Goremongering and Mannhandling the reality of winter weather ‘bombs’

This happened a couple of days ago, where Gore quotes failed climate science promoter (note Dr. Mann that I didn’t say carnival barker as is your favorite slur) and while many rushed to cover it right away, because of the sheer ridiculousness of it,  I wanted to wait and see what the fallout was. There’s plenty.

Al gore Tweeted this:


You can read Mann’s reasoning here.

But those darn climate deniers doubters see right through the excrement.

One of my Facebook friends (who is a cop, trained to detect people lying) said this in a Facebook post:

“Snake oil salesman quotes Penn data molester” should be the headline.”

Then there’s this observation by Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com:

Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth did not warn of record cold and increasing snowfalls as a consequence of man-made global warming. And as recently as 2009, Gore was hyping the lack of snow as evidence for man-made global warming. Source: “Gore Reports Snow and Ice Across the World Vanishing Quickly.”

And who can forget this famous quote from Dr. David Viner, which was recently disappeared from the newspaper online archive, but I saved a copy here.


Morano further reports:

But as the snow piled up, the climate change claims were adjusted and cold and snow were added to the list of things caused by “global warming.” See: Warmists Wheel Out “Record Cold Due To Global Warming” Argument Again

Predictions of less snow and less severe winters were hammered into the public by global warming scientists. But once that predictions failed to come true, the opposite of what they predicted instead became—what they expected. 

If “climate change” is causing record cold and snow, then it would stand to reason that Gore is suggesting that if the U.S. had ratified the UN’s Kyoto Protocol treaty on “global warming” back in the 1990’s — the winter of 2018 would have been warmer?

Reality Check: But scientists are not buying the claims of Gore and Mann and others linking the record cold and snow to “global warming.”

‘Insanity…It’s Witchcraft’ – Meteorologist Joe Bastardi on claims that cold & snow caused by ‘global warming’ – WeatherBell Meteorologist Joe Bastardi on January 4, 2018: “This is flat out insanity and deception now To tell the public that events that have occurred countless times before with no climate change attribution, is now just that, is not science, its witchcraft. NO PROOF AT ALL. Its climate ambulance chasing, nothing more.”

Bastardi added: “This has happened countless times before and it wasn’t global warming then and is not now. Solid use of past patterns predicted major early cold from OCTOBER! I have tweeted that dozens of times showing the analog years I used, No co2 then.”

Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also weighed in, explaining:

“For those who claim USA/Canada nor’easter is stronger because of ‘global warming’, they apparently do not realize that it’s so strong because of especially strong horizontal temperature gradient in troposphere. It ‘bombed’ because of usually cold air!”

Even Dr. Kenneth Trenberth panned the Gore/Mann stupidity alliance:

Global Warming Is Not Causing Harsh Winter Weather – Daily Caller – Excerpts:

Kevin Trenberth, a scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said “winter storms are a manifestation of winter, not climate change.”

“Such claims make no sense and are inconsistent with observations and the best science,” University of Washington climatologist Cliff Mass said of claims made by Mann and others. “The frequency of cold waves have decreased during the past fifty years, not increased. That alone shows that such claims are baseless.” “And on a personal note, it is very disappointing that members of my profession are making such obviously bogus claims,” Mass said. “It hurts the science, it hurts the credibility of climate scientists, and weakens our ability to be taken seriously by society.” …

Every winter seems to reignite the global warming debate. Things got intense in 2014 when former White House science czar John Holdren put out a video where he claimed that year’s “polar vortex” was actually a sign of global warming. Holdren’s video was largely based on research by Rutgers University scientist Jennifer Francis, which claims that warming in the Arctic is making the jet stream more wobbly, making cold snaps and nor’easter storms more frequent. Holdren later admitted that his video was based on his “personal opinion” of the science, but the argument is still used every time cold Arctic air pours down through the lower 48 states.

Mann wrote that global warming may be “causing the jet stream to meander in a particular pattern” that causes cold spells in the eastern U.S. Mann suggested this pattern was being driven by “the dramatic loss of sea ice in the Arctic.” Yet, scientists aren’t sold on this theory. Mass noted how theoretical research shows the opposite happening, future warming would drive less undulation in the jet stream and heat up the area responsible for cold spells in the U.S. “Research documented in peer-reviewed journals has demonstrated that there is no evidence for their claims of increasing frequency of ‘lazy jet streams’ and blocking over time,” Mass said. “If you substantially warm the source region of cold air, cold waves will decline,” Mass said. A 2014 study led by Colorado State University climate scientist Elizabeth Barnes found no evidence to back up the theory that a lazy or wobbling jet stream was becoming more frequent. “There is much disagreement on whether we have already witnessed substantial impacts,” Barnes wrote in a Thursday blog post for the Climate Variability and Predictability program. …

Climatologist Judith Curry said the “bomb cyclone” currently hammering North America is nothing new. Those extra-tropical storms have undergone “bombogenesis,” or rapid intensification. “The term ‘bomb’ for such storms was coined almost 40 years ago by MIT’s Fred Sanders,” Curry told TheDCNF, “who spent much of his career studying such storms back when global warming most definitely was not a factor.” …

Curry said that while “warmer oceans can cause greater snowfall,” storm intensity is also influenced ” by the patterns of sea surface temperature not so much the average temperatures.” But Mann’s arguments are more based on expectations of what could happen with more warming, and have little to do with current trends in “bomb cyclones.” Weather.us meteorologist Ryan Maue, an expert on cyclones, pointed out there are between 50 and 60 “bomb cyclones” every year in the Northern Hemisphere, many of which we don’t notice because they are too far out at sea. But Maue’s research on “bomb cyclones” also don’t show any discernible trends from 1979 to 2010.

And Dr. Roy Spencer notes that this ‘bomb’ phenomena is nothing new:

For those wondering, the meteorological term “bomb” was coined by Fred Sanders in 1980 in a Monthly Weather Review article, it refers to “an extratropical surface cyclone with a central pressure that falls on the average at least 1 millibar per hour for 24 hours”.

It’s also not uncommon, as Dr. Ryan Maue points out:

Dr. Roy Spencer adds this – “My imagined conversation with Al Gore:

MR. GORE: This cold wave and snowstorm are just what global warming predicted!

ME: And what if the weather had been unusually warm and snow-free?

MR. GORE: That would also be consistent with global warming theory.

ME: So warm winters, cold winters, snowy winters, and no-snow winters are all predictions of global warming?

MR. GORE: Yes, that is correct.

ME: Are you aware how foolish that sounds to many people?

MR. GORE: I am aware that there are deniers of the current climate crisis we are in, yes.

ME: Ugh.

I’ll just leave this here:



newest oldest most voted
Notify of

the CAGW alarmists are getting desperate and grasping at any straw (occurance of extreme weather) to try to make their case. Unfortunately there are a lot of uncritical thinkers (sadly many of them are scientists themselves) who accept the absurd notions as truth.


There are some crazy infantile people around, and it isn’t the current POTUS but the ex vice POTUS.

This seems to be the last nail in the coffin of CAGW – at looooong last….

Coach Springer

Martin Hovland,

Last nail? Only until the next warm season. Even if it were, thanks to all the hyperbole and government buy-ins on wind mills and “clean” energy, there are no coffins for the un-dead. They are committed to the CO2 as polluition path no matter whi8le academia’s credibility is committed to CAGW to the extent they can’t just saw the limb off that they’ve climbed out on..

Look, people, if your very profession was at stake, wouldn’t you fight tooth and nail to preserve it? Even to the point of absurdity?

No. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, it is better to remain silent and be thought an idiot than to speak and remove all doubt.

Greg Cavanagh

I would look for another job, but hey, everybody’s different.

No, I have professional integrity.


“I would look for another job, but hey, everybody’s different.”

It depends on what your job is. If you were a scientists, decades of failed predictions might suggest you get another job. On the other hand, these people are propagandists that can point to their success brainwashing generations of people into wasting trillions of dollars on this fr4ud. They probably think they are very successful.

Gary Pearse

Your livelihood wouldn’t be in danger if you were a scientist of high integrity and went where the evidence took you. I’m mindful of a common discovery of Williis Eschenbach when he almost always is taken by surprise by counter-intuitive findings in his research.. He delights in Nature’s apparent obtuse offerings. I suspect that that is the true nature of science. i t must be exceedingly boring to be a climate scientist who knows all the answers ahead of 5he research and marks such surprises as a need for observation adjustments.


No, I would take the opposite approach, to wit: “No, this is not the direction of change we were expecting. We know we are affecting the climate by the tons of pollutants we are adding to the atmosphere, and thought we had a handle on what to expect. Clearly we don’t. This is the worst possible scenario. We are making drastic changes and have no idea of the final outcome. We need to greatly increase our efforts in climate research until we understand what is happening, and what course of action would be the most prudent to mitigate or adapt to those changes.
Send us more research funds. The future of your children depend on your doing that today.”

This approach would make you seem honest, humble, sincere and concerned, yet keep the money flowing in. Just maintain the fiction that man is causing a future catastrophe, and always claim that the situation is ‘worse than we thought.’


phillip bratby has the correct answer. i strongly suspect many of today’s mannian virtue signallers could not spell integrity.

the last thing they are going to say is “so much global warming would bring us the next glacial age.


” so much global warming would bring us the next glacial age”
unless there are drastic cuts in the CO2 emissions in California, the Manhattan glacier will become a major tourist attraction.
comment image

Tom in Florida

Well if the Arctic doesn’t warm and the ice doesn’t melt, where will the moisture come from to create the great northern ice sheets when our orbital changes really due usher in the end of this interglacial.

The oceans.

the humidity always comes from the south, or from the ocean. Then, the low pressure cells attract frigid air from the Arctic. It is the mixing of frigid from the north and hot air from the Atlantic or the south that makes the snow. The polar wind came south because of the hot air arrived near.


Yes but will the people get the message? I believe so. You can’t continually change your lie to suit your narrative and expect people to believe you every time. The MSM may be powerful but they can’t change facts.


No, but they certainly try.


Yes, but they can lie about the facts…and do constantly. You don’t need facts if your lies are confirmed and supported by 97% of all fuckwitts.



John F. Hultquist

Nicely put together.
Thanks A. W., and all the others contributing material.


On the hemispheric chart, looks as for the most of the time the pendulum is swinging between the North and the South or at standstill as is in the 93-97 period. Next time maybe green for the North with lot of land and greening of the planet, and blue for the oceans of the South.


Prof. Mass thinks climate science has a credibility problem. Quite easily the understatement of the year, and the year has just begun.


I love it when Algore speaks. Most other fools eventually learn to keep their mouth shut. Not so with gore.

The next Time cover, sometime in the 2020’s, will say


It’s déjà vu all over again.
– Yogi Berra


If my clock is correct the next Time cover on climate will be about 2035. If they are still in business.

Crispin in Waterloo

I am led to believe that Time cover 1977 is faked, and that it was produced by Time themselves. Can someone confirm this is the one?

I believe that is a fake cover. I have seen a number of variants of it, published to damage skeptics. It was Newsweek that heavily promoted the coming ice age in 1975; it and many others have been trying to rubbish that article for years.

The cover images in Allan’s posting above are fakes, among others which may have been “false flagged” into the Internet in an attempt to undermine the CAGW skeptic position. See https://www.snopes.com/the-coming-ice-age/

When people post the doctored versions, it helps the warmistas in their efforts to discredit their opponents. Posting these fake news items, even if unwittingly, plays into their hands. It reduces the credibility of skeptics and distracts attention from the fact that Time and Newsweek actually did run articles in the 1970s on the threat of global cooling. The moral of the story is: check your sources before posting.

The actual articles in these magazines can be viewed at http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html and http://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-rewind-debunking-global-cooling-252326 Note the gymnastics in the Newsweek follow-up to try to downplay how wrong its original article was.


The Climate Reality Project…does not allow comments……. 🙂


Climate Reality Altering Project


+97 for CRAP

J Mac

We’ve seen this act before…..
Tommy Flanagan – The Pathological Lyre

Mr Julian Forbes-Laird

Newton’s Fourth Law:
“For every climate model prediction there is an equal and opposite observation”

Though actually perhaps Gray’s Law is more apposite:
“Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice”

(with apologies to Arthur C Clarke)


Nice! I like that.
But incompetence and malice are not mutually exclusive, To Wit: Dr Mann.


Climate Change Double Standard Double Speak Proves Slimate Clience is a Fraud

Climate “Expert” Al Gore then Tweeted about Climate Guru Michael Mann’s new article about how the record cold is in fact evidence and the expected outcome of global warming, sorry climate change


Alarmist Guardian is more circumspect in their factual Brutal and ‘bone-chilling’ cold report.
Interesting quote : “It’s definitely cold and the type of bone-chilling cold that happens every few years,” said Dan Hofmann, a meteorologist with the NWS in Baltimore. He added that the last time such extreme cold occurred was in February 2015.”

Well, if a meteorologist says ‘that happens every few years’ there can’t be ‘unprecedented’ or even unusual.


Alarmist Guardian is more circumspect in their factual Brutal and ‘bone-chilling’ cold report.
Interesting quote : “It’s definitely cold and the type of bone-chilling cold that happens every few years,” said Dan Hofmann, a meteorologist with the NWS in Baltimore. He added that the last time such extreme cold occurred was in February 2015.”

Well, if a meteorologist says ‘that happens every few years’ there can’t be ‘unprecedented’ or even unusual.


but the above is unusual, my comment got posted twice.

Pop Piasa

Happens every few years…


Not an unprecedented comment then…..Arf…

I’ll get my hat.

Hot under the collar

Yep, like everything else, double posting is caused by climate change! Don’t know if it’s unprecedented, I suppose it depends if you double posted in the last few years. : )



I look forwards to repeated commenting becoming a rare and exciting event.

Rainer Bensch

Get a new mouse.


Climate Crisis? Al Gore and Michael Mann Fail Science 101

Facts are, even if Michael Mann and Al Gore are 100% correct, they have absolutely no viable solutions to the problem. Their nonsensical solutions make society worse off, and their cure is far worse than the illness. That being said, let’s take a look at Michael Mann’s explanation as to how CO2 can cause such record cold spells.

Ignoring the facts that the current cold is a weather phenomenon, not a change in climate, the problem Michael Mann and the climate alarmists face is that the only mechanism defined by which CO2 can affect climate change is be trapping outgoing IR radiation between 13 and 18µ. That is the only defined mechanism, and the only result possible is the “thermalization” of those wavelengths resulting in atmospheric WARMING. There is no way for “thermalization” to result in cooling…none. How then, does Michael Mann address this issue?

Harry Passfield

Nope. In following this (AGW) debate for most of this century and reading a ton of stuff here and on other blogs and books I have yet to recall any quote of Mann’s where he predicted screaming cold Winters as being the precursor to or evidence of global warming.


“Climate ambulance chasing” a very very apt terms. These poor excuses for human beings take relish in any weather related disaster, and instantly start pushing their barrow with complete disregard to any human misery that is rolling out before their eyes. To me its a weird kind of sociopathy.


Very good point, yarpos. Climate ambulance chasing is about greed at its worst, and that’s all I see coming out of Algore and Mann.

Extreme Hiatus

I’m happy to see I’m not the only person using the term “data molester.” Most appropriate!


Yeah, seems they do quite a bit of molesting at Penn State…


On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of PSU grads around the world, let me be the first to tell you to take your snarky comment and shove it!

Man Bearpig

Also remember David Vine. “Our children will not know what snow is” it is a complete travesty of honest science to change the theory to match the results.


But it’s guaranteed to get lots of attention, and that’s what really matters for some people who use ‘caring’ and ‘good intentions’ as a mask to further their own self advancement.


The latest I can find is:

He seems to be a nimble fellow, and there are lots of references to “higher salary”.


Basically Vine is saying that he is a bullsh1t artist who keeps landing on his feet.
His kind make me puke.


To be fair to him he has been frequently misquoted as his statement referred only to snow in England. But then snow free winters always have been common here, even when it gets quite cold we often don’t get any snow.

Man Bearpig

I think caught him out on the Met Office blog a few years back claiming that they expected winter to be the coldest season of the year. I’ll see if I can dig up the link.


With apologies to Gene Roddenberry and Leonard Nimoy
“It’s global warming but not as we know it.”

Or to to vary the old saying
“When you’re under six foot of snow it’s hard to remember that the objective was to convince the populace that global warming is a real and imminent threat requiring taxes and promotion of subsidised inefficient wind and solar farms”

The very last image in this post is uncalled for — rank name calling — violates WUWT policy and standards. This isn’t junior high, after all.

Pop Piasa

I’ll agree with Kip, observation of the gravity these two have in the press leads me to believe they are anything but dunces, to the point of being cold and calculating above average mentalities. They seem to mirror others in power in different sectors.
Jr High yearbook does come to mind.


I’ll agree with Kip and Pop. Lord knows I have called those two men all kinds of names in my mind, but if I put it out there for all to see, I am loading bullets in their guns.

In deciding whether or not we stoop too low in the act of “rank name calling”, where Dr. Mann is concerned, we might do well to weigh our penchant for dignity against the following:


Rather than present data or debate the science, Mann mostly engaged in the sophistry that has gradually undermined the credibility of climate science. He repeatedly referred to a bogus “97 percent consensus” about man-made climate change, and accused the Heartland Institute of being a “climate-change denying, Koch brothers–funded outlet.” He engaged in one ad hominem attack after another against his fellow panelists and the committee’s chairman, Representative Lamar Smith. He questioned whether Smith really understood the scientific method and read a nasty quote about Smith from a smear piece in Science magazine

Mann’s rhetoric became so inflamed that he was finally upbraided by Representative Dana Rohrabacher. “From the get go, we have heard personal attack after personal attack coming from those claiming to represent the mainstream of science,” Rohrabacher said to Mann. “Call people ‘deniers’ all you want, use any kind of name you want . . . when we talk about Mr. Lysenko, that’s the kind of thing they did to the scientists in Russia. Try to call people names and beat them into submission, that’s a Stalinist tactic.”

Mann’s name-calling prompted Representative Darin LaHood (R., Ill.) to bring up his defamation lawsuit against National Review. After getting confirmation from Curry and Pielke that they had been subjected to attacks by Mann — Pielke said he couldn’t “keep up with all of Dr. Mann’s epithets” — LaHood called Mann on his hypocrisy: “You mention in your opening statement about staying away from that and yet we have a suit that’s been filed based on those exact same things. There’s a real disconnect between a defamation suit that does the exact same thing you’re engaged in that in this public forum.”

In light of such information, I cannot agree with Kip on this one. If a guy with Mann’s seemingly dignified credentials can play this game, then “game on” might not be such a bad way to go in his case.

It is just a joke. And I think it is funny.

I have to agree with Kip. The rank name calling can be pointed to by those who want to disparage all the work that Anthony has done. The other side can use it to dismiss everything that is on this site. It is so readily taken out of context.


Rank name calling is okay if you’re a skeptic.

henryp and Sheri ==> Different strokes for different folks.

I’d like to hold this blog to its original standards…and not let “funny” slip in where good taste and collegiality belong.


Kip: That would be good, but that rarely seems to happen. I wish it wasn’t so. It would be great to discuss global warming science as science, not as personalities and “good guy/bad guy”. On blogs that allowed the name-calling, trying to reign it in is difficult once it takes hold. So it probably will remain in the “wish” catagory as long as AGW is so political and snarly.

Sheri ==> Anthony Watts has held the line for many years. It is not easy, particularly when others have spent lots of time and money smearing your name everywhere they can with false accusations and misrepresentations — endlessly — until total strangers call you home phone or appear at your door with threats and violence in their hearts.
Nonetheless, we hold ourselves to a higher standard just because it is right — and when we fall short — we admit it, straighten our shoulders, and carry on trying our best.
[end of sermon — kh]

Hot under the collar

I don’t know about the very last image in this post being uncalled for? On my web page the very last image is an advert for warm coats, definitely called for in this weather!


That’s what Anthony’s vacation last summer was all about (giving himself a time out for future bad behavior… ☺)

fonz ==> Very well done !

Maybe, Kip.

What are the options?

1) incompetence
2) utter greed while ignoring misery caused to others.
3) malice
4) sloth and laziness, again ignoring misery caused to others
5) inappropriate education, pretending to conduct science they are fail to comprehend.
6) ignorance, again pretending to conduct science beyond their comprehension.

A) Following a history of accusing others of lying, carnival barking, etc; Mann could be depicted as a carnival barker. Though, in my mind, a cruel animal trainer is more apropos.

B) Their utter dependence upon fooling victims to demand their funds, depicting the losers as snake oil salespeople. Peddling nonsense, witchcraft, voodoo and violated data.

C) An uncaring Scrooge persona; personal gains instead of civilization benefit.

D) couch potatoes; except the dreadfully lazy rarely exert themselves.

E) Then there are both Mann & Gore’s communications at all forms of communication. Gore may not be as foul mouthed as Mann, both feel they can freely injure others’ personally and professionally as much as they can.

Leaving depictions of ignorance and misused educational funds.
It is interesting how Mann makes a dunce cap look smart.

What would be terribly wrong would be to depict these character assassinators and science abusers as professionals.
They’re not professional at any level.


I have just have to keep asking: if more CO2 leads to more heat, AND more CO2 leads to more cold, what exactly is LESS CO2 supposed to do?

Based on the evidence from Germany, UK, and Australia, make your electricity bills rise sharply.

Clay Sanborn

Bankrupt Al Gore? Just a guess…

F. Leghorn

Not so easy to bankrupt a billionaire. Jail might work.

I have just have to keep asking: if more CO2 leads to more heat, AND more CO2 leads to more cold, what exactly is LESS CO2 supposed to do?

The same only in reverse.

Extreme Hiatus

Perfect answer M Simon. They probably have models to ‘prove’ that.


“I have just have to keep asking: if more CO2 leads to more heat, AND more CO2 leads to more cold, what exactly is LESS CO2 supposed to do?”

Good question, Notanist. You have now become completely unemployable as a journalist!

Mike Maguire

“what exactly is LESS CO2 supposed to do?”

The dead serious answer is that it would cause world wide hunger and death from starvation.

If CO2 levels would suddenly drop back below 300 parts per million and the planet cooled by 1 deg. C to conditions similar the start of the Industrial Revolution, well over a billion people on this planet that currently have enough food to eat would go hungry, many would starve to death.
The price for all crops would probably triple.


Probably 75% of the increase in crop production that we’ve seen over the last 100 years has been the result of technological advances. The other 25% has come from atmospheric fertilization from increasing CO2 in tandem with the best weather/climate for growing crops in the last 1,000 years(since the Medieval Warm Period that was this warm).

Recent years have featured record warm global temperatures and increasing, record CO2 levels. Look at how food production(cereal crops) responded during that time frame:


Not in spite of the conditions but BECAUSE OF them.

Take the beneficial warming and CO2 from the last century away and crop/food production would plunge.
Imagine if conditions ever reverted back to what they were like during The Little Ice Age, including the dangerously low levels of atmospheric CO2 for life/plants back then?

The crop failures,famine and widespread death would be unimaginable.

David A

“what exactly is LESS CO2 supposed to do?”

Goldilocks climate of course, perfect climate everywhere.

ANSWER: Less CO2 leads to more excuses to find something else to be alarmed about.

Its tough for warmunists when Mother Nature does not cooperate. Except for the now cooled 2015-16 El Nino warming blip, no warming this century (except by Karlization) despite that time interval comprising ~35% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1958. Sea level rise not accelerating. Polar bears thriving. Earth greening. Snow falling. Arctic ice not disappearing. No climate refugees anywhere. Hansen labelling Paris agreement a sham. South Australia suffing renewable caused blackouts. German Energiewende economically imploding.


….and there are still tons of people….that are well aware of all that…..and they still believe

Russ R.

A bunch of blue states, that went for Trump are dreaming of some warming right now. But what they really believe in is a warm home, that has a furnace that works, hot water that they can count on, and reliable transportation. All the things we depend on fossil fuels to deliver. And get us through during a difficult “life threatening” period. Someone asking us to do with less, or pay more, in the next election will not be “warmly received”.


“Penn data molester” – that’s a lot nicer than anything I’d say about Mr. Mann.

All I’m really interested in is accurate and reliable weather forecasting. Since neither of the Almanacs predicted a beastly and bitter cold snap for my region, I feel free to thumb my nose at both of them, as well as the Algorebullspew and the Mann prognostications, because those two mordant blowhards are also wrong, wrong, wrong. And now, they’re becoming crashing bores – both of them. If you take a jaundiced look at what these two yahoos are doing, it’s almost entirely for the sole purpose of getting attention, and maybe more money into the bargain.

If this weather cycle is similar to the 1978-1979 cycle, when Chicago had a snow load so heavy it shut down both major airports and was followed by several beastly cold winters with some snow, but not a lot, and was repeated about 18 to 20 years later, then it’s just a weather cycle.

Here’s the timeline for my area: February 2011 – major snowstorm (blizzard) shuts down traffic, nearly buries my neighborhood, requiring one of those small diggers to come out with a shovel and pile the snow in heaps for pickup. People got stuck on country roads where snow had drifted because the plows were busy on the major highways. Some people froze to death. Great Lakes freeze over and Superior doesn’t melt until July.
Next winter (2011-2012), just as bad. I measured 14 inches of new snowfall and the cold was horrendous. Lots of birds showed up at my feeding station, including a rare (for this area) white-throated sparrow.
2012-2013, not so much snow, but bitter cold. 2013-2014 mostly normal cold, dry roads, modest snowfall.
2014-2015 cold but manageable, and normal snow for the area. By mid-March, the migrating birds had returned but the snow had not melted and there were no bugs or anything else for them to eat. I fed grackles, redwings, and cowbirds, even a few starlings, until things thawed. Spring was late in coming. Bugs did not appear until end of April – too confounded COLD!
2015-2016 very cold but manageable and normal snow for the area, and my pipes froze. Had to have the plumber come thaw them and wrap them with foam. The spring weather was late again. Trees did not leaf out until mid-April. No bugs for the birds to eat. I fed them until mid-May.
2016-2017 very, very cold in December, then snow, and 15 days after the cold snap, the weather warmed up to a mild winter with modest snow here and there, BUT the snow continued to fall until April 2017.
2017-2018 – VERY cold end of December, modest snowfall. The weather is supposed to warm to 30s by Sunday. Fine by me. Snow will melt and the birds will be back.
I have not used air conditioning spring or summer since 2012. Haven’t needed it.
As far as I’m concerned, Algore the Bore and Mann the (snort!) Panhandler can go pound sand.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.

the sun has a number of cycles
I have been able to find correlation with the position of the planets and with what goes on at the sun. Maybe there are a few others who found the same.
Before me there were people who also found the same patterns as me, namely the 87 year Gleissberg sine wave, measured by by looking at incoming energy.
But it seems they were forgotten?
note tables 2 and 3….
Thanks for reading.
Stay with wuwt and get wise.


“I have been able to find correlation with the position of the planets and with what goes on at the sun.”

Shhhh…..Don’t let out any secrets. This is supposed to be a surprise.


Henryp, I’ve given that a lot of thought, too, and have asked myself repeatedly what the correspondence is between severe winters and sun cycles (start and finish), e.g., how much lag there is.
I do not understand why anyone who sees/observes the seasonal changes in the hemispheres cannot make the connections between Spring + Summer = warm and Fall + Winter = cold. It’s as plain as day, but these are cycles within other cycles. How can anyone miss this?
Thanks for the tables. I’m already a weisenheimer!

Crispin in Waterloo

I don’t think there is a Gleissberg cycle. I think it is an artifact from the re-averaging averages. Didn’t Willis write a blog post on this?

@ crispin
I stumbled on the Gleissberg when I looked at some data from a military base in Alaska, who had good reliable daily data going back to 1940.

This was back in 2013, so the data runs until Dec. 2012.
(looking at maxima or minima is more reliable as there is nothing much that can go wrong with a thermometer stuck at the Min/Max in the meter and changes in calibration procedures over time can be eliminated if you look at the rate of change, like I did)

Unfortunately, at the time most of my information that I looked at gave the Gleissberg at 88 years, (on average, over 12000 years)

I subsequently determined that over the past few 200 years the cycle was in fact just 86.5 years. The last half cycle is equal to two Hale cycles that ran from 1971 until 2014. Hence, the lowest point in the wave has been passed already, the sine wave is going up now again but it is still globally cooling until about 2037.5

Since the Gleissberg is real we have to consider some of the dire consequences that is coming up in a few years from now, especially for north America….:
Now from 1932, count back another 87 years: 1845

The logic for the coming drought is as follows:

As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapor available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become cooler and/or drier. On and around the equator it will become wetter [which we have already seen on the Philipines, in Brazil, Indonesia and more recently with Irma, in the Caribbean, etc.

@ Sara

Just a tip. It might be a good idea to make some hard copies of the tables and the reports that I quoted. One day you might find that it is all removed from the internet.

Sorry. Something went wrong there with the link about the drought that killed a lot of Buffalo.
Here is another reference to that drought in 1845.

Brett Keane

Yes, Sara. Here in the SH(NZ), summers have been feeble and short for most of this century too. An LIA sort of thing, it seems to me. The Quiet Sun seems to allow excesses of cold, wet in particular, snow nearer the Poles. Now waiting with trepidation for droughts…… Jennifer from Rutgers was an early responder in twisting the causes of the wavy jetstream 180degrees.


Liberals can take one position, that the recent record cold is normal and natural, when they are taking the position opposite of President Trump. Liberals can then take the exact opposite position when they are defending Al Gore and Michael Mann. The position a liberal will take isn’t dependent upon the science, data or facts, the position a liberal will take is dependent upon who is making the claim. If Conservative believe the facts point to climate change being a fraud, liberals will defend it to the death as scientific truth. Liberals are so oblivious to the facts that The Guardian recently published an article about global warming and defended their position by using quotes that disprove the very position they were intended to defend.


The Marxist shills for A-Global Warming … are like my 8yo kids who make-up ever-changing, fanciful, excuses for why lamp in the living room was broken. The wind did it. My brother/sister did it. The cat did it. It tipped over on its own. The bulb burned out and the shock caused the lamp to fall over. The dog did it. YOU did it … I saw you !


What? They haven’t involved “Not me” and the Invisible Friend just yet?

Nick Werner

Extending the Gore/Mann style of science a.k.a. perverted logic, it follows that every location that did NOT set an extreme cold record in the last two weeks must have been enduring even GREATER global warming when their most extreme cold temperatures were recorded… in 1968, 1950, 1911, … whenever.


global warming logic:…..if it wasn’t for global warming…it would have been hell of a lot colder


Climate change simultaneously responsible for Aussie heat!
“Emergency services in southeast Australia are warning people to stay indoors as a dangerous heatwave batters the country, with temperatures so high that the asphalt on some roads has been melting. “


Asphalt melting is not uncommon in the US. Is it in southeast Australia?


No. The formula is modified to account for the higher temperatures that are normal here. In Australia, it regularly gets higher than is predicted for this week. Canberra is predicted to reach 39C today, dropping to 30C from Monday. In the late ’80s, early ’90s it went over 40C for as much as a week at a time.


Hivemind: Thank you. I had no idea!


Yes, but if the media do not say something aimed at inducing panic in the population, those vapid reporters might lose their jobs!!! Da Horreure!!!


Wait a second, asphalt melting is not uncommon in the US?
It gets soft, but melt?
Is it in Australia?
Okay, no, it is not uncommon?
Meaning…um…it is common, or thereabouts.
No idea?
What, that it gets hot in Australia?

I live in south east OZ we had one day of 40C north wind of the desert by 6.30 in the evening we had a south wind that dropped the temp to around 25 C. Not a heat wave just one hot day for the next 5days max around25C with some showers. The hype for this one day was Algoricle.


It was 42C yesterday, with a balmy 25C evening in Melbourne AU. Today it’ll be 20C. In south east Australia, we used to endue heatwaves that lasted a week or more. Now the media seems to be defining heatwaves as hot weather that lasts 1 day. http://www.baywx.com.au/WWW/melbt2_yest.png


all the global change believers should state there age as most were not around in the 50s and 60s when it was HOT and no air conditioning in houses and cars in Australia

Andrew John

You took the words right out of my mouth Forrest. The tarmac coming up on the Hume Hwy was the day before the 40º+ day, yet it was reported as if the heatwave cause it. Prior to the event temperatures in the area varied between 23º-29º the week of the road coming unstuck. New bitumen was laid along that stretch a few weeks prior to Christmas. It looks like VicRoads did a rather shotty job of it, so it can’t be the fault of the government road authority, it must be climate change.

MSM scared the hell out of everyone, just as they did when a rainstorm event was expected in Victoria in early December. It was called “stormageddon” by the media. We were told major flooding was expected (100-200mm of rain expected), to bunker down. Roads would be unsafe to travel on and power may be cut in many areas. Farmers worked 36 hours to harvest crops in expectation of the stromageddon. Turned out to be a complete flop. We had 50-70mm of rain in some areas. I actually mowed my lawn as the sun was shinning in the morning. The media will cause a panic one day with his ridiculous hyperbole.

I’ve endured the last three days of Australia’s national TV broadcaster leading its major bulletins with stories about the impending and occurring “extreme” and “catastrophic” heatwave set to devastate the south-eastern states, with live crosses to reporters and newsreaders advising in grave tones that the temperature, in the middle of summer, was forecast to exceed 40 degrees.

The hot weather lasted for less than a day. Sydney experienced the brief heat today and got to 43.4C which the warmists might laud as the fourth hottest day ever recorded in the city, but still short of the 45.3C on 14 Jan 1939. It’s now true that four of Sydney’s top 10 hottest days have happened in the new millennium, but it’s also true that the other six hottest days happened before 1961, including 1896. I could mull over the influence of UHI and mercury thermometers requiring a bit more sustained heat to reach maximum than the few seconds of an electronic AWS, but they’re different topics.

It’s little wonder there’s a belief that humanity has never before experienced so many “extreme” weather events. The media goes into a headline frenzy every time there’s some hot, cold, wet or dry weather forecast or event and many people still believe the modern media is an objective and wise source of facts (usually produced by attractive oracles aged in their 20s).

Young people in particular weren’t yet born and have no memory of when truly hot, cold or otherwise “extreme” weather was happening.

Meanwhile, it remains relevant that NOAA temps show 2007-2016 in the contiguous United States averaged 0.02F cooler min and 0.03F cooler max than 1997-2006, entirely because winters were 1.41F min and 1.33F max cooler in the most recent decade.

Based on their preliminary 2017 data, Met Office temps show 2008-2017 in the UK averaged 0.27C min cooler and 0.20C max cooler than 1998-2007, with all UK seasons cooler over the past decade except Spring in max. Again, winters were the main coolant in the UK with min dropping 0.56C and max dropping 0.46C when comparing the recent and earlier decades.

Australia averaged 0.22C warmer max and 0.10C warmer min in 2008-2017 than 1998-2007, based on ACORN anomalies, but that’s probably because all the Antarctic ice hasn’t melted and sent waves of cold winter air over Australia. /sarc

M Courtney

Even if Mann and Gore were right… how would that help?

If AGW predicts everything – but never guessing exactly when each will come – then it provides no guidance for policy making.

Climate Science is worthless, by Gore’s own admission.

Russ R.

It makes us helpless victims dependent on the “goodwill” of the politicians willing to make the hard choices and take money from those that didn’t contribute to their campaign, and give it to those injured by the reckless “carbon polluters”.
They get to be generous with other peoples money, and create voters out of people that would rather work, and rather be independent, but the “dependency politicians” chased all the jobs away.

I heard an interview last night with a Frank Adams who is an astrophysicist. He explained how sad it was that a handful of scientists like Curry and Willie Soon just wouldn’t face the reality of what Co2 is doing to the planet–he laughed and said ALLLLL the real scientists knew it was true and had the science behind them but for 4 or 5. When the moderator (whom I know to be on the side of the skeptics) asked for a concrete example, he answered that Willie Soon kept trying to make it about sun cycles and that hundreds of papers have come out to refute his theories. If he were really practicing science, he would look at the refutations and accept that his theory about what drives climate is wrong. But instead, Frank says, Wille disappears and says nothing because he can’t admit he is wrong (I’m paraphrasing). Made me wonder about the hundreds of papers in favor of a sun-driven climate. Hmmm. The guy kept laughing and acting as if he felt sorry for Curry, Soon, Bastardi–et al.

He claimed that “we” (deniers) just don’t practice science. Or understand the consensus in science. then he claimed that we based our misguided conclusions on a handful of emails that were taken out of context. he also claimed that not one–not one– investigation of the emails showed any wrongdoing. I thought that several investigations showed it to be almost criminal..or do I remember that wrong?

I ask you, how can we make any progress when they claim that we don’t understand the science–and believe our “wrong” conclusions. When they claim that only 4 or 5 scientists are holdouts, and when they dismiss the emails out of hand and say no investigation showed any wrongdoing, when I read that they did! ow do we live in such alternate realities?


Well, Shelly, when you run into someone whose entire shtick is built around a lie, you have encountered someone who practices the coarse art of propaganda. The ‘it is because I say it is so’ type of fellow is the person you described.


Rob: I have no idea why you would throw politics at me. If you don’t like Trump, fine. But remember that YOU brought that up. I did NOT. And for your information, ROB, he filed for bankruptcy to keep Ivana, his first wife, from getting a rather massive chunk of his STUFF during divorce proceedings. Geez, you don’t even try.

Furthermore, if you do not GET that AGW/CAGW is rapidly becoming a form of religion, hence the hysterical buffoonery and uncalled-for damage and attacks on infrastructure, and on people who don’t agree with CAGWers and Warmians, then you aren’t paying attention.

Your “point”, whatever it is, has no value. You completely missed MY point, which is that dictating the terms of something like climate science and labeling people “deniers” or “UNBELIEVERS”, is selling a belief system. Look up Lysenkoism, ROB. Then try paying attention.

Like I said, I don’t care whether you like Trump or not. You tried to change the subject, for no reason at all. You’re way off base there, sport. Get over yourself.


Shelly – I think it may not be possible to make progress against the AGW religion. You express a reasonable issue, but believers divert the discussion to convoluted explanations. You can show simple graphs of the past, but those are ignored, and the subject is changed. Compare this to “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” It is impossible to reason with such people.

It is impossible. Thanks. It just gets so discouraging. Why isn’t a simple graph, simple? You are right though. give them facts and they are ignored. Then you are told Sun-cycles mean nothing and if you really understood science, you would understand the sun has nothing (or little) to do with the planet warming. Sigh. It was a frustrating interview to listen to. Since when are there only 4 or 5 scientists that are skeptics?

When they claim that only 4 or 5 scientists are holdouts, and when they dismiss the emails out of hand and say no investigation showed any wrongdoing,

Well the investigations were blatant white washes so technically the claim that none showed wrong doing is accurate.

As for the 4 or 5 scientists, that’s actually an improvement. The alarmists used to argue that anyone who disagreed with them wasn’t actually a climate scientist. So admitting that there are 4 or 5… wow, that’s abig admission, lol.

Russ Wood

Whitewashes are everywhere where “dirty doings” keep going on. Recently, an “internal investigation” cleared the Chairman of South Africa’s electricity authority of misconduct after a company got an umpteen million Rand contract when (a) the contract wasn’t advertised and (b) his daughter was a director. Similarly, the number two of the SA’s IRS was ‘cleared’ after being found depositing enormous amounts of unexplained cash into some ATM machines.


I thought I could answer your question by googling Frank Adams, to see who pays his bills. I clicked on Adam Frank, astrophysicist, accidentally, and I’m glad I did. This guy calls anyone who disagree with him deniers even as he’s whining about scientists not getting the respect they used to. He compares “climate deniers” to anti-vaccine campaigners and evolution deniers, and wonders why people don’t take him more seriously. Looks like most of his media exposure is through NPR and NY Times, so I imagine the irony is lost on his audience.


“Climate deniers” is almost as funny as the irony. So, if you question, at all, the catastrophic part of CACC, you’re not only denying that, you’re also denying, not just man’s role, and not just that the climate is changing at all – you’re denying the climate itself. By the time people like Adam Frank respond, they’re four strawmen removed from the original question.


Okay, change that to, “By the time many warmists respond…”; Professor Frank may actually distinguish between different levels of denial (known in the rational world as skepticism and/or science).

Bill Powers

Gore’s memory is shorter than his peanut.

Bill Powers

Oh shoot, I misspelled the last word in my previous post.


Just continuing a theme…
comment image

Nigel S

I took it as a subtle reference to the Inquisition and the upcoming climate crimes trials.
comment image

The great certainty of climate “science” is the uncertainty of the reality that it claims to explain.

Is it any surprise, then, that the claims about a chaotic system start to become chaotic too? It’s poetic justice.

That’s why the phrase, “global warming”, now seems to take a back seat to the phrase, “climate change”.

CHANGE can be warming OR cooling — it doesn’t matter to the cause, … as long as humans are the cause.

If the climate became completely unchanging worldwide, then this too would be a problem caused by humans — the problem of static climate that interfered with evolution of the planet — causing immune system lack of adaptability, leading to increased susceptibility to disease unheard of, crop failure, war, and stuff I can’t even think of.

Climate death — the new climate change, … formerly global warming, … formerly the coming ice age.

Chance itself is a human-caused problem. My failures at gambling are YOUR fault. The reason that I never win Publisher’s Clearing House is YOUR fault. My lottery-ticket number never comes up, because it’s YOUR fault.

Send money now to help me figure out a way to improve my odds of overcoming this catastrophic threat to my well being.

Oh, and now back to uncalled-for images (sorry, Kip):
comment image

Have I stooped low enough yet?

You’ve heard of the song, Sultan of Swing

Well, I give you Satan of Science … as in science going all to hell.

Parody is a barometer of non truth.

Seriously, though, how does more CO2, which is supposed to cause more heating, cause frigid cold?

Focusing on an explanation for more snow merely distracts from the issue of the supposed cold that the warmth is supposed to cause.

Diversion = Explanation = Sophistry

All of Dr. Mann’s education and study has given him a greater command of manipulating words in a way that people without his exposure cannot spot the flaws. Maybe I should have depicted him as a word magician.

not just a bomb cyclone when it impacts on the entire northern hemisphere as can be seen here
“””American cold not Global issue it’s just weather say AG warmist disciples – O wait met video shows it’s affecting NH, Iceland UK Spain Portugal France Italy Germany, Nordic & Baltic countries, Russia Korea China Japan Apologies any missed – but wait it’s warm in SH O it’s summer https://t.co/dyewxy1xpt “”


I developed a theory that this is how ice ages start.

Ice ages are obviously driven by orbital cycles (obliquity and precession), but the nascent ice age will then shrug off a subsequent orbital warming period, when obliquity and precession return to the warm side of their cycles. The reason an ice age can ignore warmer conditions, is ice albedo – the ice across the northern hemisphere simply reflects the increasing summer insolation back to space.

But this is an interesting observation, because it suggests that northern ice sheets build very quickly. A precessional Great Winter is only 5 kyr long, and then we start returning to warm conditions again (the entire cycle is only about 22 kyr long). So sufficient ice sheets must have formed in just 5 kyr, to prevent subsequent orbital warming and allow the ice age to continue building (an ice age will last from 90 kyr to 110 kyr, and will shrug off many orbital warm periods). To do this, the ice sheets must have extend all across Canada in just a few thousand years. And then grow thicker and thicker as the ice age and its ice sheets mature.

This suggests that the first flicker of an ice age may happen rather quickly. The orbital cycles reach a (famous) ‘tippping point’ where winter snow and ice is not fully melted by the weaker summer insolation. And so much of the summer insolation is reflected by high albedo ice, and the land and sea does not warm so much in that annual summer. So if we had a series of (weather driven) cold winters followed by poor summers, a thin but semi-permanent layer of snow may remain across the north. In this way, the weather (perhaps the PDO and AMO cycles) dives the longer-term ice age climate. Thus an ice age is born.

I call this theory:
Extend and Build, rather than Build and Extend.

As an example of the latter, Prof Ganopolski envisions great cliffs of ice extending out from the northern latitudes, bulldozing millions of tonnes of silts in front of them as they extend. However, the large silt deposits across Canada that survived eight or more ice ages indicate that this is a fantasy. Instead, Canada may have been covered in an ice sheet only a few meters thick in just a few hundred years. As this sheet grew in thickness it will naturally squeeze out at the base (ice acts like treacle), and push out the surface layers of rocks and silts with it. But the idea of a 500 ft cliff of ice moving slowly southwards is a complete fantasy, and invalidates Ganopolski’s entire ice age cycle theory.

Nevertheless, it so happens that we now stand at the edge of an ice age precipice. The current orbital positions, in both obliquity and precession, are very similar to the start of all the previous ice ages over the last 850 kyr. So it is possible that when we hit another Little Ice Age (driven by either solar or oceanic cycles), that this minor cooling could turn from a climate crescent (a cycle) into a one-way street towards an ice age.

The only saving grace is that future orbital (22 kyr) Great Winters are all mild, for the next 100 kyr, so we happen to exist in a very stable orbital period. This stability may well prevent a new ice age from forming. But if albedo is as strong a feedback system as I think it is (the main driver of ice age climate change) then it is entirely possible that a series of bitter winters like this one (across both America and Russia) could cross a threshold and precipitate a full blown ice age.



Probably also reinforced by periodic stratovolcanoism within that cooling time frame to ensure it doesn’t completely melt out whereby the young ice sheet continues to grow after which albedo takes over. And the final hammer is the shape of the orbit, when it becomes more eccentric with that much less Watts per Sq M2 falling on the entire Earth for the near 100,000 year cycle. There is no way CO2 can ever overcome those 3 cycles.


I dont think vulcanism has any major effect, because ice ages and interglacials have a regular orbital synchronisation, while vulcanism is pretty random. Not sure you could guarantee a volcano every time the orbital conditions were right for a new ice age.

On the other hand you can guarantee the dust, because dust is caused by low CO2, and that goes steadily down all through the ice age. You are bound to hit the conditions for dust production at some point.



Perhaps not, but I think we do need some type of hammer that seals the deal, so to speak. On average we do have stratovolcanoes going off randomly several times per century and the time frame of the orbital mechanics are on the order of thousands of years. When the conditions are right throughout the northern hemisphere, as per your premise, then when the timing of a significant sized stratovolcanoe does occur, then that is the first year the snow doesn’t melt, and the ice age has a chance to start and finally mature. The dust probably isn’t that significant in the early stages of a glaciation, but more so in the depths of the ice age, when CO2 is at starvation levels. IMHO of course.

Always interesting, Anthony. I posted this on my own blog before reading your post. The DISTINGUISHED Michael E. Mann, PhD.


I don’t know which is more vitriolic, but I am less concerned about language choices and repercussions for reasons that will be obvious if you take a moment to check it out.

Also, there’s a post about Bill Nye where as the language is way too salty for here.



Just a small change yields a true description “Dr. Michael E. Mann is Distinguished Liar of Atmospheric Science”

Extreme Hiatus

Or Atmospheric Science Specialist; as in Michael Mann, ASS.


I will probably always remember Mann as that “World-renowned climate Liar Dr. Michael Mann”. Until he admits he made a mistake with that hockey stick business, and pasting two types of data in one graph …..

Gary from Chicagoland

Chicago today tied a cold record dating back to 1895 on having 12 consecutive daytime highs of below 20 F with many nights below zero F. Water bottles and soda cans are exploding in our garage due to the expanding volume of the ice inside these sealed containers. Global computer models, Mann and Gore didn’t predict this record cold spell. That’s not following the scientific method that states when data is in conflict with the theory, it’s the theory that’s needs adjusting (not the temps that seem to be politically adjusted with a colder past and a warmer present)

R. Shearer

Is it too late to bring cans and bottles inside?


One amazing thing about ‘settled science’ is how it cannot provide an answer to the question , ‘what would disprove this theory’ . And one reason it cannot give an answer is because they have jumped on every extreme weather events as ‘proof’ of climate doom. So what is left when everything is ‘proof’?
And at this stage adjust your minds to think religion , and forgot any ones you have about science.

michael hart

Even Al Gore and the lonesome Mann know that the only thing we should really expect is “It’s worse than we thought”.

Is that not the most marvellous paradox that should be engraved on the tombstone of the global-warming movement?


But climate science is so accurate! /sarc

Maybe we should be asking what global warming CAN’T do, so that when it doesn’t happen, we’ll know global warming is to blame.


Back in 2000 the National Climate Assessment said for the Northeast:
“Over the coming century, winter snowfalls and periods of extreme cold will likely decrease.”


Same thing in the 2009 National Climate Assessment.

Nothing about there being colder winters.



Ahhh, I see where this is coming from, only Government jobs can bring back Appalachia jobs back, not private industry. The left speaks the truth and it’s always a lie.

Steve Oregon

This idiocy is nothing compared to what is ahead after another year of Trump and the GOP dismantling the climate bureaucracies and devastating the climate crusade.
Every month the misery gets worse for the Progressive Supremacists.
They can’t stand not getting their way and are losing their minds watching the power of their movement get decimated.


It doesn’t get much better than this with snow drifts and bitter cold in markeyville and AL Gore the political climate scientist explaining at as global warming.


When Al Gore dies, his headstone will read …

“Dying is part of Living” – BearManPig


The great Spike Milligan’s head stone reads:

Told you I was sick!

Smart Rock

In a few years, Michael Mann and Al Gore will be things of the past. Children won’t know the joy of waking up to find social media covered with yet another transparently false attribution of last week’s weather to climate change.

It’s predicted in the models, you know.

BTW nice opinion peace in the National Post today, making fun of the idiocy.