The world as we know it

Deadly Cold

People are dying and our governments don’t want to know – because inconveniently its because of the cold. As the earth continues to cool and the cooling deepens the prophets of warming doom increase their shrill cries as they fear their global warming snake oil will not sell, maliciously ignoring the lives they continue to put in peril. Eco tretas is starting to keep a toll of the deaths, and in the UK winter mortality is on the rise. Joe Bastardi, Senior Meteorologist with Accuweather has said “The first 15 days of the opening of the new year will be the coldest, population weighted, north of 30 north worldwide in over 25 years”. What are the relevant governments doing about this ? – NOTHING; What are they doing to prepare for deepening cold in years to come? – NOTHING; What policies and action plans do they have to protect people from the cold? – NOTHING.   Where are they spending the money? – the global warming crusades!

None of this cold is surprising or unexpected. If you listened to the climate realists over recent years you would have learnt that the sun has been slumbering for over 3 years now, the earth has switched to a cooling PDO, the arctic has now also switched to a negative oscillation, the poles are growing, glaciers are growing, snow and cold records are being set world wide. However the MSM finds these things un-newsworthy preferring to pander to the financial interests and the lobbying of the global warming crusade – hey whats a few lives when money can be made huh!

We have now got to the point where anecdotal evidence is more accurate than the exposed manipulated data from our perverse climate institutions – Climategate fiasco being the latest to expose the fraud of manipulating the data to exagerate the warming and to remove the cooling. Freedom of information requests are now made out to be excessive work for scientists simply because the alarmist scientists have been caught out illegally refusing them so their manipulation of the data doesnt get caught – too late now! And what are our politicians doing about all of this – are they still prepared to go down with the sinking global warming ship?

Climategate continues!, Unscientific and unamerican, Globalis warminitis

Winter storms update

Pub questions – can science be wrong?

Tea leaves better at predicting weather than Met Office

Filed under: Uncategorized

27 Responses

  1. Ed Darrell says:

    So, you think that very cold weather means that 2009 could not have been, as it was measured, one of the warmest years in history? You think that cool weather in North America means cool weather globally?

    No wonder you think that preparations for climate change disasters won’t include preparations for colder weather.

    And the e-mails showed fraud? Where? You claim that glaciers are not receding, but that’s not what the glacier studies show. You claim ice is growing at the poles, but that’s what would be expected in the winter at the North Pole — the ice isn’t growing as fast or as thick as it needs to to hold off next summer.

    Thank God the politicians aren’t listening to you. The Earth isn’t, nor is the weather, nor are the glaciers, nor is the climate — it’s a quad-fecta, and the politicians seem to be on the right side.

    • twawki says:

      Where is your data? From CRU possible? or NASA – both have been shown to not be credible. The cold of this year builds on the cold of last year and the year before. In fact we have a trend where the warming stopped a decade ago. Also of note is the verocity of this cold where cold records are broken by not half a degree Celsius but up to 10d Celsius.


      Yet we were told by the alarmists that snowfalls were a thing of the past;


      Yes the emails showed collusion, suppression, manipulation, discrimination against other scientists, fraudulent practices etc see;


      Glaciers growing;


      At the poles we are seeing yearly growth


      Well the politicians are listening as the global warming scam continues to be exposed;


    • handjive says:

      Comment by Ed Darrell | December 29, 2009

      “You claim that glaciers are not receding, but that’s not what the glacier studies show. ”

      Ed, you wont get this info from Realclimate:


      “To recap, the available evidence indicates that the IPCC authors of this section relied upon a secondhand, unreferreed source which turned out to be unreliable, and failed to identify this source. As a result, the IPCC has predicted the likely loss of most or all of Himalaya’s glaciers by 2035 with apparently no peer-reviewed scientific studies to justify such a prediction and at least one scientific study (Kotlyakov) saying that such a disappearance is too fast by a factor of ten!”

      No need for climategate here, junk science rules!

      • Ed Darrell says:

        Yeah, I read that. It’s good news that there was that egregious typo, that the study says the glaciers will be gone in 350 years, and not 35 years.

        However, the study still says that all the Himalayan glaciers are receding. It still says that changing climate is a key driver of that receding. So regardless the typo in the IPCC report, your claim that glaciers are growing is contradicted by the study you now cite.

        Here’s a quote from the author of the study you cite — I’ve blocked the number of years so you won’t be distracted by the number:

        All the glaciers in the middle Himalayas are retreating,” says Syed Hasnain of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, the chief author of the ICSI report….Hasnain’s four-year study indicates that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by XXXX at their present rate of decline….Hasnain’s working group on Himalayan glaciology, set up by the ICSI, has found that glaciers are receding faster in the Himalayas than anywhere else on Earth. Hasnain warns that as the glaciers disappear, the flow of these rivers will become less reliable and eventually diminish, resulting in widespread water shortages.”

        And then from the underlying report by Kotlyakov:

        “The degradation of the extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be apparent in rising ocean level already by the year 2050, and there will be a drastic rise of the ocean thereafter caused by the deglaciation-derived runoff (see Table 11 ). This period will last from 200 to 300 years. The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates— its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2350. Glaciers will survive only in the mountains of inner Alaska, on some Arctic archipelagos, within Patagonian ice sheets, in the Karakoram Mountains, in the Himalayas, in some regions of Tibet and on the highest mountain peaks in the temperature latitudes.”

        We have more time — but still the experts, this time your experts — say the glaciers of the Himalayas are melting away.

        It’s good to have more time. It doesn’t help if you don’t read the reports and if you deny what the reports say. It’s double trouble if you don’t read the reports you say support your side, and if you deny what your own reports say.

        I didn’t cite the IPCC report. I suppose you missed that by not bothering to look at who it was or what it was that I did cite. I’m personally familiar only with glaciers in the Rockies, in Utah, Colorado and Montana. Two years ago I spent a week in Glacier NP. We have photos 100 years old, and the decline of the glaciers is crystal clear. Worse was looking at former lakes, and former rivers. That’s a precursor of what is happening in the Himalayas.

        The other citation I gave was to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. They track all glaciers world wide, and if their data say all glaciers are growing, that’s God’s own truth. Alas, their figures show stuff going the other way.

        Interestingly, their symbolic image is a Himalayan glacier, showing its receding since 1735:

        The Himalayan glacier issue is huge. Seven of the world’s largest rivers originate in those glaciers, and they provide water to India, China and Indochina — 3 billion people by some counts. It’s nice the glaciers will be around longer than 35 years. That doesn’t obviate the trouble we face now, or our need to act now against air pollution, to preven more trouble including violence in the very near future:

        So you’re right, IPCC got the figure wrong. You’re wrong on the chief point, however: That doesn’t mean the glaciers are not retreating — they are retreating — and it doesn’t mean it’s not a major problem with about half the world’s population depending on water from those receding glaciers.

  2. Ayrdale says:

    TWAWKI, I think Climategate, and then the shambles, chaos and greed seen by the world at Copenhagen have represented the tipping point in public opinion over AGW.

    Does anyone REALLY believe the green/left any more ? that this alarmist campaign is about saving the planet ? Many of us blogging re this have known, and it’s now been confirmed, that this is really about income redistribution. Fraud, deceit, scary scenarios beloved by the greens simply aren’t believed any more by the general populace. Even the compliant media coverage is now changing.

    2010 will finally bury the green monster. Good f***ing riddance.

    • twawki says:

      I agree Ayrdale. Its all falling apart. With all the money demanded very little has actually been used to benefit the environment. If they had said lets not have another lavish conference, lets plant 20,000 trees instead wed be more inclined to think they had some credibility.

      Yes I hope so – it would be great to get back to real environmentalism itstead of socialsim trying top hijack it for its own ends.

  3. Kate says:


    Qinlao village has been given the unenviable task of making it through the winter, when temperatures can descend to -40C, without burning any coal

  4. Kate says:

    Sometimes I get discouraged.

    Nature Magazine published this in their Dec. 24, 2009 issue.

    “Newsmaker of the year: The power player STEVEN CHU

    As a physicist, he found a way to capture atoms and won a Nobel prize. Now he is marshalling scientists and engineers to transform the world’s biggest energy economy. Eric Hand profiles the US energy secretary, Nature’s Newsmaker of the Year.” http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091223/full/462978a.html

    Look at the money he controls. All based on the hockey stick.

  5. Ed Darrell says:

    CRU e-mails don’t show their projections to be not credible in any way. Obviously you’ve not read the e-mails, nor do you understand that the controversial part is over the adjustment of dendrochronology data, which if left unadjusted would have predicted a reverse to warming starting in 1960 — exactly opposite what the thermometers have shown. I asked pointedly about what you thought the e-mails show. You really should read about climate change sometime.

    1. Global warming doesn’t mean that we won’t have seasons, as you appear to expect. It means that there is a lot more energy in the atmosphere. In the drive towards an equilibrium, then, we should expect wilder swings in weather — colder lows as well as hotter highs, but with a general trend to warmer weather. You point to increased snowfalls, though in almost all cases the increased snowfalls over the past five years have been lake effect snowfalls, caused by warmer-than-usual bodies of water that put more water into the air to fall in the form of snow. Such snowfalls are a prediction of global warming, but not a predicted result of a cooling trend.

    Somebody’s suckered you.

    2. I love your citation of a 2000 article noting decreasing strength of winters, with less snowfall on average and fewer snowfall days. That’s been the definite trend, even including this year. The article points to the sort of snowfall Britain had “traditionally” with sleighs replacing wheeled wagons, weeks under snow. Can you tell me which rivers in Britain have frozen enough to skate on this year? None? But you’re sure that global warming has stopped? Clearly you weren’t paying attention to the data before, and you’re not paying attention now. The article said snowfall would continue to diminish through the century. You thought the century ended in 2008? Premature expectations. It’s still warming. This year’s snows don’t make a trend, and may not even make a significant one-year blip.

    Read the article. It doesn’t say all snowfall will be gone by 2010. Consequently, the only alarmism isn’t coming from the scientists.

    3. The e-mails showed collaboration in providing extra-research charts to policy makers — though there was one significant showing of fraud, but on the part of your side, the people who deny global warming. There is no showing of fixing data to demonstrate something contrary to what nature shows. That would be foolish, since there are at least four other major climate study centers working the area, and more than 100 different science groups operated by 100 different nations to track the data and keep up. It’s pretty obvious you’re not well up on how science works, nor even on how weather reporting works.

    4. There’s a lot of alarmism in that Examiner article you point to. Ill-informed alarmism, too. As an attorney, as a 30-year advocate of FOI laws, as a former FOIA officer for different federal agencies, and as a user of FOIA laws myself as a reporter, I can tell you there is no apparent violation of U.S. FOI laws, and as I read the British FOI, none there, either. In fact, the legal ruling that the laws had been complied with came in just prior to the release of the stolen e-mails, and probably were a major sore point that caused the thief or thieves to dump their stuff. I think any prosecutor will tell you that a scientist’s angry e-mail threatening to dump data requested in an FOI request isn’t good stuff to indicate a crime. Criminals who dump data don’t send out mass e-mails announcing they are going to do it — and there is as yet no showing that any data were dumped, especially since the legal ruling was that none of the data needed to be turned over.

    So your legal case is weak. In any case, the weather and climate pay no attention to the legal machinations of men. Those scientists at Hadley know that. It would be stupid to try to make a case for global warming if none existed. As you can see, year-to-year variations are inevitable, and often unpredictable. Global warming studies have been going on for more than 40 years, based on data from the past three centuries of hard readings, and solid data from ice cores, lake varves, historical accounts, plus tree rings. It would be absolutely impossible to create a hoax so massive as to stifle all those data inputs from millions of sources in more than 100 nations independently checking the results.

    That you think that’s what the e-mails show is troubling. Where did you get such a crazy, and if I do say so, stupid, idea?

    5. Worldwide, we’ve seen a 40-year decline in glaciers at least. There are annual variations, with some growth in some places at some times — but the general trend of decline has existed for more than 100 years and continues. Have you ever been to Glacier National Park? You’d better go soon. Globally, even with a couple of good snow years in Greenland and lake effect snows in Antarctica, glaciers are retreating. Globally.

    When I worked in air pollution studies back in the 1970s, we knew of the multi-millennia cycles of ice ages. What concerned us then, and should be of concern to you now, is that we are way over due for a massive cooling cycle. Instead, the planet stays warm — and while that’s generally sort of good news, it suggests that humans have done something to hold off the next ice age. What do you think that could be? So your link to a site claiming a coming ice age is a hoot. I’ll wager no one running that site has studied climate change for even a decade, let alone 30 or 40 years as most of the serious climatologists have. They’ve not set foot outdoors to make observations matched by the scientists, and they’ve not set foot into a lab to make serious projections for the future — and you offer them as experts. Astounding.

    There are more than 600 glaciers worldwide. Your list shows maybe three dozen of them growing, leaving more than 550 of them shrinking, most due to global warming. The weight of the evidence is strongly against any claim that glaciers are growing worldwide.

    6. Ice at the poles is shrinking. This year’s winter growth (remember, we still get seasons — seasons are due to the tilt of the Earth, and CO2 only moderates them, not eliminates them) is well below the standard deviation for the past 30 years, and does not break the trend of shrinking November ice since 1979.

    One year does not a trend make, but this “cold” year does not even provide a blip opposite the trend of the last few decades, let alone reverse the trend.

    It would be great news if global warming were reversed. As you put it, however, you are just a boy calling “no wolf” as the wolf pack sneaks up on the sheep herd. We know the wolves are there, and if we don’t protect the herd, by the time you figure out there’s a problem, it will be too late for too many of the lambs.

    • twawki says:


      Lets keep to the facts shall and leave the abuse behind – it doesnt help your argument. I have read a lot but not all of the emails. What I have read shows clearly that scientists in positions of power have abused their posts and acted illegally – that is now common knowledge and without question. Investigations have commenced into their behaviour.

      The claimed warming from the late 70s to the late 90s is not unusual in historical terms, has been exaggerated by the same clique of Climategate scientists and does not prove CO2 causes warming.

      1. More extremes in weather are symptomatic of colder climates and not warmer. For example compare the extremes of a cooling cycle of the 60s to the current emerging cycle – that are very similiar. The period of warming from the late 70s to the 90s was quite stable. And no warming does not cause cooling. The current cold and snow is a combination of low solar activity and the switch of natural cycles into negative/cooling phase.

      2. Global warming has stopped because the satellite records show it has.

      3. Heres a rough graph of the Climategate history and behaviour – hardly what could be described as a single or isolated incident;


      4. The basis of good science is transparent science that is able to be audited. The global warming science is anything but. The fact that they have and continue to prevent any open and transparent assessment of their data only serves to discredit them. Time will tell as to whether criminal charges are laid for their behaviour.

      5. Your facts dont stand up on this – recheck the reference I gave you

      6. The artic is currently growing at around 500,000km2 per year and has done so for a number of years now – I would take that to mean it is not melting. The arctic is also switching into negative oscillation which historically points to an even faster growth rate in the years ahead.

      The antarctic sets new ice extent records every year. This is common knowledge.

      I think global warming would be wonderful – history shows the warm periods as the golden eras of life on earth. We have had warmer periods where life has flourished. However it is the cold that kills and decimates life.


  6. Ed Darrell says:

    Steven Chu didn’t win a Nobel by being stupid, you know? Maybe you should pay attention to what he <a href="http://www.time.says, what he’s doing, and why. He’s not hiding anything.

  7. Ed Darrell says:

    Does anyone REALLY believe the green/left any more ?

    Yeah, the real question is how did they get the glaciers, the oceans, the weather, the planting zones, the spring, the corals, the droughts in the Sahel and Mojave and West Texas and Taklamakan, North American songbirds and polar bears to go along with them, for more than 300 years.

    Maybe the left has Bigger Magic than everybody else!

  8. Kate says:

    Darrell – my Only question to you is “What’s your interest?”

    You sound like an environmental attorney. How much money have you got in this?

    Other than that mild curiousity, I have heard all your (disconnected) dots before.

    • Ed Darrell says:

      I’m trained as an environmental attorney, and I’ve fought this fight on many issues.

      I don’t practice. I teach high school. My only interest is in protecting my nation for my sons and potential grandchildren. This is what good citizens do, stand up for their country and the people who make it great.

      • twawki says:

        And I’m doing the same for my kids. I want them to live in a free world where they can be true environmentalists and care for the environment in a practical and reasonable way!

  9. Kate says:

    The Unbearable Complexity of Climate


    Twawki, go to the WUWT link above, the Home page. If WUWT has over 30 million hits, the “other side” is going to have to do some work, huh?

  10. Ed Darrell says:

    30 million hits! Do you think all 30 million of those hits believe, as Watts’s guest says, that water doesn’t always run downhill?

    As Richard Nixon once said, “Fortunately, we don’t have a fool crisis.”

  11. Kate says:

    “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.
    For the traitor appears not traitor, he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared.”
    – Cicero, 42 B.C.

    • twawki says:

      Agreed – these watermelons are green on the outside and red on the in

    • Ed Darrell says:

      I don’t think it’s fair to say that the critics of global warming are treasonous. I think such denialism falls better into the area of foolishness, or even ambition — if John McCain were in Al Gore’s position, most of the opponents of global warming action would flip sides and not give it a second thought.

      The effect can be treasonous, though. I well remember those who argued that our nation could not afford to get rid of lead in gasoline. When we did it, we ended a century of lead poisoning of people who live within three miles of major roadways — a surprising benefit of the cleanup which had not been expected. The effect literally raised our national IQ (lead damages brains first). I don’t think they intended to make America stupid, but they held off on ending the lead poisoning as long as possible.

      Is it treason if it’s just stupid, and not done malignantly?

  12. Kate says:

    Stopping pollution and cleaning up our water and air has nothing to do with global warming and global governance.

    This is a culture war between those who still value the individual and those who would reduce the surplus population.

    And so it begins…
    “The shift happens as the United States backed what amounts to the single biggest transfer of wealth from rich to poor nations for any one cause — in a sense offering compensation for decades of warming the Earth.” – Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post

    The deal expected at Copenhagen, highlighted back in May when I released my book Air Con, followed up by Investigate magazine and Lord Monckton before catching fire across the internet, has now come to pass.
    No, it is not yet legally binding. But it will be.
    You see, throughout this torturous process in the Danish capital over the last 14 days, the people pulling the strings have clung to their central core themes: wealth transfer, world governance. Climate was actually a distant third on the priority list.
    Anyone wishing to trace back the longer history need only read Air Con, or any number of UN publications buried deep in the UN website with innocuous names that give no clue to the ambitions contained within their pages.
    Here’s why the US$100 billion wealth transfer is the wedge that will fundamentally overhaul the political landscape of planet earth forever:
    It’s not the amount of money that’s the issue, it is instead the infrastructure required to administer the money and oversee its collection and expenditure. By agreeing to provide a vast sum on money in “climate compensation”, the globalists have automatically created the need for a vast global bureaucracy to administer the programme. How else could it possibly be done?
    And which global agency is perched to implant itself as this massive governance organization? Try this one for size.
    What’s integral to this is what administering this money will do for the UN. Currently, it has an ‘official’ budget of US$4.2 billion a year. I say ‘official’ because in partnership with donor countries the UN administers several billion more each year through the UN Development Programme and similar entities. But let’s go with $4.2 billion for now.
    For US$100 billion a year, you are talking some serious prestige and power for the UN. Assuming 80% of the funding reaches its destination (probably in the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt Third World leaders), that’s still 20% to pay the wages of a vastly increased UN field staff and ‘peacekeeping’ force to protect them as they administer the programme.
    And of course, $100 billion is only a starting point. The UN and the Third World have talked of up to $1 trillion a year in climate adaptation and compensation.
    Barack Obama talks about the ‘mechanism’ to deliver this pool of funds, that it needs to be global but it need not encroach on sovereignty too much. In principle, it won’t at all – that’s because sovereigns make a free will choice to sign and ratify the agreement and its conditions. They’re still sovereign, but like any contract they are required to keep their promise to allow the UN agency access and control over relevant areas if required. Sovereignty in name only.
    The Third World countries are suspicious because, much as they desire the cash, they know the UN will be demanding accountability for the cash, and perhaps even political reform. In this way, the UN hopes to drag the Third World up closer to the level of the First World, and it hopes to be hailed as a hero for modernizing and democratizing the planet, ready for full global government and the end of nation states.
    This is, of course, is already on the UNDP agenda.
    So while others label Copenhagen a “failure”, I suggest you look a little more carefully. This is not really about specific emissions cuts, the bigger game is to sneak the infrastructure in. And there’s every indication they are well on track to succeed on this.

  13. Ed Darrell says:

    Kate, peacekeeping forces of the UN are paid by the country that provides them. There is no body of UN forces — by the rules of the Charter.

    The United Nations may not have any body that issues orders to another nation — again, by the rules of the Charter. There is no mechanism for the United Nations to become a government of any nation. It’s illegal. That’s been a key problem of the United Nations from the start, but it’s also considered necessary.

    Further, the UN has no mechanism to “require accountability” of any funds. That’s why a treaty would be required to make any international program of pollution control work. By international law and the UN Charter, such an organization can only be done by treaty, binding only on those nations that ratify it.

    The goals of the United Nations are laid out in the Charter, adopted in 1946. They include making sure that education, health care and economic opportunity are available to all people on the planet — not “dragging the Third World up closer to the First World,” but encouraging the kind of economic progress that allows poor people to earn their way to riches. It’s a noble goal, capitalistic enough that it has always earned the ire of communist governments, and one that you should subscribe to. No UN agency may have sovereignty over any territory, over any people, or any nation. Sovereignty of the members and participants of the UN is solidly guaranteed by the Charter — and since those people are pretty smart, and quite nationalistic and patriotic, they don’t plan to let you control them in any way, so all nations in the organization would fight tooth and nail any effort to give sovereignty to the UN. You’re not the only non-stupid person on Earth, and you’re not the only one who understands that local control generally works best, especially in national governance.

    You claim something else in on the UNDP agenda? That agenda is public — please show us where what you claim is enunciated. We’re all from Missouri on this.

    And, don’t look now, but when the UN was founded there were fewer than 70 member nations, and about 130 nations in the world. Today there are 193 member nations of the UN, with another 30 or so kicking around. Under the UN umbrella, the world is moving toward exactly the opposite of consolidated, monolithic government. Don’t forget history, please.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

We fight not to enslave, but to set a country free, and to make room upon the earth for honest men to live in. Thomas Paine

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. RONALD REAGAN,
My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular. Adlai E. Stevenson Jr
If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other. Carl Schurz
The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech. Justice Anthony Kennedy
Self-reliance is the only road to true freedom, and being one’s own person is its ultimate reward. Patricia Sampson
Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim. Thomas Macaulay
The law will never make men free, it is men that have to make the law free. Henry David Thoreau
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. George Washington

%d bloggers like this: