Guest post by Alan Caruba
Full disclosure: Years ago I received a small stipend from The Heartland Institute to help cover the costs of writing articles regarding the global warming hoax, well before it was exposed in 2009 when emails between its perpetrators—the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—revealed the total lack of real science involved. I have continued to expose the hoax without any support from Heartland or any other entity.
A total of six conferences on climate change have been sponsored by The Heartland Institute. I attended the first conference in New York City in 2008 and my initial observation was that virtually no one from the press was there and the meager coverage it received disparaged it.
This week, a major smear campaign against the Institute erupted as the result of an act of deception and thievery that may well result in criminal charges against its as yet unknown perpetrator.
The President of the Institute, Joe Bast, immediately informed its supporters, directors, donors and friends that someone pretending to be a board member had sent Heartland an email claiming to be a director and asking that documents regarding a January board meeting be re-sent.
A clever ruse, but the result was that elements of the confidential documents were then posted on a number of so-called climate blogs and from there to various members of the media who, with the exception of The Guardian, took no steps whatever to verify the authenticity of the documents, some of which Heartland says were either a concoction of lies or altered to convey inaccurate information.
The leading disseminator of the global warming hoax, The New York Times, published its version on Wednesday, February 15th, titled “Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science.”
Suffice to say, the “climate science” served up by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been a pack of lies from the day it first convened. Its “science” was based on computer models rigged by co-conspirators that include Michael Mann of Penn State University and Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia.
The original leak of their emails in November 2009 instantly revealed the extent of their efforts to spread the hoax and to suppress any expression of doubt regarding it. A second release in 2011 confirmed what anyone paying any attention already knew.
The “warmists”, a name applied to global warming hoaxers, launched into a paroxysm of denial that has not stopped to this day. Their respective universities have since engaged in every possible way to hide the documentation they claimed supported their claims. Suffice to say, the global warming hoax was the golden goose for everyone who received literally billions in public and private funding.
We have reached the point where the warmists have been claiming that global warming causes global cooling! Along the way the bogus warming has been blamed for thousands of utterly absurd events and trends. What really worried the perpetrators was the fact that the planet had entered a cooling cycle in 1998.
At the heart of the hoax was the claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) was causing the Earth to heat and that CO2 emissions must be reduced to save the Earth. Next to oxygen, CO2 is vital to all life on Earth as it sustains all vegetation which in turn sustains every creature that depends on it as a source of food. It represents a mere 0.033% of the Earth’s atmosphere and is referred to by warmists as a “greenhouse gas.” It is, as any meteorologist or climatologist will tell you, the atmosphere that protects the Earth from becoming a dissociated planet like Mars.
The New York Times article is a case study in bad journalism and bias on a scale for which this failing newspaper is renowned. The Times reported that “Leaked documents suggest that an organization known for attacking climate science is planning a new push to undermine the teaching of global warming in public schools, the latest indication that climate change is becoming part of the nation’s culture wars.”
Wrong, so wrong. Polls have demonstrated that global warming is last on a list of concerns by the public. It barely registers because the public has concluded that it is either a hoax or just not happening. Teaching global warming in the nation’s schools constitutes a crime against the truth and the students.
The Times article makes much of the amounts some donors to Heartland have contributed, but in each cited case, with one exception, the donations had nothing to do with its rebuttal of global warming science.
“It is in fact not a scientific controversy”, said the Times article. “The majority of climate scientists say that emissions generated by human beings are changing the climate and putting the planet at long-term risk, although they are uncertain about the exact magnitude of that risk.”
The exact magnitude is zero. Thousands of scientists have signed petitions denouncing global warming as a hoax. The Times lies.
A post at The Daily Bayonet on February 14th said it well, “What the Heartland documents show is how badly warmists have been beaten by those with a fraction of the resources they’ve enjoyed. Al Gore spent $300 million advertising the global warming hoax. Greenpeace, the WWF (World Wildlife Fund), the Sierra Club, the National Resources Defense Council, NASA, NOAA, the UN and nation states have collectively poured billions into climate research, alternative energies, and propaganda, supported along the way by most of the broadcast and print media.
The Times will continue to publish lies about global warming, as will others like Time and Newsweek magazines. The attacks on Heartland and the many scientists and others like myself who debunk this fraud will continue, but their efforts are just the dying gasp of the greatest hoax of the modern era.
There’s a reason the theme of Heartland’s sixth conference in 2011 was “Restoring the Scientific Method.” Real science does not depend on declaring “a consensus” before the hypothesis has been thoroughly tested, a process that often involves years of effort. Meanwhile, the planet continues to cool.
> Sounds deeply imaginary, but since you provide no cite it can’t be checked.
The link is a 404, but from the pic I think you mean “Slaying the sky dragon”. That’s a pop-sci book; you spoke about science, I was expecting a proper journal paper.
> by linking to the assertions of an anonymous blogger?
Not really. Tamino is a pseudonym, but his real name isn’t hard to find. Indeed, you found it. And what he presents is the data. Indeed, if you want to download and play for yourself he makes it available.
> But isn’t the point of this paper to demonstrate that natural variability overrules the effects of CO2? The paper states: “When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations…
Well done. You’ve actually read something by someone you disagree with – that is better than 99% of the folk here. But you haven’t read it carefully enough: the key you missed is “short-term”. We know there is natural variability which complicates the assessment of trends. The traditional and easy way to solve this is just to look at trends over periods longer than the fluctuations – so, maybe 30 years. Foster and Rahmstorf try another way, which is to remove those short-term fluctuations that can be identified, which allows the longer term trend to be seen more clearly.
> is that consistent with the IPCC AR4 claim that CO2 drives climate?
Yes, entirely. If you can bear to look at someone else you disagree with for a moment, there is a helpful graph here.
> The long-term trend is a part of a ~1000 year natural cyclic pattern
You have no evidence for that. Compare that to the IPCC, who have actual evidence and analyses for their attribution.
> A single counterexample DOES prove that a theory is false.
Yes. But you have to know what the theory is. The std IPCC-type presentation of GW is *not* that temperatures increase monotonically. The theory is positive_trend+”noise”. Inevitably there will be times when the the “noise” is such that, if you carefully select your time period, you’ll find a negative trend.
> carbon dioxide is fully part of the Water Cycle
Pardon?
Eric (skeptic) says:
February 17, 2012 at 1:47 am
Doug Cotton said “so that the surface does not warm to over 100 deg.C like the Moon’s does”
Are you reading Rosco now? He already pretty much answered his own question. It has nothing to do with CO2 absorbing the Sun’s IR. Please tell me what causes cloudy nights to be warmer.
____________________________________________________
You don’t know what you are talking about. Of course the atmosphere keeps the world cooler by day. Just look at those energy diagrams and see how much solar insolation it absorbs and also reflects. (You can easily confirm that the Moon goes over 100 deg.C and is a similar distance from the Sun.) Carbon dioxide plays a very small role in this cooling process during the day, but certainly plays no greater role in any warming process.
When you produce statistically significant evidence of your claim that (all other things being equal) cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights then we can continue this discussion. But you probably won’t find any because there isn’t any to my knowledge. There is usually something else different, like warmer days beforehand before the clouds were drawn in, or higher relative humidity which feels muggy but isn’t actually hotter. Or it may have been raining that day so the rain brought down some thermal energy from the clouds. Or the relative humidity is higher so the adiabatic lapse rate is lower. Or, because the clouds don’t blow away it may be a calmer night.. Whatever you find, make sure it refers to the same location on different nights, not to wetter climates which can be caused by proximity to oceans which in themselves regulate climate.
R Gates,
Look here:
“The wind power industry is predicting massive layoffs and stalled or abandoned projects after a deal to renew a tax credit failed Thursday in Washington.”
Seems to me the wind industry is one of those big businesses profiting from the AGW wealth transfer. Or is this too “general” and not sufficiently specific for you?
@William Howard M. Connolley
” But you haven’t read it carefully enough: the key you missed is “short-term”. We know there is natural variability which complicates the assessment of trends…so, maybe 30 years”
==================
Where did you get the 30 years from? Because I’ve seen the NOAA report a few years ago (if my memory serves me), and they stated 15 years was required to falsify the current generation of climate models, and another paper recently stated 17 years. Yes I read that RealClimate blog post. Which basically confirms what the sceptics have been pointing out for a little while now–that the models aren’t doing well. Better images in more detail here:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/TrendsSince2000.png
And more information on calculations of trends here:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/la-nina-drives-hadcrut-nhsh-13-month-mean-outside-1sigma-model-spread/
IPPC AR43 using HADcrut, using even the modest claim of 0.2C per decade, has been falsified already… although things bounce around a bit, so it may “unfalsify” itself again at some point. But not looking good if you’re in the market for catastrophic warming and accelerating trends… but look, if temperatures jump up by a quarter of a degree in the next year or two, CAGW might gain some plausibility again. Although given the current atmospheric conditions, there seems little likelihood that we will see that happen in 2012.
As for anonymous bloggers – yes I know who he is. But he doesn’t put his real name to his claims. Why wouldn’t he, unless he was concerned about the academic fallout and his credibility in the scientific community? One can only speculate. Anyway, that should be a major red flag for anyone looking for credible sources of information, including yourself.
WMC @ur momisugly http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/16/the-anatomy-of-a-global-warming-smear/#comment-895279
i have studied Slaying the Sky Dragon and agree with some of the authors such as the Chapter 20 referred to and the work of Claes Johnson, Professor of Applied Mathematics which is excellent, answering questions that left Planck and Einstein baffled. Sorry the link didn’t work – I don’t know why, but I’m sure you could have Googled it before making a dismissive comment..
Th e IPCC do not have evidence that there is no ~1000 year cycle. There are ample historical records of warm and cold periods dating back several thousand years. If you dare to quote the “flat” handle of the “hockey stick” based on daytime land temperatures affecting tree rings … well I’ll really know you’ve fallen for Mann’s hoax.
The “noise” is mostly the effect of the superimposed natural 60 year cycle for which there is evidence – see the latest Scafetta paper recently on WUWT – a site which you would do well to read more. When you look at NASA satellite data from one year to the next you see a very tight annual pattern indicating that “noise” levels are in fact very ;low.
Now it’s 12.20am here in Sydney so don’t expect a prompt reply. ZZZZZ
Doug, as I answered Rosco above: the atmosphere keeps the world cooler by day for a variety of reasons that I outlined. We both agree that CO2 plays a very minor role in that, a far bigger role comes from the atmosphere’s heat capacity.
Doug, the evidence for warmer nights due to clouds is not depending on humidity, precipitation, or location (relative to water). It is very simple, if even a small patch of clouds are over one of our three local stations (DCA, IAD, BWI) during early morning, that station will be relatively warmer and I have to toss that day’s data from my nighttime cooling study (I also ignore all nights with precip or prior day precip). A patch of clouds generally keeps a station higher by 1-2F. A larger amount of clouds for a longer period of time can warm stations more, but in those cases all three stations get clouded over. There are at least 100 other stations (mostly at schools) that neighbor the three main stations so I can easily validate the main station temperature. My very modest results are backed up by centuries of similar observations.
Here is a relatively straightforward explanation: http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut37%20Radiative%20Cooling.pdf
> It is a fairly random number, but oft used in climatology. For example http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/faqs.html: “What is Climate?
Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the “average weather,” or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).”
> the NOAA report a few years ago (if my memory serves me), and they stated 15 years was required to falsify the current generation of climate models,
Sorry, don’t know what you’re talking about. You need to provide a reference.
> rankexploits
They’ve got their uncertanity ranges wrong. You can tell that by comparing to the RC plot.
> even the modest claim of 0.2C per decade, has been falsified already
You can’t falsify something you don’t understand. The prediction wasn’t 0.2 oC/decade. The “headline” version was For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Obviously, that hasn’t been falsified, nor could it be, since we aren’t a decade away from 2007. But the language there is vague, so you’d need to follow the links they give you if you want to know details.
> answering questions that left Planck and Einstein baffled
Classic! I need say no more about that, then.
@William Howard M. Connolley says:
“They’ve got their uncertanity ranges wrong. You can tell that by comparing to the RC plot.”
“You can’t falsify something you don’t understand. The prediction wasn’t 0.2 oC/decade.”
“Obviously, that hasn’t been falsified, nor could it be, since we aren’t a decade away from 2007.”
=============
The RC model spread is wrong, not the Rank Exploits spread. This has been discussed before, with the RC spread being unreasonably large.
I would hate to accuse you of obfuscating but if you look at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-1-1.html
You will see that the average of model projections from 1990-2000 was approx. .2C per decade. The IPCC states it is very happy with earlier forecasts:
“Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections”
If you wish to argue that 2000-2010 should mysteriously be less than .2C per decade then can you cite where this claim is made in the IPCC report’s projections? Look it’s OK, the AR4 is a long and complex report, and I find many individuals get confused over it’s contents.
Also I am curious to know why you ignored my question about where you got the idea that it requires 30 years to falsify the IPCC model ensemble?
> The RC model spread is wrong
You’ll need to provide evidence for that. Since anyone actually interested is inevitably going to point that out, wouldn’t it be better to short-circuit the back-n-forth and provide the ref first?
> I would hate to accuse you of obfuscating
Oh good. You realise, of course, that the shading in that pic doesn’t represent uncertainty.
> If you wish to argue that 2000-2010 should mysteriously be less than .2C per decade
There is nothing mysterious about it. As I’ve already said, it is natural variability, as expected. As the graph you provided shows, the trend is indeed about 0.2 oC / decade. It won’t be that for every single pair of years you pick that are 10 years apart, of course. Sometimes it will be more, sometimes less. How could it be otherwise?
> why you ignored my question
I already told you where I got 30 years from. Look it’s OK, this is a long and formless thread, and I find many individuals get confused over it’s contents.
But since we’re on unanswered questions:
>> the NOAA report a few years ago (if my memory serves me), and they stated 15 years was required to falsify the current generation of climate models,
> Sorry, don’t know what you’re talking about. You need to provide a reference.
I’m not sure what you’re really on about with this falsifying stuff. Please provide a reference / link.
@William Howard M. Connolley
This is the quote I was thinking of. However please note, you were the one making the 30 year claim so in future I would appreciate it if you include citations for *your* claims rather than expect citations from others who may question your claims. (Fair is fair.)
“Ensembles with different modifications to the physical parameters of the model (within known uncertainties) (Collins et al. 2006) are performed for several of the IPCC SRES emissions scenarios (Solomon et al. 2007). Ten of these simulations have a steady long-term rate of warming between 0.15° and 0.25ºC decade–1, close to the expected rate of 0.2ºC decade–1. ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
– NOAA’s Annual State of the Climate Report, 2009.
As a side note it is also appears that the climate scientists at NOAA are also “confused” about the 0.2C per decade claim as they are considering that warming rate over the current decade and not starting from 2007 as you’ve suggested. Maybe you should send them an email. You can start by writing to them: “Dear Sirs, You can’t falsify something you don’t understand. The prediction wasn’t 0.2 oC/decade…” 😉
William M. Connolley says:
> even the modest claim of 0.2C per decade, has been falsified already
You can’t falsify something you don’t understand. The prediction wasn’t 0.2 oC/decade. The “headline” version was For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Obviously, that hasn’t been falsified, nor could it be, since we aren’t a decade away from 2007.
This is the sort of dissembling that lost you your wiki gig.
It wasn’t the “headline version”. It was an accurate interpretation of IPCC predictions, made by IPCC based on IPCC model runs. The interpretation was accurate, but the prediction was not. One does not need to be 10 years from 2007 to demonstrate that it was wrong . The model runs upon which that statement were based used 2000 as their start date. They predict a 0.2C/decade trend for the entire period 2000 to about 2050, and the observational data upon which those model runs were built extends the slope of that prediction back into the latter years of the 1990s.
Per HadCUT3, temps have been approximately flat for the last 15 years, and have been slightly declining for the last decade. To catch up to the 0.2C/decade prediction for the 25 year period ending 2022, the next ten years are going to have to warm 30% faster than has been achieved for any previous ten year period in the entire 162 year long instrumental record – including during the glory days of “global warming”. Good luck with that.
Face it, the 0.2C/decade is bust. And that would have had to be continued for 100 years to hit the low end IPCC scary story. Three or four or six degrees C by 2100? Please. But the politics accepted those extraordinarily stupid numbers, and has been pushing to cripple the world’s economy with draconian energy and tax policies, and that has been sold on the basis of “2 degrees! We have to hold to 2 degrees per century or we will all die!” We are not on track for 2 degrees doing what we are doing. Inconvenient Truth.
@JJ
It’s not “bust”. It’s just not looking particularly good right now… There could be a big surge of warming over the next few years and then the IPCC models *could* be back on track. On that theoretical possibility, I have no disagreement with Connolley.
William M. Connolley says:
February 17, 2012 at 6:15 am
“You can’t falsify something you don’t understand. The prediction wasn’t 0.2 oC/decade. The “headline” version was For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Obviously, that hasn’t been falsified, nor could it be, since we aren’t a decade away from 2007. But the language there is vague, so you’d need to follow the links they give you if you want to know details.”
Winston, you can’t falsify ANY projection. By definition. A scientific theory makes predictions, not projections. Predictions can be falsified. Projections can’t.
That is the reason why the IPCC consensus climate scientists make projections, not predictions.
“But the language there is vague,”
On purpose. You wouldn’t give up such a profitable gig as well. Well, profitable compared to what these people would earn if they had to find themselves honest work.
WN: your original claim, unsourced, was “15 years was required to falsify”. Given that you’ve now provided a quote – but not a citation – I think its pretty obvious that your source isn’t the report itself, but http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/07/noaa-explains-global-temperature.html. But RP Jr isn’t a climatologist, and often gets this stuff badly wrong.
What your quote now tells us is that the actual claim is “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”, which is different.
That is saying that a trend of zero (or less) for 15 years is enough for a discrepancy. But the 15 year trend is clearly above zero (people round here seem to like woodfortrees, so presumably http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1996/plot/uah/from:1996/trend will be an acceptable source to you). Even if you switch to starting the trend from 1998 the trend is still positive. So no, by the criteria you’re quoting, the models/IPCC are not “falsified”.
Vince Causey says:
February 17, 2012 at 5:14 am
R Gates,
Look here:
“The wind power industry is predicting massive layoffs and stalled or abandoned projects after a deal to renew a tax credit failed Thursday in Washington.”
Seems to me the wind industry is one of those big businesses profiting from the AGW wealth transfer. Or is this too “general” and not sufficiently specific for you?
————
I would say that there is potentially some truth in that, but finding alternative energy sources to fossil fuels is motivated by far more than fear of AGW. But in general, certainly there are probably some who use fear of global warming and climate change to try and make some money, and in this regard are no different than those who profited from the the exaggeration of the dangers posed by Iraq prior to the second gulf war.
Doug Cotton says:
February 16, 2012 at 9:41 pm
R. Gates and others of like mind may wish to attempt to answer this question. If no one does, then I’d say it’s curtains for AGW.
______________________
So far no one on any forum has been able to explain computationally why the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies for radiation when they assume that calculations should include two-way radiation. The simple funnel experiment I described produces net radiation in one direction even when temperatures are equal. Yet we know there can be no heat transfer in such circumstances.
So, it seems, you should all accept my explanation that only the (one way) radiation from hot to cold should be taken into account in the calculations.
But I’ll wait another week and make a point in my book if no one proves me wrong.
———-
Honestly, I have not paid attention to this. Give me the quick review of your contention related to the 2nd Law, and I’ll be glad to give feedback.
On another point and in another post you made the contention that all things being equal, a cloudy night is not warmer than a clear night and that is quite incorrect. Downwelling longwave increases on cloudy nights (especially with a thick layer of clouds) and temperatures on the ground are higher. What in your thinking would lead you to believe this is not the case?
Will Nitschke says:
It’s not “bust”. It’s just not looking particularly good right now… There could be a big surge of warming over the next few years and then the IPCC models *could* be back on track. On that theoretical possibility, I have no disagreement with Connolley.
There is possibility, and there is probability. The fundamental purpose of modeling is to move from the theoreticality of the former to the practical utility of the higher, tighter end of the latter.
While a surge over the next ten years that would bring the trend for the previous 25 year period up to the predicted 0.2C/decade rate is possible, so is a plummet that would pull that trend down to –0.2C/decad over that same period. Based on observed ten year gradients over the entire instrmental record, the latter is perhaps more likely than the former. I wouldn’t put my money on either.
For the next ten years to result in a 25 year trend of 0.2C/decade or higher, it will have to produce a ten year surge that is 30% greater than any observed to date. A mechanism that would produce that, yet be probalistically consistent with observations to date? Lets see it.
On the other hand, if the next ten years produces a rise equal to the average ten year trend of the “global warming era” (~1975 to present) then the 25 year trend will be about 0.6C/decade. That is only one third of the IPCC predicted “global warming” rate, and we haven’t had a “global warming era” average ten year trend since 1996.
Hansen gets this. That is why he is cooking up predictions that differ dramatically from the 50 year constant 0.2C slope of previous IPCC models. He is currently pushing a prediction that is conveniently much flatter over the next couple of decades, with the obligatory hockey stick function dominating just far enough out to be scary yet unverifyable during the remainder of his expected lifespan.
Corrrecting myself:
Hansen’s prediction is for sea level, not temp.
Doug Cotton,
I’ve read your post from 2:27 a.m., and I would absolutely agree that a cooler sky could never warm a warmer ground, if that is what you’re getting at. But this misses the point of greenhouse warming, just as those who talk about DWLWR not penetrating beyond the skin layer of the ocean miss the point. The greenhouse properties of gases in the atmosphere has nothing at all to do with them radiating heat back to the surface, but rather slowing the rate at which the surface loses heat by altering the thermodynamic gradient between ground and sky, i.e. a warmer sky means the ground will cool more slowly. This, by the way, is exactly what is also going on in the skin layer of the ocean, where DWLWR does penetrate the top of the skin layer of the ocean, and alters the thermodynamic gradient of that layer, and thus, the ocean loses heat less rapidly with the result being that overall ocean heat content increases because of the presence of increasing greenhouse gases– even though those gases don’t directly heat the ocean. Greenhouse warming is an issue of thermodynamic gradients become less steep because of the presence of greenhouse gases, both from ground to sky and at the ocean skin layer.
“The models teach us this, children.”
The only thing I have ever learned from models, is that beautiful women, who wear very little clothes, can make lots of money.
William M. Connolley says:
February 16, 2012 at 2:30 pm
No, the planet continues to warm [snip]
You’re having a laugh!!!!!!!!!!
William M. Connolley says:
February 16, 2012 at 3:01 pm
>a link to the Daily Mail? Come now, the Daily Mail is a joke. No-one is silly enough to get their science from newspapers, particularly tabloids, are they?
What do you read? NYT??
William M. Connolley says:
February 17, 2012 at 7:47 am
But the 15 year trend is clearly above zero
It depends on your data source. UAH and GISS are above zero for 15 years. But the MET office has said there has been no warming for 15 years. RSS also confirms this. See the RSS graph for 15 years. (slope = -9.04377e-05 per year)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
Natural gas producers are making a lot of money as electrical generation with coal is being phased out in favor of natural gas.
“and the morons who think having a public health system or being European makes you somehow a Communist”
Believing in the truth makes one a moron?
Interesting take on the world there
Of course, the other side of the spectrum also tends to believe that unless govt provides health care, or charity, or scientific research, then obviously none of those things exist.