Introducing The New WUWT "Extreme Weather" Reference Page

(Photo credits: NOAA)

By WUWT regular “Just The Facts”

We are pleased to introduce WUWT’s newest addition, the WUWT “Extreme Weather” Reference Page.

Realizing the difficulty in selling “Global Warming” when the globe hasn’t warmed in the last 16 years, the Warmists are now attempting to convince the public that CO2 has somehow caused “Extreme Weather”. This “Extreme Weather” meme follows a number of other ill-fated Warmist narratives including “Climate Change“, “Ocean Acidification”, “Global Weirding” and “Climate Disruption”.

Being the skeptical sort I looked at the Big Picture and noted that “There is no evidence of a recent increase in “Earth’s Temperature” due to “Climate Change,” which could have caused “Extreme Weather” to arrive and become the “new normal”. However, this observation got me labeled an “Extreme Denier” and “Tamino seemed disappointed that I had not attempted to debunk claims that there’s been a ‘dramatic increase in weather-related catastrophes.'” As such, with the help of an array of WUWT readers and articles, we crowdsourced the WUWT “Extreme Weather” Reference Page. I leave it to you to review and decide for yourself whether you think there has been dramatic increase in “Extreme Weather”.

As in the crowdsourcing thread, if you have any suggestions for additional credible 3rd party data on weather extremes, please post them in comments below and we will review them for inclusion. It is interesting to note that I provided Bill McKibben with an opportunity to submit non-anecdotal empirical evidence in support of the “Extreme Weather” meme and he apparently had none to offer.

In addition to our “Extreme Weather” Page if you have not had the opportunity to look through some our other Reference Pages it is highly recommended:

Please note that WUWT cannot vouch for the accuracy of the data within the Reference Pages, as WUWT is simply an aggregator. All of the data is linked from third party sources. If you have doubts about the accuracy of any of the graphs on the WUWT Reference Pages, or have any suggested additions or improvements to any of the pages, please let us know in comments below.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Nice job. Thanks for all the effort, it’s appreciated.

Pat Ravasio

My question remains: What is motivating this intensive, daily effort by you and your supporters to deny that there is environmental damage done to our ecosystem by our use of fossil fuels? Could it be that you are affiliated with and supported by the Heartland Institute, a major supporter of the fossil fuel industry? If not, please explain what you have to gain by continuing to deny that there are environmental problems that could be solved by a reduction in the use of fossil fuels? Can you justify that the continued and increasing use of fossil fuels is a good thing for our planet? If you are fueled by anything other than greed and an interest in advancing your own interests, could you please state what your motivation is, so that those of us with open minds might begin to understand? Read more about my questions and concerns, if you like at


Yes, Pat.
The continued use of fossil fuels, the lowered priced of energy, and the improved lifestyles of billions under moral guidelines, intelligent unrestricted use, and free economic systems WILL save billions of lives.
Your enforced poverty of the CAGW theist dogma and its artificial fuel restrictions based on groundless fears and hatred of the current economic systems WILL (deliberately) kill millions, and harm billions.

Pat, I’ve gotten the same kind of question aimed at me *many* times over the years because I criticize the science behind the smoking bans. The attacks from that front in that area of contention were so single-minded and extreme in the 1990s that I felt I specifically had to address them in the first two lines of my book published in 2004:
“I am not now, nor have I ever, been a member of the Communist Party. I am also not now, nor have I ever, been affiliated with Big Tobacco or their stocks, nor do I have any plans to be.”
Your question is legitimate, just as similar questions of Free Choice advocates are legitimate. BUT… the legitimacy fails when you would use any admissions of such connections as grounds for discrediting their science and arguments while at the same time refusing to apply such grounds to those on the other side of the issue. The legitimacy also fails when you DEPEND on such grounds for discrediting your opponents rather than merely using the information as a warning flag that their science and arguments might merit a bit of extra scrutiny because of their motivations.
Pat, I notice you don’t seem to have a comments area on your site (unless I simply need new glasses.) While that’s far better than having a comments area that’s censored against legitimate opposing writers it still leaves you in a weaker position than if you presented a board similar to WUWT’s (unless you want to submit some sound evidence that Anthony et al censor legitimate ideas and arguments here… something I haven’t seen any evidence of.)

Pat Ravasio

I do have a comments area, and I accept all comments. Also, the fact that you have previously supported the tobacco companies is right in line with my concern, that you are all supporters of Heartland Institute causes. Can someone please address what the Heartland Institute is, and why reasonable people should believe it is anything other than a shill for corporate “persons” who wish to profit at the expense of the public good? I’m getting alot of kick back, but still no one who expresses any true heart for a cause that clicks with me as legitimate.

Re: “the Warmists are now attempting to convince the public that CO2 has somehow caused “Extreme Weather”. ”
I believe Michael Crichton first pointed this out as an evolution of the Warmists’ failing arguments in his excellent “State Of Fear” novel of 2004. Actually Crichton’s book was the trigger for my first questioning in the AGW area. It wasn’t one I’d really looked into in the past, and, just as in many folks I’ve criticized politically in other areas over the years, I’d simply accepted the “general knowledge” and “opinion of the experts” in the area as being unquestioned fact except by those with an axe to grind for “the industry.” Great stocking stuffer for any readers you know who might have a crack in their mind widened a bit by seeing his treatment of it.


Pat Ravisio,
Did you go read the material in this article, or do any of the back-reading of this blog that has been suggested for you to do in the past? If you REALLY wanted to understand what motivates us, you’d’ve done that by now.
Since you haven’t, you’re just acting the part of the worst kind of troll…the kind that doesn’t actually know anything, and therefore can only hope to derail the conversation by bringing in nonsense like conspiracy theories in the hopes of making people angry.
My answer to you, and I hope everyone else’s answer to you, until you bring something substantive to the table is…go do your homework.
When you appear knowledgeable enough to take seriously, then maybe you can even make a difference by providing something of value, but until then you only hurt your own side by providing an example of warmist ignorance. Back-read this blog. Actually read the articles you want to reply to, so that there’s a vague chance that you can provide something useful ON TOPIC.
Go do your homework.
BTW, RACookPE1978, your statement of one of the most important skeptical motivations was perfect. Just don’t expect Pat to read it or understand it. Although he seems to be asking questions, he’s not here to learn, or he’d’ve done his homework.

Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.


This is fine but maybe you also need a permanent reference page for “average weather”, as nobody seems to be bothered with that these days.


If global temperatures had simply behaved as predicted and steadily increased in unison with CO2 levels, there would be no need to hype normal extreme weather events as evidence for global warming. There would also be no need to play this shell game of trying to guess where the grant-money pea is located. (Is it under the “global weirding” cup, the “ocean acidification” cup, or the “climate disruption” cup?) Decades of steady warming would not be “proof”, but it would be solid evidence, and everyone would understand what was meant by “global warming.” But because global temperatures have been flat for 16 years, they have to play these games to keep people from forgetting about their cause, which to them is a higher priority than science.

R. Shearer

Pat, some people are motivated by the search for truth and can see when they are being deceived. Others buy into propaganda, tolerate it or even promote it for their own gain. I’m a scientist and skeptic not motivated by politics or greed.


This revised AGW position involves the abandonment of science. “CO2 causes weird weather” is not a falsifiable hypothesis. There is no known mechanism that explains how CO2 causes both rain and drought, heat and cold, let alone wind and calm. The perverse moods of a Rain God would serve as a far more likely explanation for all these phenomena and is consistent with Occam’s Razor.

Pat Ravasio

Thank you, all of you, for ten replies in ten minutes! The dedication and fortitude of your team is indeed impressive. Please, if you can, check out the NASA photographs and explain to me why they are not a concern for the human race on planet earth? I do confess that I am not a scientist. I am only seeking the truth, and remain open to your input. Thank you so much!


Pat Ravasio, and your conviction against fossil fuel lends you to claim not to own a gas powered vehicle or enjoy any of the other comforts of fossil fuels. Your hypocrisy is beyond self righteous condemnation of others while you prosper on the back of a common adherence to energy, fossil or otherwise. No response necessary, as my courtesy bag is already over flowing.


Pat Ravasio effectively says: December 8, 2012 at 5:41 pm: Have you stopped beating your wife ? Google it Pat.
Please provide references to any measurable environmental problems caused by CO2 at 394ppm that were not present when CO2 levels were at 280ppm. Windfarms and other examples of environmental destruction caused by the purported solutions don’t count.
If you can’t, then please STFU.

You get to see some interesting, although not easily interpretable, results if you use Google’s NGram tool on the phrases
carbon dioxide, global warming, climate change, extreme weather
Try all four at the default setting of 1800 to 2008 (smoothing 3) and you’ll find that CO2 was way up there until 1960 or so at which point, for some unknown reason (maybe everyone got more worried about H-Bombs?) it drops significantly. Then try removing CO2 and you’ll see a bit more information about the other three, and then, if you change the time scale to starting at 1960 or 1975 you’ll see even more. The switchover from global warming to climate change in terms of mention-frequency occurs around 2002, about the time when Crichton probably started writing his State of Fear.
For further comparison, try adding the phrase Star Trek (capitalization matters) and you’ll see interest switch over right around 1999.


…WUWT Extreme Weather page is another tool to search out the curiosities we find interesting about climate. I could quote our friend Joe Bastardi in enjoying our weather. 🙂


Out of interest, I did a bit of a search for the image of the train station. On the NOAA web site it is named floodingAug and dated March 2008. I found it on a blog (, dated Thursday, July 19, 2007, identified as Great Neck Train Station (with the flooding occurring July 18)


Pat Ravasio says:
December 8, 2012 at 5:41 pm
Due to the “carbon” intensive nature of the energy sources that enable us to even have this conversation, i’ll be short.
I’m sure you will reciprocate.

john robertson

@ Rat Pavisio, Still waiting for my check, would yah loan me a few thou until it comes in.
I ridicule nonsense from all religious cults that attempt to steal from, control and or interfere with me and mine.
Public hysteria comes in waves, its our nature.
But lying to exploit the foolish, hiding the data, exaggerating your claims through falsehoods and attempting to seize power is contemptible behaviour. Is this something you will defend?
Are the practises of climatology, as practised by the UN- IPCC, ethical enough for you?
Now wetting ones-self about the weather is an age old tradition and you are welcome to do so,
but insisting I behave like you, will of course end badly.

Pat, you wrote, “Also, the fact that you have previously supported the tobacco companies is right in line with my concern, that you are all supporters of Heartland Institute causes.”
1) WUWT in no way “supports the tobacco companies.” The tobacco situation is purely a personal concern of mine, with the science problems involved in it predating but roughly paralleling the global warming fiasco. I don’t actually know when Heartland was founded, but I’ve been in the smoking ban fight since the mid-1970s and have no more connection to them than I do to BigT. You seem to be critical of Heartland, but is that because you have actual criticisms of their scientific positions or simply because of some funding connections they may have? Are you similarly critical of the global warming folks who support or are supported by well-funded warmer organizations? Would that then make you critical of yourself?
2) And where did you happen to notice any support of mine for the tobacco companies? Or is that something you just made up? I was and am vigorously opposed to their support for the MSA Master Settlement Agreement and PM’s support for the FDA agreement, and for opposition most of Big Tobacco seems to be taking against the E-cigarettes. I think your confusion in that area may simply reflect your confusion in the climate area.
3) I apologize for my oversight on missing your Comments area: the bubble with the number in it simply slipped by me as I looked beneath the postings for “Comments” tabs — purely my fault.

P.S. In case my sentence structure was unclear: I’d also like to make clear that I myself have no relation to WUWT other than as a reader and occasional somewhat-newbie poster. I *have* however become very favorably impressed with the seemingly sound knowledge and argument of the major writers and posters here. You should read the archives and compare them with the archives you’ll find on blogs from the other side… THEN you might have firmer ground to stand upon.


I wonder what happened to ‘NINO 3.4 Ensemble Forecast’ (the second graph on the ENSO page)? It hasn’t been updated for months. I used to follow that graph practically every day and it was being updated every day. The current one is dated to September 24 and predicts El Nino conditions from December all the way to July. 🙂
I discovered this page recently but in there too ENSO predictions is updated once a month.
The Bureau of Meteorology has a similar page as well but I believe that is updated once a fortnight.
Please, JustTheFactsWUWT, can you fix that up for us with decent graph that is updated everyday like the good old times. 🙂
Even if it’s not fixable, we still owe you a million thanks for putting together WUWT climate reference pages.


michaeljmcfadden says:
December 8, 2012 at 8:16 pm
Is just slimy, and ain’t fooling anybody.


Pat Ravasio;
Well, you’re simply restating the same accusations and assertions as you did in at least one previous thread, and pretending that you didn’t get any credible answers. We are left to assume that you are being deliberately obtuse, though we cannot dismiss the possibility that that you are suffering from natural causes of the condition. But since you continue to take same line of attack, let me this time dumb it down for you:
Population of Earth: 6 billion
Population of Earth with no fossil fuels: 1 billion
My motivation? To keep uninformed idiots from making the most horrendous error in human history and sentencing billions to death.
As for cleaning up the environment, apparently you are too young and/or naive to remember when our major cities had smog so bad that the downtown cores had to be shut down, when there were no emissions standards on automobiles, when coal burning power plants and chemical plants simply belched untreated and unscrubbed poisons into the air, when lumber companies simply cut down the forests and didn’t bother to replant them, when smokers were allowed to poison the air of their coworkers, when our roadsides were filthy with litter because nobody thought twice about tossing their garbage out the car window…. I remember all of those things, and am proud to be part of the generation that cleaned all that up. We’ve taken gigantic strides in cleaning up our environment compared to just a few decades ago.
And while we did all that cleaning up, we increased the food supply to the point that only countries suffering under dictatorships like North Korea are suffering actual starvation, we’ve increased life expectancy by 30 years or more, we are bigger, stronger, and healthier today than we have ever been in the past, and we owe it to a combination of fossil fuels and environmental stewardship. While your generation wants to wail away about all the “harm” we’re doing, my generation has been cleaning the environment up to the point that it is better than it has been in generations and lifting billions out of poverty, starvation, disease and illiteracy in the process. You want us to go back, I want us to go forward.
That, little troll, is what my generation has done for yours. You might say thank you instead of p*ssing on us at every opportunity and making false and ignorant accusations.

Pat(tricia): You seem to think this website is Heartland’s evil creation and we can speak for them. Why not go to Heartland, read their pages, read their blog, you can even email them. You could also call them on the telephone but please read up on the Glieck affair first.
Last time I looked at Heartland, they weren’t that hard to figure out. Their financial filings with the Fed government are available if you look (ignore the Glieck fake document). It’s really all out their for you to discover and they are quite capable of explaining what they do if you ask them.


No ball lightning distribution?

Pat Ravasio is a bot.

John F. Hultquist

Why not go to Heartland, read their pages, . . .
One could start with this:


Justthefacts, sir, it is fixed! Thanks another million.
Here is another question: is it possible to get the daily graph collection for the last several years? Is there an archive for that that’s accesible by the public?
A collection of 600 daily consecutive graphs would make a 30 second video at 20 frames per second. It would make a great animation, I reckon, just to illustrate again what was predicted and what actually turned out to be. 600 days in a 30 second burst, like one of those fast NASA animations.
An animation of ENSO 3.4 graphs could further be enhanced by additional features. That would require video editing skills beyond what I have now. I am hoping if I could get my hands on the archive I might just be able to create my first ever video animation. 😀

Pat Ravasio says:
My question remains: What is motivating this intensive, daily effort by you and your supporters to deny that there is environmental damage done to our ecosystem by our use of fossil fuels?

In my case, the intensive, daily effort by you and your supporters to destroy western advanced lifestyles and economies in the service of some broken and ill founded dogma. Oh, and the constant pressure by ‘your side’ to rope everyone into an un-representative Central Planning government via the UN that destroys liberty and hates freedom.
So make you a deal: Your side stop, and I’ll stop.
I never wanted to do any of this anyway. I was happily and peacefully living an ordinary full life when “your side” came along and started telling me I had to have toilets that don’t flush, light bulbs that make a ‘hazardous waste zone’ WHEN they break AND turn “green eggs and ham” from a kids story into a morning reality. (Bad CRI Color Rendering Index on those CFL bulbs) and now want me to just freeze and die.

Could it be that you are affiliated with and supported by the Heartland Institute, a major supporter of the fossil fuel industry?

Well, I attended one of their events once in Chicago. Does that make me affiliated? I also did some work for a guy who I think might have gotten money from Heartland. ( I have been paid all of $1,000 for computer work involving analysis of a GHCN data set that I happened to have on hand, having saved several iterations. Then again, I’ve been doing contract computer work for about 20 years now, and accept any client that pays, so it’s not unusual. I’ve also done work for The State Of California and The Federal Reserve Bank. Does that make me a government paid lackey?)
But, on fossil fuels:
Turns out that they are THE major reason for folks living longer lives, healthy lives, and reducing the amount of damage done to the planet. This isn’t the place to go into it, but just as a fun little ‘though experiment’, figure out how many more acres of forest would need to be cut down and put under the plough to feed 300,000,000 horses in the USA alone. Here’s a hint: It takes about one acre per horse for decent pasture. After that, you can work out what to do with all the horse pucky. (You impress me as being experienced with horse pucky.)
Not to mention all the trees saved by using plastics to make things instead of wood and all the land that need not be farmed to grow cotton. And on and on and on…
So my relationship with “Big Oil” is that of “Satisfied Customer”, and I just want to keep it that way…

If not, please explain what you have to gain by continuing to deny that there are environmental problems that could be solved by a reduction in the use of fossil fuels?

Why use fossil fuels instead of ‘alternatives’? Well, the environmental benefits include (but are not limited to):
Well, just for starters, and skipping past the already mentioned savings on pasture and waste disposal and synthetic materials…
We’ll start with all the mega tons of metals and especially lead that would be needed for batteries for electrical storage. Fuels are a heck of a lot better and much higher density energy storage system than batteries. By far. A lot less toxic than lead, too. Then there is all the land degradation for mining mega tons of copper to make electric motors…
Silicon fab facilities use such wonderfully toxic materials as Arsine Gas and Phosgene. ( I know, as I live in Silicon Valley and looked up the hazard map before buying my home. At National Semi when I worked there we had “interesting tanks” with interesting placards on them…) Then there are the more exotic ones that use things like Cadmium. One of THE most hideous toxins on the planet. So much so that the EU essentially bans it outright (other than in NiCd batteries as it can’t figure a replacement, and one or two other exceptions). Seems it substitutes for Zinc in many enzyme systems and basically causes your bones to dissolve as you writhe in agony and die. (There was a ‘spill’ from a battery plant in Japan once that kind of made that point…) So the idea of covering the earth in Nickel CADMIUM batteries or LEAD Acid batteries or, well, you get the idea… It’s just not that attractive to me. I’ll take the much less toxic gasoline, thanks. (YES, much less toxic. Look up the LD-50 of hexane and Cadmium…)
Then there’s plastics. When you go into the hospital, you can’t survive the trip without thanking plastic. From the syringe to the ‘bag’ of fluid they hang to the plastic sheets and such that helps prevent spread of infection. No oil and no plastics, kiss off modern medicine. (You will also have a heck of a time figuring out how to sterilize all the replacement non-plastic things that will now need autoclave time. Especially without any coal or natural gas derived electricity. Can’t just decide to have treatment when the wind blows…) But “moving on”, there’s all the plastics in use for things like furniture. How many forests would need to be cut to replace the oil derived fibers with rayon (from cellulose) instead? Frankly, the “Green” push to replace oil derived plastics with “natural” source materials is just as daft as the push to replace “fossil fuels” with bio-fuels. Farming is incredibly damaging to wild natural places (and you will not replace all those fossil fuel based materials without NEW and ADDED farm land). So yes, you can replace natural gas derived plastics, just cut down ALL of the global wild lands and plant them… No Amazon. No Congo. No Canadian Forests. Heck likely have to cut all of Siberia eventually.
Then there is electricity. God I love the stuff. Yes, I’ve got a fireplace (that I have been informed is now politically incorrect to use) but the electric heat is just SO much cleaner. (Can’t use that natural gas heater if fossil fuels are to be banned…) Where does that electricity come from? The bulk of it comes from coal here in the USA. Then there’s a decent chunk of nuclear (we’ve got a couple of them here in California, but now get a fair amount from out of State nukes). I’d love to see the USA follow France into a much higher use of nukes, but that’s not going to happen. So cut off the fossil fuels, kiss of electricity.
That means an incredible loss of life (no traffic lights for example, and no electric medical devices after the accidents) and it means living ‘sun up to sun set’ and without TV, computers, radio, the internet, and on and on.
Now maybe you want to be cold, hungry (no stove or refrigerator after all) and sitting around a camp fire made by burning whatever furniture you have left, but I’d rather have a bit of coal burned to run the lights, cook my dinner, and keep the place warm.
I can hear you getting ready to spout about ‘renewables’… Yes, you COULD convert to all renewables. Heck, I even tout them on a posting I did that points out just how much energy is available from them:
There’s only two (unfortunately ‘killer’) problems.
1) The costs are way higher. No, not enough to be too much of an “issue” in the industrial west. We can likely survive (if not thrive) on 50 cent / kW-hr electricity. (California is headed that way at present due to “renewable mandates”, so we’ll know soon enough. Then again, the consequences of that may not be as ‘eco-friendly’ as expected:
I’ve started cooking some meals over the gasoline camp stove… not as clean as the All Electric Kitchen, but cheaper… I’m building a trash powered stove for next summer, then I’ll start cooking over ‘yard waste’. I’m sure 4 Million people doing that in the S.F. Bay Area won’t be as clean as a nuke in Arizona, but hey, that’s what happens with 50 cent / kW-hr electricity)
2) Have you ‘done the math’ on what it takes to convert? There is just no way on God’s Earth that it can be done in anything approaching the time scale proposed. One SMALL example. Cars have an average life now of about 12 years. Even if we were buying 100% all electric cars today, it would take at least 12 years to replace most of them. And we’re not anywhere near that sales percentage. Trains and planes and boats have even longer lifespans. You are talking about a 100% “fleet change”. That fleet change problem makes the National Debt look like small potatoes. Now add to that changing the established infrastructure of electric power generation (that typically has a 50 year lifespan). Even IF we were doing a changeover 100% starting now, it would not be done in my life time, nor that of most of the folks reading this. Now think of just how much destruction and waste of resources are involved in all that throwing away of working established machinery. “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” does not include “wantonly destroy working capital stock”.
But even given all that: I’m no fan of Bird Chopper windmills. The number of birds killed per site would have any nuclear or coal plant shut down overnight. Why they get a pass is beyond me. I’m also not fond of the idea of covering 100 x 100 square miles of pristine desert habitat with industrial scale solar facilities. Any way you look at it, the embodied environmental destruction from all the materials mining and fabrication and the excess land use is just horrific when compared with the fossil fuel or nuclear alternatives. (BTW, that’s a large part of why the wind and solar cost more. Economics works that way. Things that take a subsidy to work are things that consume more resources… that come from mines and land and labor and capital stock…)
And that barely scratches the surface of the damage to the environment that would be done by dumping fossil fuels wholesale and fast for subsidized ‘alternatives’.

Can you justify that the continued and increasing use of fossil fuels is a good thing for our planet?

Yes. See above. They are the cheapest alternative to a healthy modern economy of any available and they have the least damage to the land.

If you are fueled by anything other than greed

Well, since I’m unemployed and have zero income from any company at all, I can’t see how “greed” comes into it. Heck, I don’t even own any oil company stock. (Mostly in cash and Birkshire Hathaway right now. You know, Warren Buffet. Obama’s buddy.)
What I’m “fueled by” is a passionate hatred of stupidity and waste. I hate to be that blunt about it, but you asked the question. Life long habit of mine. Just can’t stand broken non-solutions that line the pockets of the well connected at the expense of the average folks (as I am just an ‘average folk’). Now look at all the folks sucking on that Government Teat at all those UN and NGO funded agencies. Now look at Al Gore and his buddies getting bail out money and other government derived funding. Now look at me. My income last month was exactly zero. (The spouse made some as a teacher at a local grammar school… yes, we live on a ‘Government paycheck’ too…) So exactly which of us is more “driven by greed”? Me as an unemployed spouse of a school teacher? Or AlGore sucking down the $Millions? Hmmm?

and an interest in advancing your own interests

No doubt about it. I am strongly driven by ‘my own interests’. Frankly, don’t know how it could be otherwise.

, could you please state what your motivation is, so that those of us with open minds might begin to understand?

I think I covered the basics already. Mostly just can’t stand politically driven organized theft of my money via government driven boondogles and croney “capitalism” (like GE getting a big fat wet kiss from the incandescent lightbulb ban. As of now in California they pretty much own the market and prices are up from 19 cents / bulb to about $5- $8+. Long gone are Phillips and Sylvania and house brands from most places – though you can find them in limited quantities in some stores at very high prices. You do know that the head of GE is a Buddy Of Obama don’t you? GE is getting loads of money out of this.) and I’m not fond of dishonorable behaviour.
Things like, oh, making up data after you lost yours. Refusing to follow the law (like FOIA requests). Flat out breaking the law (Hansen has been arrested how many times now?) And Lord Knows how much hidden defrauding of the taxpayer. Then there’s the line of “Crony Capitalists” lined up for “The Largess of the Public Purse”. Look at who benefited from the Solyndra bailout (and related). Fair number of folks with large political donations and large wallet and large government connections.
Frankly, I first started looking into “Global Warming” when I thought “This could be bad. I think I need to learn more about it.” After visiting a few “Warmers” sites and asking a few innocent questions, it became very clear very fast that saying “But that doesn’t add up. Please explain.” was cursing in church. I was asking about that ‘man behind the curtain’. (One of the faults of an Aspe brain… things have to ‘fit’, and when they don’t, no amount of PC or peer pressure can fix it…) Then I ran into this site (after someone, in a “put down” at a ‘warmers’ site said something like “Are you one of those fools who reads WUWT?” One web search later, I was here.) It was a great breath of fresh air.
Yes, I asked some stupid questions at first, but folks were patient enough and explained. I also found out that many of my “But that doesn’t add up?” questions were already deeply explored, and things really didn’t add up. Basically, I found honest folks motivated by a search for the truth and a strong adherence to the scientific method and NOT a party orthodoxy. ( Leif, in particular, was extraordinarily patient with me when I was going through my “Sun Phase” 😉
So, you see, I started from thinking “Global Warming Looks BAD!”, as that was what was in the news. Then started to learn the “Science” behind it and ran smack dab into a batch of BS. The more I dug, the worse it got. Eventually finding more folks “like me” here.
So what IS that motivation? A simple insistence on the TRUTH. Whatever it may be. The same thing that’s gotten me into lots of trouble over the years. ( I’ve told the wrong people the truth too many times… Think of asking Sheldon on The Big Bang Theory if your dress makes you look fat…) So much as I’d love to be a gung-ho Warmer doing fun computer work on a fat government grant bit of stuff-and-nonsense Global Warming Hype; I just can’t. I can’t stand waste and dishonesty… especially to myself.

Read more about my questions and concerns, if you like …

No, thank you. I’ve seen way too much of The Team Talking Points. (Both directly and by proxy ‘true believers’).
It mostly just comes down to either a misplaced sense of “do gooder syndrome” (that I think is formally called “Noble Cause Corruption”) or “science” of the form “Given this conclusion what assumptions can I draw?” Things like ignoring all of evaporation, convection, condensation, and entropy and then saying that if you hold all other things constant, it has to be CO2; so send lots of money and remake all of the industrial world (spending more money with my friends). Oh, and no ‘please’ needed as we are going to mandate it at the point of a gun (government force is enforced by “men with guns”…) Such as described here:
and explored in painful detail for GIStemp here:

John F. Hultquist says:
December 8, 2012 at 9:51 pm
One could start with this:
John, No one reads the FAQs! That one is recommended reading. I haven’t donated money to support anything or anyone since the Ross Perot candidacy.
Thanks to Pat’s unintended recruitment campaign and the FAQ, I know where my next gift will go. Thanks Pat.

JustTheFacts… What I find particularly interesting about your two graphs is that the second one seems to show the “reality” of just before and after October was pretty much on track with the earlier prediction. What brought about the radical change in prediction from that point onward?
And, in general, looking back over their history, are their graphs usually like that? I.E. being pretty good for two months or so in the future and then skittering wildly?

Pat Ravasio says:
December 8, 2012 at 5:41 pm
Please explain what you have to gain by continuing to deny that there are environmental problems that could be solved by a reduction in the use of fossil fuels? Can you justify that the continued and increasing use of fossil fuels is a good thing for our planet?

1. There are some “no regrets” measure that most WUWTers would not object to much: incentives for installing a heat pump, for adding insulation, for trucks to use natural gas, for converting from oil to gas for heating, for adding smart thermostats, for building hydro-electric dams and mini-dams, etc.
2. There are environmental problems with all energy sources, including solar and wind (dirty and energy intensive mining and fabrication, especially in China; lots of rubbish to deal with when they wear out; dead birds and bats).
3. Solar and wind have proved their costliness (including unanticipated hidden costs) and unreliability in the countries that have gone heavily into them, such as Spain and Germany, which have been forced to eliminate or cut the subsidies they were providing. Spain is in a depression and teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, partly as a result of the cost of the subsidies and the increased cost of electricity. Germany is planning to add 23 coal-fired generating plants, because renewables can’t do the job, and is faced with threats by industry to move abroad to a place where electricity is cheaper. Current rates are making them uncompetitive. The countries in the West are all in dire financial straits and don’the have money to spare on much costlier electricity and plant shutdowns.
4. The EU’s cutting down on fossil fuel use has had no significant effect on the rising level of CO2 in the atmosphere, nor has it induced China and India to cut back on their headlong dive into fossil fuel use. If the leaders of those countries attempted to switch to power sources that are unaffordable, their populations would dismiss them–perhaps “with prejudice.” The only result of reductions and regulations on CO2 in the West will be a shift of manufacturing to the East, where it will occur in a more CO2-intensive way. Oh, and maybe our reduction will delay the time at which CO2 will reach the 600 level by a couple of years–big deal.
5. Nuclear would produce no CO2–and its downsides can be coped with, especially in new designs. Stewart Brand, James Lovelock, and Wired magazine have endorsed nuclear as the only realistic alternative to fossil fuel. France has given us a taste of it. But purist, holier-than-thou enviro-nuts won’t hear of it. They want a greenie/sustainable/renewable utopia, not just the reduction of CO2. Their stance is liable to leave them with neither.

Pat Ravasio

Thank you, Roger. That was the most intelligent reply I received all evening. I’ll read up on your points. I am on the fence about nuclear. Some former energy purists, like Stewart Brand have come to this way of thinking because they know it is the easiest path to a manageable C02 level, and they believe there isn’t enough time to fully shift to renewables. They may be right. It is refreshing to read a rational, clear viewpoint from a skeptic — without any insults, name calling or childish bullying behavior. You give me hope!

Ian W

Pat Ravasio says:
December 8, 2012 at 5:41 pm

The world is full of potential risks – it could be hit by a large asteroid as I am typing this – there is actually more chance of that than winning a lottery. There could be a repeat of a global pandemic. There could be an eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera. Lots of risks. So science has been used to quantify risks based on empirical data not feelings and emotions.
So there is a ‘anthropogenic global warming hypothesis’ that the amount of CO2 in the air will increase atmospheric warming and by increasing evaporation of water (the main ‘green house gas’) the atmosphere will warm a lot more and then there will be more water vapor leading to more warming – and hence catastrophe. The only problem with this hypothesis is that none (read that again) NONE of its forecasts have come true. There is no empirical evidence that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing the Earth to warm. Yes we all know that it absorbs and re-emits infra-red in 3 narrow bands, But the other natural systems in the atmosphere rather than spiraling out of control with positive feedbacks tend to a negative feedback. There has been a challenge out for years now on Jo Nova’s site for someone to provide empirical evidence of global warming caused by CO2 – not models you understand real world evidence. People have looked – at great expense satellites have been launched CERES and AQUA – you won’t hear a lot about them as they haven’t found evidence for CO2 causing global warming (some would say they have found the opposite). Similarly, at more huge expense ARGO floats and buoys have been spread around the oceans and they also do not show any warming – so they are not heard of in the main stream media or the Internet sites like yours. Note though HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY being spent – in subsidies for ‘green power’, bankers and accountancy firms making vast sums from carbon taxes, academics getting millions in research grants – Hansen is now a millionaire thanks to his proselytizing of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
In my first paragraph I talked of ‘potential risks’ – there are of course actual events that are no longer just potential risks they are happening right now as you read this. One is people dying from starvation, poor sanitation and untreated water leading to disease. While you have read this around 12 children have died from hunger ( ) a child dying on average every 5 seconds. Yet it is also said in many places that “a dollar can save a life”
Yet instead of saving the lives of these people that ARE dying – you Pat would rather spend huge sums of money on protecting against a risk that is purported to exist based on a repeatedly falsified hypothesis by people that are making millions peddling the scare. I feel that you should justify why you think that should happen.

Pat, you seem overly concerned by the use of fossil fuels. Just what are they , a term made up 150 years ago and refuted 100 years ago. You have(not) asked for sources so that you can ‘ do some homework’. I found this informative. Chances are that the only reason you are alive is because of the better standard of living ‘fossil’ fuels have allowed us to enjoy.

A. Scott

No point in feeding trolls … “Pat’s” agenda is very clear:
“And just to cover all sides, here’s a link to one of the most popular climate change denial blogs, (where you can find several very lively attacks on me!)”
If “Pat” wanted to engage in legitimate, intelligent discussion he would take the time to use the many resources here and elsewhere and educate himself first.

This site does not censor on content other than the list of forbidden topics on the “policy” page. ( so no questioning birth certificates or what happened on 9/11, for example)
and near as I can tell, those topics are only off limits as they lead to mindless flame wars are are just not very interesting the thousandth time warmed over.
There is “snipping” for offensive language and insult / slander type commentary (but the word “snip” is inserted to mark the spot and often a comment about what on the policy list was violated in particular). Some individuals with excessive violations of policy get put in the ‘junk’ list, but it’s not clear to me who all they are, and even then they sometimes come back. (I’ve seen Anthony announce a ‘time out’ for some period of time on someone, then they returned after it expired).
I’ve never seen anyone tossed for holding a contrary opinion on science, data, or reasoning. Nor for political orientation or beliefs. Just violations of the policy page.
IMHO, it’s worse than that. The weather now is almost exactly like it was in the 1950s (which I remember… another aspect of the Aspe brain. I can simply “be” back in 1958 on a summer day and remember it, or that winter in 1958 when we drove a blue / white 56 Chevy up to the Sierra Nevada to see the ‘extreme’ 18 foot snow next to highway 80). The reason is pretty simple. The PDO is once again doing a ‘warm to cool’ transition. (So expect some strong rains, as we had then in California, too).
Looking into the land temperature data, it is essentially adjusted to have a false warming signal in the data. That 16 years without warming just happens to have come right at the same time the the adjusting game has been ‘caught out’ and they can’t change equipment (as in the Stevenson Screen to MMTS conversion that locked in about 1/2 degree of warming from aged paint on the S.Screens as a ‘cool bias adjustment’ of the MMTS) nor do much to rewrite the latest data due to satellite records. Basically, they got everyone to start looking closely about 1990, and now they’re pretty much stuck under a spotlight.
So I look at the world now and it just ISN’T warmer. Not just the last 16 years, but the whole thing. The 1930s were warmer than the ‘warm’ 1990s. (Heck, even the 1800s had a warm spike about as high, though not as long). If you take out the ‘step up’ from when the data were adjusted, it’s just pretty much flat with a 60 ish year cycle after a rise out of the Little Ice Age (modulo a dip when Tambora blew up and caused The Year Without A Summer). Take a look at about 1780 and 1822 on this graph:comment image
Use the Version 1 line as it is prior to the latest round of ‘adjustments’ to make the past colder. (The repeated cooling of the past via ‘adjustments’ was one of the first things to rankle me.. so was the data and all the papers based on it BOGUS when V1 was the Peer Reviewed data set? If so, start retracting those papers now… )
The graph is from:
with a large number of sub regions and more detail in reports listed here:
So it looks to me like the “warmed and then stopped for 16 years” is more correctly described as “warmed on the warm half of the PDO, but not more than the past, and is now starting the turn to cold; but the oldest data has been adjusted to lock in what looks like warming via making the old data colder”.
When I look around at the weather it is not warmer than in the past. When I look back at very old reports of the weather, it is not warmer than the past. When I look back at very very old records of weather related events from ancient history, it is now cooler than the past. When I look at individual very long lived station data, unadjusted, it is not warmer now than in the past. It’s just that most folks don’t take a 300 year view of things. Most folks look at 30 years or less. And that’s just going to give false trends that don’t exist.
Got down to your Tobacco “bait and switch”. Nice trolling…
Per Heartland: Much as you might like to do a ‘Thread Hijack’ for your Pet Peeve, this site is not driven by Heartland and the folks here have little / nothing to do with Tobacco.
Though it is ‘feeding the troll’, just two bits of information you might want to consider before casting that Tobacco Red Herring line again:
1) Your host, Anthony, is deaf due to a tobacco related illness. (IIRC it had something to do with his parents smoking). Not going to get a lot of traction with the Tobacco Troll Line when he’s had a lifetime of grief from the product.
2) I have strong allergies to tobacco smoke. (Dad smoked, Mom didn’t. That combination has a much higher level of kids with allergic response.) So accusing ‘folks like me’ of supporting Big Tobacco is just stupid. At one time I was rabidly anti-tobacco. Since then (and likely due to the laws in California now making it essentially a sin-crime to smoke where visible) I’ve softened a bit. I now say “Smokers have every right to smoke all they want… just away from my nose or anywhere I have to be or pass through.”
So, you see, with a semi-random sample of two, you have a 100% FAIL.
The simple fact is that Tobacco has nothing to do with AGW. Nothing at all. Please stop looking so foolish by trying to make such a bogus connection. (Frankly, it pains me to have to re-visit the tobacco thing. My Father died of tobacco caused lung cancer and my Mother followed about a decade later of what was likely second hand smoke caused lung cancer – she worked as a waitress in a restaurant full of smoke when not at home where Dad smoked.) So do us all a favor and let go of that particular Troll Line.
So can you get back “on topic”? That’s the fact that the ‘extreme weather’ of today is still mild compared to the extreme weather of the past.
that happened in 1861 …
Per the “Shill for corporate persons”: Would that be AlGore? Or the places like NCAR?
You might want to be careful with that Evil Corporations Troll Line too. You may not realize it, but all those NGOs that suck up $Millions (or is it $Billions now?) and want another $100 Billion via the UN… they all have “Articles of Incorporation” and are Corporations.
Just like the Corporation For Public Broadcasting…

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is a non-profit corporation created by an act of the United States Congress and funded by the United States federal government to promote public broadcasting. Between 15 and 20 percent of the aggregate revenues of all public broadcasting stations have been funded from federal sources, principally through the CPB.
The CPB was created on November 7, 1967, when U.S. president Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.

Or are some corporations “more equal than others”? Hmmm?
Oh, and there is no ‘Team’ here. We are a self organizing Anarchy Of Individuals. You can learn more about how it works at the links listed here:
It is the foundation of life, ecology, and even capitalism. It is why capitalism is superior to Central Planning (of any / all of the types. Communism, Socialism, Fascism, National State Socialism), or even the “Managed Market” that’s become popular lately as the others have been shown to be dismal failures by history…
@jorgekafkazar says:
December 8, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Very well put sir. Very well indeed.
@michaeljmcfadden :
The “tobacco connection” is just something they make up and keep trying to fish.
See, they don’t understand Self Organizing Systems. (That’s part of why they can’t stand capitalism and liberty… too ‘messy’…) So they see that Heartland is ‘against them’ and immediately think that Heartland must act the same way they do. ( Parasitize other organizations and government bodies, have meetings and issue funding ONLY to folks who agree with the whole agenda, use social means of control to enforce topic discipline, issue ‘talking points’, create ‘front organizations’, etc etc ad nausium…)
By that reasoning, A.Watts can’t have just started this up on his own. HE must be funded and a sock-puppet of some Bigger Organization. Like Heartland. Similarly, I can’t possibly just be some unemployed guy who’s interested in the topic while trying to find a job in a broken economy (thank you Obama for continuing the broken state originally caused by Bush not fixing the damage done under Clinton with causing the Housing Bubble…) So I, too, must be funded somehow. Thus they constantly “phish” for Oil Money and Heartland.
The Tobacco Line comes out of a desire to do a Knight Fork. Place a piece where they are attacking from two directions, so ‘we’ must lose something. So say “you support tobacco too!”… Now, in their eyes, you either have to repudiate Big Tobacco (thus pissing off one of your / Heartland ‘sponsors’) or endorse “Evil Tobacco” (and be tarnished by that).
What makes it all so silly is that they simply can’t grasp the reality. It doesn’t harm me at all to say I despise tobacco smoke. I simply can’t stay in the room with it. I can’t help it if my body makes igE that’s reactive to tobacco smoke. I just get puffy red eyes and start wheezing and have to leave the room. Anthony can’t help it that he’s partially deaf due to tobacco. He just had to deal with it. Since we are not supporters of Big Tobacco, nor have any funding to be threatened by the Knight Fork, it’s just a big silly waste of trolling effort.
But despite repeatedly having those facts put in front of them, every couple of months the Newbie (or sometimes the more boring been around a long time already ones) trot it out again. They just are not capable of learning facts that contradict their preconceived notion of things. I probably wouldn’t mind so much except that they are just so mindlessly wrong…
So anyway, don’t worry about it. It’s just a stock Troll Line.
BTW, the most likely cause of smoking induced cancers is the Polonium that gets deposited in the lungs. Since the tobacco paralyzes the cilia that clean out the lungs, it builds up. The added radiation dose directly to the lung tissue is the likely cause. This implies that ‘the patch’ is a better way to get your nicotine, or even the ‘electric cigarettes’. Near as I can tell, the other components of the smoke don’t do as much (though there are some ‘rough’ chemicals made in the burning process).
As I AM very reactive to smoke, I set out to find out some things about tobacco (mostly out of self preservation and partly to see if I could offer an alternative to smokers… so I could breath freely 😉 Along the way I found that some of the alkaloids look like they have a decent analgesic effect and may help with arthritis. There’s a company now marketing a drug based on them (not nicotine, so no ‘buzz’). I’ve also got some growing in my back yard. They make a great natural insecticide and I’ve not had a leaf miner problem since planting them around the edge of the garden. Along the way I proved to myself that it’s not the plant itself that causes me problems. Nor the nicotine. (Water extract for pesticide use doesn’t bother my skin). So I’ve softened my prior position on Tobacco from “It is just evil and ought to be destroyed in all places and at all times” to “It is just a plant, with some useful properties, that when burned causes me problems, so please don’t burn it near me.” Why use it for pesticide? Because I run a garden free of chemical pesticides and GMO plants. Yeah, another stereotype broken…
That NONE of that has anything to do with Weather, AGW, Anthony, WUWT, Skeptics, etc. etc. is something that the Warmers just can’t quite accept…
So expect it to come around. Again and again and again…
Ah, you bring back memories… Like when I was about 5? and we went to Disneyland for the first time (just opened a couple of years before). Stayed with a ‘friend of Dad’ in Anaheim.
Topping the GrapeVine to descend into the L.A. Basin, you could not see anything but a brown / grey soup bowl of smog. In Anaheim from one end of the block, you could not see the other clearly.
Now we have “spare the air days” called when there is so little ‘crap’ in the air that the mountains in the distance are clearly visible and the air smells clean. There’s simply ‘no there there’. They measure ozone levels (ignoring that ozone is caused by UV and UV levels have been higher) so we get ‘spare the air days’ on clear clean days when there’s a lot of sun… Go figure… Come to think of it, not remembering a lot of alert days since the sun when sleepy and the UV plunged… Hmmm…
But yes, the degree of clean up is really amazing if you lived through it.
@justthefactswuwt :
Wow! Look at how SST plunges in the new one… then they have what looks like a nearly compulsory upward tilt to the ‘bottle brush’ end… Almost like they can’t tolerate the idea of a negative SST anomaly for long. Going to be really interesting to see how they cope with extended cool from low UV penetration into the ocean and thus low ocean heat. Got 30 years or so for it to ‘build down’… (hey, if heat ‘builds up’ then the opposite must be ‘build down’ 😉

Peter Miller

A lot of responses to Pat here, so I will add my ten cents:
1. The Global Warming Industry receives at least one thousand times the annual amount of funding that the sceptics do.
2. The amount of statistics’ manipulation routinely applied by the ‘climate scientists’ is incredible and would not be allowable in any field of real science.
3. The global warming scare is based on the extremely dodgy predictions of computer models, which: i) can rarely hindcast accurately, ii) usually have pre-programmed results, and iii) cannot hope to come anywhere close to reality, due to the huge number of factors (known, unknown, understood and misunderstood) which impact on climate.
4. Part of the ‘cure’ for global warming proposed by alarmists is the extensive use of highly unreliable and expensive renewable energy (wind and solar), where the only economic benefit is enjoyed by Chinese manufacturers.
5. Rising carbon dioxide levels probably accounted for part of the 0.7-1.0 degrees C increase in global temperatures experienced over the past century, the rest was caused by natural climate cycles, the arch-heresy of alarmists.
6. There has been no measurable increase in global temperatures over the past 16 years – doubtless revisions of official statistics will change this shortly – despite continued rises in CO2 levels.
7. Rising carbon dioxide levels are mostly beneficial – e.g plants grow faster – so lie back and enjoy it.
I am just one of the hundreds of thousands of scientists, (apparently 3% of the total – sarc) who recognise CAGW as being a crock, a non-problem and just an excuse to keep the Global Warming Industry’s bloated gravy train well funded.

David Schofield

Channel 4 TV in the UK is broadcasting on Tuesday;
‘Is Our Weather Getting Worse?’
“From drought to violent storms and floods, 2012’s weather has given us a lot to talk about. Has it been a freak year or should we prepare for more extreme weather like this in the future?”

Jim benson

Doesn’t that storm pic at the top look like Lord Moncton’s right eye ?


Hello again Pat Ravasio.
The first point is that you have missed the point and didn’t bother reading the article. It’s about Co2 and other greenhouse gases being accused by Warmists of causing extreme weather. It’s not about whether we should adopt cleaner energy or not. WUWT has provided evidence to the contrary on extreme weather. It is now up to you to provide evidence of an increasing trend in extreme weather. Can you do this???? This is my challenge to you. It should be easy from the ‘mountains of peer reviewed research’ I often hear about.
Please note the following very carefully. Anthony Watts was a Warmist just like you until he started looking deeper into the matter. I used to be a Warmist until I started looking into the matter. My guess, and it’s only a guess, is that over 1/3 of the sceptics on this blog used to be Warmists.
Out of interest do you drive an electric car, have solar or are into energy efficiency? Anthony Watts is into those things.
1) I am not affiliated to the fossil fuel industry. I have never received a single dime from any energy company whatsoever. However, I wish they would send me money. (Why do Warmists always assume all skeptics have some kind of financial interest in presenting opposing views.)
2) My motivation is to to simply try to get to the ‘truth’ of the matter concerning CAGW. I don’t like being manipulated, deliberately misinformed or lied to.
3) Almost everything I enjoy today has been brought about directly and indirectly by energy provided by fossil fuels. I am not going to bite that hand though I am prepared to tell them to keep it as clean as possible as possible. Who wants their kids to breath in smog? Look at London today or San Francisco Part. Something has changed.
4) I don’t want to see unnecessary deaths. Look at the excess winter deaths in the UK over the years. Much could have been avoided if the Met Office was not so damn sure about co2 warming. The UK was ill prepared with gritters, many old people died, young people became stranded in cars and on foot and died. More deaths will occur if we close down our fossil fuel plants and replace them with wind and solar. Think about an overcast day in the UK in the middle of January when there is very little wind. Add to that an average temperature on -5C and wind power / solar only. You will have disaster. Can we then hold you responsible for the deaths of thousands of people?
On your website I informed you that your other comment had been replied to by the physicist rgbatduke . Why didn’t you reply? Did you read it?


This ravasio sounds like a narcissist. Everything is about him. Everyone’s responses- especially Chiefio’s (no offense to everyone else, but he tried hardest), is meaningless, in the face of this person’s need to be the Center of the Universe. Everything anyone said, only goes to prove his point. Of course, Ignoring him or blocking him would only serve to prove his point, also.

son of mulder

Another angle that would benefit from good factual input would be a page that takes an actuarial view of trends in the costs of damage caused by weather events like hurricanes and coastal flooding that may be laid at the doors of climate change / sea level rise.
Often one sees articles like
These need to be debunked when appropriate in the same way that the straight linking of weather events to climate change need to be debunked when appropriate.


@ Pat:
You ask what motivates to “deny” the “consensus” on CAGW. Well here’s my motivation:
1. No increase in land temperatures in 16 years. That’s 30% of the World.
2. No increase in Pacific Ocean sea temperatures in 18 years. That’s another 30% of the World.
3. Bob Tisdale has a fantastic explanation of how the last 30 years of positive ENSO natural cycle charged up hot water by absorbing incoming solar energy, sent it shooting across the Indian, up the Atlantic to the Arctic Ocean where it disperses heat into the atmosphere during winter. Note: that’s a one sentence summary of thousands of pages of research.
So 60% of the planet’s surface has seen no increase in temperatures during the same period that a third of all atmospheric CO2 was produced (IPCC numbers would say that that amount of CO2 should have caused 1.5C increase in that period). The Arctic temperature increase is easily explained by the natural ENSO cycle (which also explains why the ice melted) as explained by Bob Tisdale.
I can prove man-caused global warming is false over 70% of the planet. I challenge you to prove man-caused global warming is true over 70% of the planet. If you can, I will convert and become a CAGW worshiper.


So, someone explain the “greenhouse effect” again????????????????????????????????

Keith AB

E.M.Smith says:
December 8, 2012 at 11:02 pm (Edit)
Great response Chiefio , bazinga one might say.
Whenever that little trope of “well imagine if it wasn’t true we would only have improved the planet” I respond in three ways . . .
1. Improved how, improved for who? All of those “little people” yearning for cheap, safe and ubiquitous energy. Surely all those idiot windmills and solar panels have consequences and down sides, they just aren’t identified. We live on an increasingly clean planet while our energy consumption and population rise. You will note that wherever energy consumption is low the environment is pretty crappy because people are too busy with chopping down the biosphere to burn for cooking and warmth, to have time left over for protecting anything but themselves.
2. Defining improving the environment in terms of reducing CO2 is just perverse. The only effect will be to reduce the lifestyles of things that photosynthesise. Which will call for an increase in cultivated areas and more environmental destruction.
Pat is a simple believer who, unlike many of us here, hasn’t evolved into a questioning person. It is sad but not permanent and one day he will encounter that “State of Fear” moment and realise he has been lied to. Then , like me, he will realise that . .
3. You can’t build something good on a lie.