaska is swimming in record snowfall and central Europe's just had a record for the books cold winter.
Talk about the fallacy of egocentric globalization.  If it happens in Des Moines, well then it's everywhere, isn't it?  They wouldn't print it if it wasn't true.


Mon, 04/09/2012 - 13:34 | 2328540 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Could you please back up the claim that the Warmist were the ones calling for an Ice age?

You are not allowed to simply make shit up and call it fact...

In the 1970's, there was a  small minority that thought a new Ice age was coming 6 out of 70 papers....

Here is an actual summary of the papers

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 13:51 | 2328643 V in PA
V in PA's picture

You are not allowed to simply make shit up and call it fact...


Unlike a 'Climate' scientist... 

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 14:09 | 2328716 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You have got to be joking....

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 14:37 | 2328846 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

No,  97% of us agreed that it was fun watching Flakmeister go down on Kari Norgaard. I guess that makes it true :-)

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 13:59 | 2328670 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture




Could you please back up the claim that the Warmist were the ones calling for an Ice age?

You are not allowed to simply make shit up and call it fact...

In the 1970's, there was a small minority that thought a new Ice age was coming 6 out of 70 papers....

Here is an actual summary of the papers



You see he is calling on Jesus AND!! following his GUT! just like Rush Limbaugh and the Evangelical Republicans told him too!

You should be so well trained!

Dancing Monky’s are cute.. just dont let them jerk off all over you.. which is code for dont get to close to one. better to watch from afar and enjoy the spectacle of someone else’s ignorance as they engage the dancing monkey.


Mon, 04/09/2012 - 14:22 | 2328777 knukles
knukles's picture

It was cited in a series of article out of the UK when the IPCC's internal memoranda exposing the manipulation of the data series and subsequent destruction thereof took place.  2 senior IPCC individuals were cited by name as to their prior association with the erroneous Golbal Ice Age scientific research 
With all due respect, I am not going to spend the time resseructing said articles for specific citation.   

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 15:32 | 2329063 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

Were you alive in the 70's? Its a pretty clear memory for anyone who was there and sentient.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 17:44 | 2329443 Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture

I was, and in school then.

A top notch English public(ie private) one.

Global cooling and the coming Ice Age ,was taught as fact.

Same religion ,different god.

Zealots seeking money for research.

History repeats,again and again ,and .............

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 18:13 | 2329513 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

So a cover on Newsweek and Time pass for scientific concensus with you...  Wow

I already posted the info  6 papers out of 70 dealing with future climate were pointing to a new Ice Age...

You guys love to make stuff up don't you

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 22:12 | 2330162 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

Look you fucking idiot, were you even alive then? I can only assume no. It was in the magazines, it was in all the newspapers and on the news. My sixth grade teacher scared the hell out of my entire class by telling us that by the early 21st century the mid Atlantic US would be under ice if we didnt do something IMMEDIATELY! Of course, all the great scientific minds agreed that we needed to blacken the polar caps to retain heat and avert the next ice age.

This was hammered hard in all media and in the schools. Any "deniers" were damned as unscientific troglodytes. According to all the media, the majority of scientists all agreed we were careening headlong into the next glacial period.

In that tiny little section of your brain not entirely ruled by your emotions, do you comprehend that this movie has been run before? Are you truly so abysmally dense that you dont understand that the media pounded the "fact" that science was universally behind this new Ice Age, and your looking on the fucking internet 35 years after the fact has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the reality of what happened?

You may well be right that only a few papers argued that, but in reality- in the real world here on planet Earth, it was trumpeted from the rooftops as scientific consensus in a worldwide fear campaign.

Now answer the damn question- how old are you? Were you alive and aware at that time? Or are you such a completely insane overly emotional asshole that you actually want to argue about what happened in a world you arent even fucking aware of with people who were actually THERE? At this pont I strongly suspect this is the case. I got my "Eco-Apocalypse" lecture from a public schoolteacher in early 1977- how old were you at that time?

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 23:15 | 2330303 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I entered University in 1978....I don't recall any such nonsense, only two magazine covers..... Wow, the only  hysteria in 70s that I recall was Disco and the appearance of womans pubic hair in Penthouse....

Since you don't like to read, here is a nice short video for you to enjoy

Tue, 04/10/2012 - 01:27 | 2330475 Element
Element's picture

In 1973 I clearly remember my science teacher telling our class that the Earth was drifting into a renewed glacial 'ice-age' phase.  It was being treated as the accepted mainstream science consensus. at that point, and roughly stayed this way until about 1985.

Then in mid-1986 the "greenhouse effect" THEORY and the CFC "ozone hole" menace, and caol-fired power station Scandinavian "acid rain" calamities all aired, simultaneously, in the global media ... everywhere, and all at once!  Then suddenly the scientists were talking about the precise reverse of what they'd been saying just a few years earlier.

Funny thing when that sort of thing happens.

It's called a global "propaganda campaign".  

then the UN was mobilised to ban CFCs, and ash filters placed on coal-fired power stations, to save Scandinavian trout.

And finally, the IPCC was set up to continue the global propaganda farce.

What would they say if we encountered the US mid-west dust-bowl conditions of the 1930s?

Come to think of it, wouldn't they just auto-blame it on "global warming", if that happened again, today?

Yes, indeed they would!  But would they be any more right today, than in the 1930s?  It's clearly not an unprecedented event.

 Well, in the 1930s they wouldn't have been, so how could they ever differentiate what is or isn't "global warming" related?

Because that is precisely the mentality of idiocy the IPCC was setup to generate among the impressionable stupid majority.

If you disagree with the propaganda of the day you get lambasted and belittled and you're drummed out.
When all the money and projects go into global warming 'research', well guess what happens?  

That's right bitchez, you then get a flood of thousands of little papers being published on global warming research, and virtually nothing else.

Se how that works?  You get no competition, and you have licence to claim a consensus of 'scientific' opinion and papers are on your side.

This is also a part of the global PROPAGANDA campaign. 

Then you get a bunch of tugid little flaks running around acting all pompously right and better informed. 
Can you guess how many fingers am I holding up ... and which one(s)?

Tue, 04/10/2012 - 02:30 | 2330522 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

All hot usual...

Did you sort out the inconsistencies I pointed out to you in Plimers work? You know, the places where he flat out contradicts himself in his own book almost from one page to the next?

Folks, this is the guy that completely accepts some poor accuracy C02 proxy data from 350 million years ago because his hero, Plimer, tries to overturn AGW using it. This is while denying the implications of far more precise data from more recent times....typical denier trying to cherry pick his data....

Let me guess, you are in Aussie coal mining business...


Tue, 04/10/2012 - 08:32 | 2330705 Element
Element's picture

Apparently you're allergic to the process of real science.

Well, rather than listen to your demented contrived agenda-driven claptrap Flak, people can just listen to what Ian Plimer says first-hand, and/or read his book, and decide for themselves if he's making compelling points.

Would that be alright with you?


Ian Plimer - Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science - October 24, 2009

Financial Sense NewsHour Interview:

Tue, 04/10/2012 - 10:02 | 2330895 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Heh, heh, heh....just like shooting fish in a barrel....

The nice people at skepticalscience put together a list of Plimers two-faced statements

Here is an example or 2:


Together with water vapour, CO2 keeps our planet warm so that it is not covered in ice, too hot or devoid of liquid water.   (Pg. 411 H&E)


Temperature and CO2 are not connected. (Pg. 278 H&E)


The Sun and atmospheric carbon dioxide were certainly major factors that controlled ancient climate. The Earth would not have received as much solar energy from the faint Sun as now and that energy received had to be held in a thick greenhouse atmosphere otherwise all water on Earth would have frozen. Fortunately, at that time, the Earth's atmosphere was very high in carbon dioxide and methane and the Earth did not enter a permanent icehouse.  (Pg 84, A short history of Planet Earth)


Modern global temperature trends are doing their best to show us that CO2 is not a driver of climate. (Pg 16 H&E)


Here is a more complete list

and finally a tour-de-force 64 page complete debunking of Heaven and Earth found here


I'd say that Plimer just says whatever is convienient at the time.... whether it is true or not or whether he really believes it....

I also like how he ducked Monbiot in a debate where we would have had his ass handed to him....

I would be wary of putting any trust into two-faced guys like this....

Further reading:

Wed, 04/11/2012 - 02:43 | 2333747 Element
Element's picture



"... just like shooting fish in a barrel..."


God you're a pathetic little fraud Flak, you're always compelled to pretend and insinuate that you're 'winning' or something. You seem to think spin and propaganda will make you appear or feel 'right'; you're just a laughable little ideologue (even though you preternd to not be interested at all in ideology!!!) who's plainly talking 100% pure bullshit and abstractive delusions.

You should ask your University for a refund on the grounds that you're patently too impaired and unable to learn that physical facts will ALWAYS trump low-grade intellectual theories, and that mere GIGO computer models, and their false founding assumptions, are at their best when completely ignored, and given no credence whatever ... for they certainly deserve none, and can NEVER be trusted to not be leading you up the primrose path.

But instead you've invest yourself in such quasi-'rational' risible slapstick pseudo-science crap! ... winning you are!!! ...  LOL

Now go worship a graven image of Al-gore or something, you dippy little pseudo-science mental-midget.



(and yes, ad-hominems are justified flak, you are clearly an ideologue, an unquestioning believer, so that's all you warrant chappie)

Wed, 04/11/2012 - 08:32 | 2334057 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

It goes without saying that the above post of yours is a childish response to the smackdown you received...

Plimer has been outed... Why don't you ask him if he has any conflicts of interests from his 2,000,000 shares of Ormil Energy (~.7% of the company)??? Or maybe being a Director of Queensland Coal Investments (as of Jan 2012) compromises his AGW integrity....

Hey, he probably was a very good geologist who sold his soul and scientific integrity for a few bucks....I don't have a problem with skeptics, I have a problem with people that purposely lie and decieve for thier own financial ends...

Now do you have anything of scientific substance  to add? I did not think so...


Fri, 04/13/2012 - 19:33 | 2342943 Element
Element's picture

Oh, I see fuckhead, ... you have a problem with Capitalism and economic development, and a problem with an actually informed guy who has pissed all over and totally discredited your pet-theory, and who is so re-assured by the physical evidence and observational experiences available to him through a life of scientific WORK, that anthropogenic warming is a flagrant MYTH, if not an outright concerted LIE backed by propaganda foisted by a throng of pretentious deluded imbeciles, so is using this expert knowledge wisely and INVESTING himself and his past productive material capacity in to private sector projects that make life better for millions and makes him a welcome and appropriately rewarding income as well.

And for this appalling crime he is an international bad-guy and a true evil-bastard in your eyes, and he should really not be involved in mining or resource development and extraction, of any form, and abandon his profession and go live in a yurt, and eat lentils. 

But all you are doing, Flak, is making a concerted and exquisitely gutless and cowardly attempt to ujustly blacken the name of a dedicated professional scientist who has done more productive WORK and made a greater contribution to humanity, in his average week of activities, than a retarded fool like you could ever hope to acheive in a life time, or a hundred of them.

You are a greedy shameless NET taker from productive humanity, as well as a shambolic lame petty arsehole.

You have established for all time that you are a total fucking LOSER and a wonton CRETIN.

And I am very confident you have never done a day of productive work in the private sector in your entire miserable hopeless wee existence.

You Flak are a PARASITE, sitting on the sidelines of the modern world, pitifully blaming humanity for things it hasn't done, but the Earth itself has, a multitude of times, and are stomping your cry-baby feet at a world, that you chose to not face up to and meet with unanimity ... simply because you can't, you don't possess such potential or capacities, so you sneer at those who do.



Tue, 04/10/2012 - 11:56 | 2331384 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

If Plimer's the best you got, then you really are on thin ice

Wed, 04/11/2012 - 02:30 | 2333711 Element
Element's picture

No dumb-dumb, the best I've 'got' is the GEOLOGY.

And I'm more than happy to stick with it, in perpetuity, like it does.
Geo = Earth

olgy = Study of

Seems all you've got is the usual BS of attacking the man and stupidly and tediously talking shit as you knit-pick over literature statements that can easily be qualified and clarified, if you cared to send Plimer an email.

But no, you're not actually interested in personal or intellectual honesty.

You'll just talk shit as you seek to deny the general thrust of what the GEOLOGY, the SCIENTIFIC study of the physical EARTH reveals about earth's known behaviour (no, not what Ian Plimer merely writes about, as I'm damn sure I could pull apart anything anyone has ever written, that really is an asinine level of integrity to valid points being made about actual facts), of the consistent pattern of CO2 not being a driver of Earth's heating, at all, but of Earth's heating being a driver of rising CO2 levels in the past.

i.e. the CO2 plainly does not cause the cycles of heating and cooling.  Something else does.  Almost certainly several factors generate such warming, without any need to refer to incidental CO2 fluctuations, which actually lag behind the processes and trends.

From observations we know this to be the case.

And also the fact that periods are observed where natural CO2 levels were much higher than now, but the earth is still had intermitant (100k year duratuion) advancing and retreating glacial to interglacial cycles, nested within a longer time-scale global iceage (containing scores of separate natural glaciation cooling and warming cycles, to temps much higher than now).

These are OBSERVED PHYSICAL FACTS of the earth.

So who's a 'denier' then dumb-dumbs?

You only have a truly lousy flakey theory.

And geology has scientifically observed and tested physical evidence, that is to the contrary.

It is the GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE which is doing the 'denying' of your pseudo-science BS theory, which you refuse to face is falsified by said evidence.

It's not Ian Plimer who is the denier, and nor is it me.

So I think I'll go with the physical evidence, that your theory is flat-out wrong, from the get-go.


I'm not interested in intellectual fashion-statements, but thanks anyway dumb-dumbs.

Wed, 04/11/2012 - 09:02 | 2334112 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Not one single verifiable claim, just a bunch of armwaving...

You typed:

i.e. the CO2 plainly does not cause the cycles of heating and cooling.  Something else does.  Almost certainly several factors generate such warming, without any need to refer to incidental CO2 fluctuations, which actually lag behind the processes and trends.

From observations we know this to be the case.

This is a remarkable claim, can you verify it? Can you cite a calculation or study that would stand up to a peer review to back this conclusion? You can't because it does not exist...

Now this claim:

And also the fact that periods are observed where natural CO2 levels were much higher than now, but the earth is still had intermitant (100k year duratuion) advancing and retreating glacial to interglacial cycles, nested within a longer time-scale global iceage (containing scores of separate natural glaciation cooling and warming cycles, to temps much higher than now).

What period are you referring to? What is your evidence?

I am sorry but whatever credibility Pilmer may have once had no longer exists....

Fri, 04/13/2012 - 19:22 | 2342975 Element
Element's picture

Plimer's work rests on Earth's geology, look under your sandals fuckhead, it exists and it is ABSOLUTELY credible--you feeble snotty little retard.

Tue, 04/10/2012 - 09:54 | 2330926 Ghostmaker
Ghostmaker's picture


A Small Sampling of 1970's Reports Warning of Global Cooling:

National Academy of Sciences Issued Report Warning of Coming Ice Age in 1975

Excerpt: “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.” - Newsweek - April 28, 1975 “The Cooling World”

NASA warned of human caused coming 'ice age' in 1971 – Washington Times – September 19, 2007

Excerpt: “The world "could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts,” read a July 9, 1971 Washington Post article. NASA scientist S.I. Rasool, a colleague of James Hansen, made the predictions. The 1971 article continues: "In the next 50 years" — or by 2021 — fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere "could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees," resulting in a buildup of "new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas." If sustained over "several years, five to 10," or so Mr. Rasool estimated, "such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

New York Times: Obama's global warming promoting science czar Holdren 'warned of a coming ice age' in 1971 – September 29, 2009 – By John Tierney – Excerpt: In the 1971 essay, “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age. They certainly weren't the only scientists in the 1970s to warn of a coming ice age, but I can't think of any others who were so creative in their catastrophizing. Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization and deforestation) were more likely to first cause an ice age. (See also: Obama Science 'Czar' John Holdren's 1971 warning: A 'New Ice Age' likely – September 23, 2009)

1977 book “The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age" - CIA Feared Global Cooling - Excerpt: In the early 1970s, top CIA thinkers concluded that changing weather was “perhaps the greatest single challenge that America will face in coming years”. As a result they ordered several studies of the world's climate, the likely changes to come and their probably effect on America and the rest of the world. The studies conclude that the world is entering a difficult period during which major climate change (further cooling) is likely to occur. That is the consensus of the Central intelligence Agency, which highlights the fact that we are overdue for a new ice age. Many climatologists believe that since the 1960s, the world has been slipping towards a new ice age. ....the evidence suggests that change will be a return to a climate that was dominant from the seventeenth century to about 1850. Soviet weatherman Mikhail Budyko believes that 1 2.8F drop in the average global temperature would start glaciers on the march. If the temperature should fall by another 0.7F, it could usher in a ninety-thousand year tyranny if ice and snow.

1975 Newsweek: "The Cooling World," Newsweek. April 28, 1975 By Peter Gwynne

Excerpt: The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. [...] The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.” [...] Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.

Professor Stephen Schneider converted from warning of a coming ice age in the 1970s to promoting of man-made global warming fears today. In the 1970s Professor Stephen Schneider was one of the leading voices warning the Earth was going to experience a catastrophic man made ice-age. However he is now a member of the UN IPCC and is a leading advocate warning that the Earth is facing catastrophic global warming. In 1971, Schneider co-authored a paper warning of a man-made “ice age.” See: Rasool S., & Schneider S."Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141 – Excerpt: 'The rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.” Schneider was still promoting the coming “ice age” in 1978. (See: Unearthed 1970's video: Global warming activist Stephen Schneider caught on 1978 TV show 'In Search Of...The Coming Ice Age' – September 20, 2009) By the 1980's, Schneider reversed himself and began touting man-made global warming. See: "The rate of [global warming] change is so fast that I don't hesitate to call it potentially catastrophic for ecosystems,” Schneider said on UK TV in 1990.

1975 New York Times: "Climate Changes Called Ominous,", June 19, 1975 - Harold M. Schmeck, - p. 31. Excerpt: “The most drastic potential change considered in the new report is an abrupt end to the present interglacial period of relative warmth that governed the planet's climate for the past 10,000 years. [...] The report also noted that periods of benign climate comparable to the present are unusual and have existed for about 8 percent of the last 700,000 years.”

1974 New York Times: "Climate Changes Endanger World's Food Output,", August 8, 1974 – Harold M. Schmeck - p. 35. Excerpt: A recent meeting of climate experts in Bonn, West Germany, produced the unanimous conclusion that the change in global weather patterns pose a severe threat to agriculture that could lead to major crop failures and mass starvation. [...] The drop [in global temps] since the 1940s has only been half a degree, but some scientists believe this is enough to trigger changes that could have important effects on the world's weather and agriculture.

1975 New York Times: "Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing, Major Cooling May Be Ahead", May 21, 1975 – By Walter Sullivan - Excerpt: Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable. Hints that is may already begun are evident. The drop in mean temperatures since 1950 in the Northern Hemisphere has been sufficient, for example, to shorten Britain's growing season for crops by two weeks.

1974 Time Magazine: "Another Ice Age," June 24, 1974 - Excerpt: However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. [...] Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth. [...] Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.

Newsweek admitted it erred in reporting on predictions of a coming ice age in the 1970's – October 24, 2006 - Excerpt: It took 31 years, but Newsweek magazine admitted it was incorrect about climate change. In a nearly 1,000-word correction, Senior Editor Jerry Adler finally agreed that a 1975 piece on global cooling “was so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future.” Even then, Adler wasn't quite willing to blame Newsweek for the incredible failure. “In fact, the story wasn't 'wrong' in the journalistic sense of 'inaccurate,'” he claimed. “Some scientists indeed thought the Earth might be cooling in the 1970s, and some laymen – even one as sophisticated and well-educated as Isaac Asimov – saw potentially dire implications for climate and food production,” Adler added. However, the story admitted both Time magazine and Newsweek were wrong on the subject – Newsweek as recently as 1992.

Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels, a prominent critic of the man-made global warming fears today, recalls how pervasive the coming ice age scare was when he was in graduate school. "When I was going to graduate school, it was gospel that the Ice Age was about to start. I had trouble warming up to that one too. This (greenhouse) is not the first climate apocalypse, but it's certainly the loudest,” Michaels said.

1970: First Earth Day Promoted Ice Age Fears – Excerpt: At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1970, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."

1976 Book: "The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun" By Lowell Ponte - Excerpt: "This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000."

Earth Day 1970: Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling: "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, who was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970's ( See Time Magazine's 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek's 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) converted into a leading global warming skeptic before his death in 2008. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it's absurd. Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added. (LINK)

Fire and Ice: Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can't decide weather we face an ice age or warming,” Business and Media Institute, By R. Warren Anderson, Dan Gainor, Dan (2006) - Excerpt: The media have warned about impending climate doom four different times in the last 100 years. Only they can't decide if mankind will die from warming or cooling.

1978: “Trends and Variations of Mean Temperature in the Lower Troposphere,” AMS Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 106, No. 3 (March), pp. 413-416. - Harley, W. S.

1971: "The Effect of Atmospheric Aerosols on Climate with Special Reference to Temperature near the Earth's Surface." J. Applied Meteorology 10: 703-14. - Mitchell, J. Murray, Jr.

Mitchell, J. Murray, Jr. (1975). "A Reassessment of Atmospheric Pollution as a Cause of Long-Term Changes of Global Temperature." In Global Effects of Environmental Pollution, edited by S. Fred Singer. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Even more on 1970's global cooling warnings here."


Tue, 04/10/2012 - 10:50 | 2331162 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

So a bunch of newspaper articles along with the real papers that I already referred to....

Here is a Schnieder quote from his paper:

An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

Would you care to comment what this factor of 4 would have entailed? You might want to first check this


Here is a cut and paste that I came up with:

In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences: "...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

In contrast to the 1970s, there are now a number of scientific bodies that have released statements affirming man-made global warming. More on scientific consensus...

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 13:41 | 2328612 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

Yeah, I don't know what heat lamp you fuckers have been lounging under but in my neck of the woods of California we are going through a mini Ice Age.

I am Chumbawamba.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 14:22 | 2328776 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture

in real simple terms.. what was once cold.. gets warmer.. and whart was once warms gets colder.. during the winter.. kind of a reverse..

Like the Winter Olympics in Canada.. when it rained in the Rocky Mountains of Canada but snowed in California at the same time..

You are bright enough to take this ball I just handed you and run it in for your own touch down.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 16:53 | 2329305 memyselfiu
memyselfiu's picture

Confirmation bias
In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.

Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.

As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.


Mon, 04/09/2012 - 19:59 | 2329778 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Somehow this seems to beg the question:

How many times did you have to read "The Neck of the Giraffe" before you gave your heart to Jesus?

jk (I'm sure you've never read that one.)

Tue, 04/10/2012 - 01:48 | 2330492 slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

so confirmation bias is a projection?

what kind of a moronic shrinkydink would take a reactive defensive "process" and dress it up as a search for a confirmation of a "rational" hypothesis?

this is the point.  science is based upon what? 

psychology!  why, of course!

is it warm in here?  or just me? 

Tue, 04/10/2012 - 12:05 | 2331428 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

"The air in here is pretty thin; I think I'll go outside..."-The Stranglers

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 20:39 | 2329865 hedgehog9999
hedgehog9999's picture

Everyone is right, they just got the timing wrong...... what will happen is a sudden warming which we are now seeing in spades, which makes gore and their ilk right followed by a sudden cooling into at least a mini ice age......

And that is bcause the Atlantic Conveyor Belt current would stop or even change direction as the polar melt run accelerates  which will trigger the at least mini-ice age which makes all the ice age proponents right, question is when?

I'd say soon within 20 years...... maybee less.....



Tue, 04/10/2012 - 01:53 | 2330496 slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

climactic boom and gloomy doom

first, the inflationary temp boom:  then, the deflationary kilocalorific implosion

austrian fuking climatology, BiCheZ!

cool as the drool on an eskimo's tool...

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 13:06 | 2328447 Transformer
Transformer's picture

And while the eastern US was experiencing this warm winter, the Arctic has more ocean ice than any year since we have been able to do satellite tracking, 20 years.  Anchorage  had the most snowfall since 1955, and the Polar Bears, who did not get the memo on AGW, are at their greatest numbers since the 1940's, and are becoming a huge problem in Alaska.  Europe had a cold winter,  and in the last 3 years, 5 of the coldest winters on record have been experienced in both hemispheres.  After our 2 previous very cold winters here in the US, a break was very welcome.

And it is the trend that counts.  No measurable warming in the last 11 years.  Definite cooling in the last 3-4 years, but not much of a trend....yet.   NASA is predicting a sunspot lull that could last as much as 50-75 years.  Last time that happened (the Maunder Minimum), the earth experienced the little ice age.  Politics aside, it looks like we could be headed for a change.  You know..... climate change, like happens all the time.  It just might not be in the direction the AGW folks were predicting.  Maybe that's why they changed the mantra.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 13:31 | 2328572 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Would care to comment on the volume of ice?  Naw, I didn't think so...

Would you care to comment on this paper

here is an animated GIF that summarizes it

If you want to cherry pick 11 years, let me cherry pick 1992 as a starting point....

or perhaps this tidbit of data

Considering that the amount of heat in oceans dwarfs the atmosphere, I would say things are still warming...

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 13:49 | 2328633 narapoiddyslexia
narapoiddyslexia's picture

The deranged denialists are not at that reading level, Flak... you're wasting your time.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 14:36 | 2328836 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

 Deranged or diabolical?

The underlying theme of the arguments of most deniers is that mankind is not ruining the Earth's environment, and only has a neglible impact. Therefore, the pollution of air and water, destruction of forests, poisoning of the land, and devastations of militarism may continue without interruption, or dreaded regulation.

That's not to disagree with those who oppose the false  plans of the TPTB  to preserve the environment. (e.g. make corn into gasoline).

I'm referring those who deny the scientific reality that humankind is definitely adversely impacting the environment, air, land, and water, and also probably adversely impacting the climate - and that something needs be done about it other than "deregulating business".

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 14:44 | 2328881 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

The underlying theme of the arguments of most deniers is that mankind is not ruining the Earth's environment, and only has a neglible impact.


Makes me laugh.

Actually, those US citizen deniers welcome the idea that some elements in humanity ruin the environment.

Incidentally, these elements correspond with people who have the slightest impact on the environment.

Self indiction is a big thing in US citizenism and US citizens, not humanity, are the engine of ruining the environment.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 16:55 | 2329311 memyselfiu
memyselfiu's picture


Mon, 04/09/2012 - 13:56 | 2328650 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

Hey Goofmeister, garbage in, garbage out. The Politburo published many statistics during the soviet era that turned out to be, put gently, fraudulent lies.

Out of respect for your CAGW religion,  I wil at least allow you to practise your deluded beliefs, rather than send you to a mental hospital, like your beautiful soulmate Kari Norgaard would recommend for the heretics.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 14:22 | 2328769 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Do you have anything to add or do you just fling your own shit like a monkey in a cage?

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 18:02 | 2329481 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

CAGW is a fraud designed to impose global carbon taxes upon every human.  CAGW was created by political activists,   promoted by government, funded by banksters, shilled by second rate hack scientists.   Hope that helps :-)

Tue, 04/10/2012 - 12:08 | 2331441 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

last time I checked oil interests have a lot of "political activists, banksters, and second rate scientists" too. Are you suggeting that carbon based energy corporations (1) have no political weight, (2) do not affect our policies , and (3) do not put out "bullshit science?"

they create false wars for God's sake.

The tax proves nothing on the science board


Mon, 04/09/2012 - 22:13 | 2330165 mkkby
mkkby's picture

You are debating with idiots who have never taken a science course in their lives.  But they watch fox news, so they're all confident they know everything.

Nothing can be done about it anyway.  Peak oil and other resources will fix the problem soon enough.  In 100 years the population will be noticably declining.  In 200 mankind may be living sustainably -- no choice.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 23:20 | 2330312 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

So you agree then that we don't need to pay carbon taxes.....Thank you.

Tue, 04/10/2012 - 02:22 | 2330516 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

I actually have an engineering degree and studied climate as an interest and part of my military training. The easiest thing to do is dismiss your opponents as morons. Frankly, it turns back on you.


Mon, 04/09/2012 - 13:56 | 2328661 g speed
g speed's picture

instructional to be sure Flak--would you care to venture a guess as to what would be the optimum temperature for the globe? In fact wouldn't a little warmer be a good thing--or should it be a little cooler humm? Or is it like Goldy Locks' porridge and just right?  Do you think all the water will evaporate into space? Do you think the Zeta would let that happen with the poles changing and the world being underwater and all? Aren't they warning us about the earth swaping poles? If you want to be serious about this then give us the Zeta web address where we can get the real truth. Make sure they incude a time line that makes sense -- 100million years should show a trend --ya think?

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 14:11 | 2328729 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Quit with the red herrings....


Mon, 04/09/2012 - 14:45 | 2328885 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

In fact wouldn't a little warmer be a good thing--or should it be a little cooler humm?


A bit of inflation is good too...

Tue, 04/10/2012 - 12:13 | 2331463 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

now g, once you demonstrate that this is all under control, you'll have a relevant point. By the way, to what location were you referring for this optimum increase? The mid section of Africa? The southwest? What about optimum ocean height say in Indonesia?  

As long as we're talking timeline, explain the rate of change of carbon parts against all other time periods measured. Has the earth ever expereinced this? Are you sure of its affect?


Mon, 04/09/2012 - 13:58 | 2328666 V in PA
V in PA's picture

Global Sea Ice 1979 to Present


Never more than 2 standard deviations away from 1979-2008 mean

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 14:07 | 2328701 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

Yes, the Area.

Not the Volume, which wouldn't exactly be conductive to the denialist idea of nothing going on.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 14:17 | 2328737 V in PA
Mon, 04/09/2012 - 14:57 | 2328929 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

For the basis of comparison, I prefer this one for September....

I sure do see a lot of open water....

Care to comment on this data??? You know, the volume not the area of ice...

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 23:57 | 2330380 Flakmeister
Tue, 04/10/2012 - 00:05 | 2330399 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Classic Tamino....

Almost as good as this one....

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 14:41 | 2328865 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

Quoting KariFlakmeisterlover,


Would you care to comment on this paper

here is an animated GIF that summarizes it

If you want to cherry pick 11 years, let me cherry pick 1992 as a starting point....

or perhaps this tidbit of data"


Good examples of all the best science Bankster money can buy......

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 15:01 | 2328946 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

My what a cunning riposte....

You just might be the saddest sack of shit to ever grace the Hedge...Do you also preferentially breathe through your mouth?

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 15:12 | 2328992 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You mad?  You shouldn't be.  With Trav gone, you are now the senior death worshipper here.

Funny that you can't see the inanity of bitching about global warming while also screaming about peak oil.

But then, maybe you are just hedging your bets, ensuring that no matter what happens, you have something you can point to that says "we're all going to die sometime between now and next Thursday".

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 16:16 | 2329211 respect the cock
respect the cock's picture

Did Trav get banned?  Wondering why I haven't seen him on here in awhile...what was the last straw?

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 16:46 | 2329291 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

I miss Trav...

No offense to you cliff (at all)... I used to like your debates (both sides mostly)...

Tue, 04/10/2012 - 02:00 | 2330502 slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

i heard he got laid and he's in recovery for like 2 more weeks

Tue, 04/10/2012 - 12:16 | 2331474 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

fuck that's funny

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 21:01 | 2329915 Incubus
Incubus's picture

black people got him

Tue, 04/10/2012 - 00:41 | 2330427 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

The promotion of Peak Oil is the promotion of resource scarcity.

The promotion of Global warming promotes alarm and false cures like carbon taxes.

Carbon taxes reduce wealth and resource freedom resulting in de-industrialization and collectivization of people and commerce by Malthusian bankster central planners that create artificial scarcity from fiat like they create debt from nothing.  Both are yokes for control and the engineering of a de-populated society around the techno-feudalistic framework of Agenda 21 so that the elite can truly rule.

It's all connected and clearly marked by the recurring feces of the whores that continually pimp these mutually related memes.  Notice they never argue or show alarm about real toxic threats to the people: GMO, Fukishima, Sodium Fluoride, Geo-engineering....funny how their great intellect is silent on these threats and never offers constructive arguments to deal with global population growth...only using its alarm as a clarion call for greater resource scarcity fear.

Death worship is the stock and trade of the Malthusian elite...and their minions.

Tue, 04/10/2012 - 12:52 | 2331500 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

"Funny that you can't see the inanity of bitching about global warming while also screaming about peak oil."

let's walk down that logic. If oil is indeed the densest form of energy ever naturally produced, then makind would build their entire civilization around it, no? If it was formed by unique concurrent events over millions of years, it would be limited. At some point, it would begin to get harder and harder to extract, no? At the same time, if we took a tremendous volume of this stuff and burned it into the atmosphere in say 100 years, that would be a "unique" earthly experience, right? It may have some, how shall we say, "unique" affects.

Now how again is it insane to examine both? 

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 13:51 | 2328647 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"And while the eastern US was experiencing this warm winter, the Arctic has more ocean ice than any year since we have been able to do satellite tracking, 20 years."

False. The arctic ice volume is at an all time low while there has been ice estimations and surveys. Recall that ice AREA does not equal ice VOLUME.

"Polar Bears, who did not get the memo on AGW, are at their greatest numbers since the 1940's"

Because of a ban on land hunting in Canada, yes.

"Europe had a cold winter,  and in the last 3 years, 5 of the coldest winters on record have been experienced in both hemispheres.  After our 2 previous very cold winters here in the US, a break was very welcome."

Exactly in line with expectations, which is more climate variability, and more extreme weather events.


"No measurable warming in the last 11 years."

Flat-out false. Debunked here:

"Definite cooling in the last 3-4 years, but not much of a trend....yet."

The 40-year tende is quite clear still.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 15:13 | 2328994 mc_LDN
mc_LDN's picture

Lots of chat about the Arctic, What about Antarctica? I would hazard a guess probably more important.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 16:48 | 2329284 ATM
ATM's picture

"Ice estimations and surveys". In other words artic ice volume is calculated using a computer model. Sea ice extend is measured directly via satelite observation.

Polar bears are supposed to be drowning due to the lack of ice. That was the story sold but it isn't happening and it hasn't been happening. If Canada has banned "land hunts" that's news to me. Nobody hunts polar bears on land in Canada because the hunts are done in winter out on the ice where the bears live and those hunts are very much active. You could even book one if you had any money.

"More climate variablility". Would you care to produce the actual data to support the "more variability" claim? 

Global temps? How about simply using the satelite data? That's a nice constant number that keeps going up...


Or maybe it went up and now it's going down.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 18:50 | 2329612 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

""More climate variablility". Would you care to produce the actual data to support the "more variability" claim? "

To start out with, a theoretical foundation is what you should be looking for. Without that, i could supply you a ton of data, and you wouldn't be able to use it for anything.

Af for that, i refer you to the IPCC WG1 papers.

"Or maybe it went up and now it's going down."

Up on the 40 year trend and down on two doesn't convince anyone else than a denialist that "warming has stopped".

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 18:56 | 2329632 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

As for the Polar Bears:


(Right, they don't get hunted on land. My bad. My knowledge of bears is rather slim I admit, and irt. the debate of climate change rather uninteresting. The only reason they get this much attention is that the Gore-haters desperately need some ammo against whatever he has said, and the polar bears is probably the one point where he was the least accurate in his inconvenient truth thing. In any case, correction acknowledged.).

Tue, 04/10/2012 - 01:32 | 2330481 Element
Element's picture

I have a theory that states that 'Death and Gravity' is really 'Flakmeister' playing silly buggers.

Tue, 04/10/2012 - 01:29 | 2330479 Element
Element's picture



And while the eastern US was experiencing this warm winter, the Arctic has more ocean ice than any year since we have been able to do satellite tracking, 20 years.


schhh!! ... you're really fucking up a neat little story mate.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 13:46 | 2328628 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

Yeah, we laugh Rand since we know you liars work for the Banksters, who want to force carbon credits upon us, make us pay for the right to breathe. Hey, if you really believe in your CAGW religion, and believe humans are bad for creating CO2, lead by example and kill yourself.


I guess Carbon Dioxide is the new original sin, eh Asshole?

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 13:54 | 2328657 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"Yeah, we laugh Rand since we know you liars work for the Banksters, who want to force carbon credits upon us, make us pay for the right to breathe. Hey, if you really believe in your CAGW religion, and believe humans are bad for creating CO2, lead by example and kill yourself.


I guess Carbon Dioxide is the new original sin, eh Asshole?"


Thank you for illustrating how emotionally unstable your typical denialist is.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 13:59 | 2328671 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

I guess this means you need to treat me for my denialism al a Kari Norgaard?  You are the fanatic trying to force your religion on me. I just want to be left alone.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 14:09 | 2328721 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"You are the fanatic trying to force your religion on me. I just want to be left alone."


You are delusional. I'm not trying to force anything on anyone, I am however insisting on facts and not lies and distortion being the deciding factor in making ones opinion. As it is now, denialist fabrications, sponspored by Big Coal and Big Oil in the US, has heavily slanted the US public opinion and policymaking process.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 14:38 | 2328850 tmosley
tmosley's picture

And yet AGW researchers get 100X as much funding in grants alone as all the denialists get from all sources of funding.

If you are going to talk about biases, you need to talk about biases on BOTH sides, and find a way to control for them.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 14:44 | 2328879 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

Quoting death and stupidity


"You are delusional. I'm not trying to force anything on anyone, I am however insisting on facts and not lies and distortion being the deciding factor in making ones opinion. As it is now, denialist fabrications, sponspored by Big Coal and Big Oil in the US, has heavily slanted the US public opinion and policymaking process."


and why is it that your 'science' is always demanding money from me? I understand that you are talking your book and selling your scam, but your hustle is dead and it is time to find a new fraud. Let it go.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 14:52 | 2328914 knightowl77
knightowl77's picture

CO2 is not a threat to our planet. Idiots who side with Al Gore are.....


The temprature variations are caused by (wait for it..........) the Sun....


The LAST Ice Age ended more than 10,000 years ago, and since then we have been generally warming....Get it, the Ice Age ended, and since then we have been generally warming, though there have been several periods of warmer tempratures than now....

We've had the Medieval Warm Period which was almost 2 degrees warmer than it is now...

Now if you can explain why the last Ice Age ended long before the 1st SUV appeared or why the Medieval Warming Period was warmer than it is now.....even though there were no factories or (evil ) coal fired plants then I might give you some creditability

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 15:05 | 2328965 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Trotting out tired old discredited arguments....

The MWP was not global and it sure as hell was not warmer than now....

Maybe you could explain the figure here:

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 15:16 | 2329002 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Whoops, wrong again, at least according to a new study:

Let's see if new evidence changes your mind or if you remain a death worshipping zealot.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 18:19 | 2329528 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yep,,, did you read what the author of the paper said about sites like WUWT misrepresenting his work?

Still claiming that Roundup is not an Endocrine Disruptor? Are you Cliff? 

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 15:48 | 2329115 knightowl77
knightowl77's picture

Neither old nor discredited....and recent studies do show that the "MWP" was WORLDWIDE, not just in Europe and yes it was WARMER by almost 2 degrees than it is today....


Nor does your skeptical science fraud website explain why we have been warming since the last age....when as far as I can tell there were no Hummers tooling around????

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 18:24 | 2329541 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Really, could you point me to these studies? And blog entries at WUWT don't count...

And don't bother with Loehle 2008 either....

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 19:48 | 2329758 knightowl77
knightowl77's picture

hmmmm so you only accept "certain" studies????? Do you believe that it has not been warming since the end of the last Ice Age? That the glaciers have not been retreating for more than 9700 years before the 1st factory? Do you believe the temprature was a constant until say 1800? Or has the temp varied UP and DOWN over the centuries??? W/O any SUV's or factories, how is that, if man is the culprit? How?

Cuz, it is the SUN and it is and has been out of our control

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 23:31 | 2330332 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I accept peer reviewed studies published in reputable journals...

Care to discuss what the Vostock ice cores are telling us?

Do you know what a strawman is? If so, please stop... the ones you are using are not very good ones...

What are the three main drivers of changes in the climate? Do you think that different ones can dominate at different times?

Do you think that dumping 200 million years of sequestered carbon back into the atmospher over a 200 year period is not going to change anything?

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 15:41 | 2329089 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

@ Columbian Gringo,

I guess this means you need to treat me for my denialism al a Kari Norgaard?

you need to upgrade your insults, your obsessive use of Kari Norgaard to mock other posts is boring and childish.  in that infamous thread there was a post which showed how the "treated" word attributed to her was in fact written by the UofO and that shrill mouthpiece Rush Limbaugh gratefully ran with the ball:

The subject of the bloggers’ ire appears to have sprung from an inaccurate description of Norgaard’s work that appeared in a UO news release.

It said: “Resistance at individual and societal levels must be recognized and treated before real action can be taken to effectively address threats facing the planet from human-­caused contributions to climate change.”

Norgaard’s study, which she is working on with professor Robert Brulle at Drexel University in Philadelphia, actually suggested that societal resistance to the idea of climate change should be recognized and addressed through “dialogue,” Brulle said.

But bloggers seized on the words “and treated” in the UO news release, and spread a mushrooming and false story that Norgaard had delivered a paper in London that called climate skeptics “sick” or “mentally ill” and in need of “psychoactive drugs.”

“This is a complete perversion of the whole intellectual project that’s going on,” Brulle said. “It’s an absolute, utter distortion.”

Limbaugh extrapolated about Norgaard further on his website: “This is the kind of person that Obama would hire,” he said. “This the kind of person Obama has hired. This is the kind of thinking that Obama believes and sponsors.

and now YOU run with the dis-info ball, spreading more bullshit around - all the people who just like to hear something and repeat it have a field day with attacking the person, and never investigate the story, because you're not interested in the truth, you're interested in getting as much attention for yourself as you can.

young boys in school always find the "ugliest" girl to mock, and they always use this person to bully other boys with, and they always refer to this in sexual terms. this is how they learn to be men in their cultures, by policing each other towards the end goal.  you've been clinging to this method since that w/e post appeared, and used your grade school sexual memes a few times already in this thread.  since you've hinted here that your balls have dropped, how bout you

grow. the. fuck. up.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 18:39 | 2329578 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

Hey,  check this out Cath Aura,


One of the original sources was from the Daily Mail, not from Rush or UofO.


Or how about this paper by Kari, right from the horses mouth:

Nonresponse or denial is further fueled by the organizational culture of institutions, social inertia, and social accommodation (Beamish, 2001, 2002). Why

and how middle-class and wealthy people perpetuate environmental problems

is as important to the field of environmental justice as critical White studies is

to the field of race, or masculinity is to the study of gender. For people of color

living on low-lying Pacific islands or struggling from flooding in New Orleans,

the key questions of the moment may be how to effectively organize to bring

attention to their plight and justice to their lives.'t%20Really%20Want%20to%20Know.pdf


Environmental justice for CAGW deniers?

For what it is worth, I did not mock high school girls for being ugly because I was too busy trying to get laid.  And I sincerely apologise for calling attention to Kari's appearance, since the ugliness within far exceeds the outer appearance (but as one of my fellow ZHer's put it, she would scare a dog off a meat truck )

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 19:17 | 2329675 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

gringo, your Daily Mail link that was used here at ZH is the point being made by ZH poster caramba's original post, which I used above - the point being that the Daily Mail - not the most deep thinking of newsy papers, as clicking on your link illustrates in the right sidebar - attributes words to KN that she did not use, and the flames began from that:

The professor, who holds a B.S. in biology and a master's and PhD in sociology, argued that ‘cultural resistance’ to accepting humans as being responsible for climate change ‘must be recognised and treated’ as an aberrant sociological behaviour.

so all of this drama comes from a desire to create controversy that has nothing to do with the actual topic - and the use of her unflattering pictures of course feed that fire, and get all the culture-police out there - again, look at the right sidebar at the DM, and see how women's bodies are used by media to keep the culture dumbed down and self involved, and increasingly now, men's bodies as well.

I don't give a damn about the "global warming" or "cooling" or whatever the back 'n' forth narratives are - I understand the tool that Gore is, and how he works it for the UN, and other globalist alphabet agencies - if folks want to argue THAT story, fine - but to repeat false stories, and use those stories for page hits at the expense of seeking truths behind media "news" - if I want that, I can create an account at the Daily Mail - their comment threads MIRROR these in the concentration on what KN looks like, vs. what she actually wrote or said.

and you've milked the meme enough now - it's lowbrow to keep repeating this - her appearance is none of your business, irrespective of whether you're trying to "get laid" or not. 

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 20:51 | 2329892 MobBarley
MobBarley's picture

Just goes to show you how important appearance is.
Visions. Dreams. Pictures. Images.

Picture this.
You and I walking along a beach holding hands.
I still can.

Mon, 04/09/2012 - 23:28 | 2330328 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

Hey Cathy Aura

Believe me when I say that I do not want to remember Kari's appearance.  Even a set of Beer Googles couldn't fix her.  


But let me guess, as a womyn, you are defending your own, even as the likes of her would send you to re-education if your opinions did not conform to hers.  How pathetic. 

Tue, 04/10/2012 - 02:08 | 2330504 slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

perhaps you have enraged a bull?

Tue, 04/10/2012 - 14:50 | 2332126 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

again with the labels, your invented box to put me in so that you can continue with your name-calling. . .

I've said it before, but it's probably beyond your ken to understand what I'm saying - I am not a "woman/womyn" or any said derivative that others use, I am a female human, being.  I don't do labels, they're a shortcut for lowbrow thinking - on BOTH artificial sides.  I did my thorough research, and I know that humans present on a sliding scale of hormone & body representation - it is not "either/or, male/female" - that's an artificial social construct used to keep people penned and under control - people like YOU think you benefit from cultural policing when in fact you suffer along with the rest of the mind-control herd.

and slewie - you can try on the "bull" (as in dyke? lordy, lmao) to label me, but we went through this whole drama a few weeks ago, and YOU have a fully closed mind on this subject - how can you continue to maintain your ill-usion if you acknowledge something outside your box?

face it dudes, the light is flooding the scene, and you're shriveling.

Tue, 04/10/2012 - 16:22 | 2332653 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Sometimes I wonder if it is really worth the effort to post here....

The old ZH crew has been replaced by a bunch of closed minded boetians that combine every undesireable aspect of the American Conservative Male....

It really makes you wonder at what kind of society these misfits could actually construct..... 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!