Whistling in the wind, er, atmosphere

The Fourth National Climate Assessment warns that if greenhouse gas emissions are not slashed there will be several degrees of global warming and major damage to the U.S. gross domestic product.

The report warns:

In the absence of significant global mitigation action and regional adaptation efforts, rising temperatures, sea level rise, and changes in extreme events are expected to increasingly disrupt and damage critical infrastructure and property, labor productivity, and the vitality of our communities. Regional economies and industries that depend on natural resources and favorable climate conditions, such as agriculture, tourism, and fisheries, are vulnerable to the growing impacts of climate change. Rising temperatures are projected to reduce the efficiency of power generation while increasing energy demands, resulting in higher electricity costs. … With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century—more than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many U.S. states.

Meanwhile back in reality, The Wall Street Journal reports that global emissions continue to rise, though North America’s share of global carbon emissions have dropped from 24 percent in 2004 to about 17 percent in 2013.

Instead of killing our current economy and our GDP now with emissions taxes and other futile attempts at eliminating fossil fuel emissions in the U.S., while the rest of the world carries on cavalierly, perhaps the U.S. should invest in research on adaptive strategies.

The report comes while the East Coast is experiencing record low temperatures. High temps are a sign of global warming, while low temps are just weather.

President Trump, a noted skeptic of global warming alarmism, tweeted on Wednesday, “Whatever happened to Global Warming?”

The report says that without mitigation temperatures will rise 9 degrees F by the end of the century.

It says Midwest crop yields will decline, but what about crop yields farther north?






59 comments on “Whistling in the wind, er, atmosphere

  1. Bruce Feher says:

    A million years after the last human is gone from Earth, providing we don’t blow it up before then, there will still be climate change!

  2. Anonymous says:

    Boy this report has got to tie conservatives in a knot doesn’t it? Coming from the most conservative administration perhaps in history. Monies whose record of denying science and such is infamous.

    Can’t blame some liberal here, won’t argue the science anymore cause hey, conservative said it and we sure don’t want to attack our own. We could maybe point to the cult leaders opinion, even though it is his scienticians that are telling is that he’s dumb. Hey, I got it! Let’s argue that we should just accept that our basement is flooded, and the water is rising into the lower levels of the house but that we could just move our stuff onto the roof!

    “That’ll do ‘er”

    How about some good old attack on Al Gore while we’re at it!

    And Thomas, if you need some tips on what to do when an administration publishes a report on climate change, and ways to attack them, I suggest you review your previous work, because this article doesn’t seem appropriately attacky enough,leastways on the politicians who are currently in charge.

  3. Steve says:

    This is the future if the extreme left climate hypers win their way.

    “Macron has so far held strong and insisted the fuel tax rises are a necessary pain to reduce France’s dependence on fossil fuels and fund renewable energy investments — a cornerstone of his reforms of the nation. He will defend fresh plans to make the “energy transition” easier next week.”


  4. Anonymous says:

    Come on Thomas…attack them as tree huggers, or profiteers, or anti science, or liberals, or Kenyans, or anti American, or anti freedom, or something.

    “The report estimates that around 92 percent of climate change can be attributed to the harmful effects of human actions. “Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities,” the report reads.”


    You’re not going to rest everything on the old “we ought to just start adding new additions to our houses to escape…er ah “adapt” to this environmental terrorist attack on America are you?

  5. Anonymous says:

    Hold on, from the same article, world renown scientist, currently serving during his off hours as the putative president has made me feel oh so warm inside:

    “Confronted by Axios reporters earlier this month on the issue, Trump acknowledged there is climate change.

    “Will it change back? Probably, that’s what I think,” he told reporters. ”

    Whew. That was close.

  6. Bill says:

    There is no doubt that our world’s climate changes. It always has. Vast portions of Nevada were once an inland sea. According to the scientists, we have had no less than 4 or possibly 5 ice ages.

    It was not so long ago that at least some scientists were sounding the alarm about nuclear winter and then of course we have long had the issue of the ozone layer, which according to some reports is repairing itself because of the elimination of certain aerosol gasses. We then had the climate Henny Penny’s warning us about global warming but they have since changed the alarm to climate change. It can get confusing out there. Is carbon dioxide good or bad? Are we going to freeze or fry? Do tides and currents affect our weather patterns? Or, is just the industrial world that is causing all of this?

    It is anybody’s guess.

  7. Anonymous says:


  8. Steve says:

    It’s DeRp.

    Can’t even get the insult right.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Come on Thomas when the last report was issued, by a democratic administration you went into attack mode questioning their patriotism among other things.

    “As the editorialists at Investor’s Business Daily point out, the whole thing is a propaganda ploy. It is not science, merely politics and a distraction from real problems with the economy and global politics.

    It is another excuse to shred the Constitution. “Obama’s top political adviser, John Podesta, has made it clear what the White House is doing.” IBD noted. “The president plans to issue executive orders under the Clean Air Act to cap carbon dioxide emissions — and use them to control the entire economy.””

    Now a far right wing administration issues an even more damning report, and….where’s the attack? Where’s the “it’s another excuse to shred the Constitution”? Where’s the “it’s a propaganda ploy,, not science, mere distraction, etc., etc., etc”?

    Maybe the fact that it has been issued by a conservative, and one who in the fashion of most on the right, has taken up the anti-science call, doesn’t leave any room for allegations of propaganda, or some intwnt to usurp the Constitution, leaving just the gloomy prospect that it’s fact for you guys to chew on?

    Course, you could do as Bill did here and pretend that no one really knows anything about anything which begs the question of how he manages to state whatever it is he states which such certainty most of the time.

    You guys.

  10. The climate assessment is mandated by Congress, but it is nothing more than a compilation of previous studies that all found the same thing — doom and gloom. Nothing new. No new data. No new research. Just a recap.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Well that’s just not true and you should know it.

  12. “This report assessed information from several sources, including 1) technical input reports and scientific resources collected for the Third National Climate Assessment;1 2) the Climate Science Special Report2 and other U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) science assessments; 3) a literature database comprising over 1,000 original reports …”

  13. Anonymous says:

    So this is your admission that you were wrong and you should have known it?

    Seriously Thomas “no new data”? You didn’t believe that when you wrote it so why?

    All I’m looking for is some of the same language you used to attack the previous administration when the 3rd NCA was issued.

    Why not right? I mean, the principles haven’t changed right? Or does the fact that THIS version states with certainty that man is responsible for 92% of the change make such a difference that you actually believe that man is causing the change?

  14. Steve says:

    We do our part.

    Every single electron we use is recycled.

  15. Rincon says:

    Hey, don’t give Thomas a hard time. Remember, he famously claimed that global warming was over. That was only a few years ago. Meanwhile, 17 of the last 18 years were all in the 18 hottest years ever recorded worldwide. A mere short term anomaly, he assures us, based upon um…errr…, exactly what is that based on? Oh yeah, a bunch of Conservative political theorists, who also claim to know more about climate than the climatologists.

    Those climatologists of course, constructed computer models of our warming planet in the 1990’s, and have not only been correct that we would continue warming at a rapid pace, but they also made an accurate guess at just how rapid the warming would be. Dumb luck, I tell you.

    We should also believe Thomas when he says that emission taxes would kill our economy, even though Economists actually favor such taxes over income taxes, because they would inhibit productivity less. https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2011/09/19/do-economists-all-favour-a-carbon-tax
    Why should we believe Thomas over all of these experts? Because he’s old, of course. That makes him wise.

  16. Anonymous says:

    Rincon save that little tidbit of information from the latest NCA about “92% of the warming being due to man”.

    Might come in handy.

  17. Rincon says:

    I suppose that figure should make Steve a convert, since he insisted that we supply him with the amount of warming that is anthropogenic. I won’t hold my breath.

  18. Steve says:

    From the Hill:

    “The report estimates that about 92 percent of climate change can be attributed to the harmful effects of human actions. “Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities,” the report reads. ”



    The word, “primarily”. 51% counts as primarily. OH, the report never makes any claims about the percentage of human activity attributable to human actions. Go ahead, read it for yourself, or use the included search function, its not there. That was the Hill inputting their opinion.

    But we still haven’t got 99% of all climate scientists! Let alone a true 92% quote…a reporter tossed that tidbit in. Along with “estimates” and “about”.

    Later we have:

    “The report concludes that the effects of climate change cannot be reversed, but says that its worst effects can be mitigated through aggressive action at all levels.”

    Cannot. Be. Reversed. We are all screwed!
    Oh, wait he also said “aggressive action at all levels” Later on it’s all about the USA…as if the rest of the industrialized world doesn’t exist. (yikes, what a bunch of introverts you are!)

    Better STOP ignoring carbon capture/recycling.
    You peeps just hate the idea of carbon being the mainstay of any upcoming energy sources. Get used to it, carbon is the energy pill.

    And I never claimed climate doesn’t and isn’t changing. In fact I have stated multiple times climate is, always has and always will, be changing. What’s got your knickers in a bunch is all the hype pushing you “off oil”.
    Never happen. We are going to be using carbon for energy for a long time to come.


    Oh, we do our part, we recycle HoH. But every electron we use is recycled. 100%. We are GREEN!

  19. Anonymous says:

    Get ready for the inevitable “attack the messenger” response.
    Because, as we have seen many times prior, if the messenger isn’t an “officially sanctioned” “climate scientist” then they obviously have zero standing or right to express opinion no matter how much fact is behind it.


  20. Anonymous says:

    Apparently, the guys that wrote that dreck have had their credibility judged already and found worse than lacking.

    “Canadian climate scientist and now B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver sued Ball in 2011 for an article on the Canada Free Press website (since removed). A B.C. Supreme Court judge recently dismissed the suit, but for a strange reason. “While the Article is derogatory of Dr. Weaver, it is not defamatory, in that the impugned words do not genuinely threaten Dr. Weaver’s reputation in the minds of reasonably thoughtful and informed readers,” Justice Ronald Skolrood wrote.

    As the judge noted, “a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views.” That says something about those who do place stock in his views, including the Trump administration, which invited Ball to Washington after the 2016 U.S. election for a briefing with the transition team.

    Judge Skolrood also wrote that “despite Dr. Ball’s history as an academic and a scientist, the Article is rife with errors and inaccuracies, which suggests a lack of attention to detail on Dr. Ball’s part, if not an indifference to the truth.” Weaver plans to appeal.”

    So basically, no rational person could take these guys serious. But again it’s a nice distraction for people that simply want to be distracted I guess.

  21. Rincon says:

    Same old Steve. By his reasoning, it’s fine to put your hand into lava if nobody can tell you its precise temperature.

    I had to chuckle at the Timothy Ball lawsuit, but it’s also sad. If a seasoned journalist like Thomas can be so readily fooled, what chance do average people have against the constant flow of propaganda?

  22. Thomas Mitchell says:

    None of us will live long enough to learn who the fool really is.

  23. Steve says:

    Called it.

    They even included me in their attack.

    They really hate the message.

  24. Bill says:

    Attack is what they do Steven. It is too often used as a substitute for intellect.
    I guess I was insulted previously, (derp? derp?), but confess that I don’t know what it means and am only mildly curious. I am sure that it says more about the speaker than me.
    I was always taught to question and taught that questioning was the heart and soul of science. I was taught that the scientific method is not blind acceptance of orthodoxy but rather the continuing search for truth, since there really is no true final absolute truth.
    Today, if you dare question the projections guesstimates and conclusions and theories of the current climate doom-sayers, you are isolated, insulted and belittled by the true believers. They are like those who ridiculed Copernicus. After all, the majority of the scientists of the time knew we really are a geocentric universe and not a heliocentric universe. Indeed, they should have burned Gallileo at the stake. And too, the AMA should be advocating the bleeding patients to rid them of bad humours as some in the medical community still did as our fore fathers were writing the Constitution.
    So, a pox on all ye who question the current orthodoxy. But one thing is certain Thomas, and is as close to a truth as I have seen in a long time, no one of us will ultimately be alive to witness who was right and who was wrong. We will undoubtedly have passed on of natural causes, long before we are frozen or fried.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Its funny to hear the anti-science guys take the side of Copernicus. Consistent with theirs screwiness, but laughable.

    And yes Bill, Derp was a mild mocking of your screed about no one knowing anything about anything which makes your siding with Copernicus even more laughable.

    And Thomas is no closer to the truth than you are Bill which is to be expected since neither one of you are interested in it, especially as relates to this issue.

    As an aside Bill, and given your previous boisterous attacks on Clinton’s behavior as relates to her emails, I’m wondering what your perspective is with regard to Ivanka’s misuse of her private emails to conduct public business, and disclose secret information?

    Thanking you in advance.

  26. Steve says:

    I note they never actually read or even searched, the report.
    They just swallowed what The Hill told them to swallow.
    Sad, really, as The Hill is (usually) highly factual, this time The Hill went all hype and FUD in the story and they expect everyone to take as fact on its very face.

    Read (or search) the actual report. Much of what The Hill wants you to believe is simply not in the report.

    Bill, when they attack I take it as they got nothin else and it’s time to play with them.

    And it’s PH not V.

  27. Bill says:

    OK…thanks for the correction. If it is StePHen then why isn’t it abbreviated Steph? Just having some fun before I go to bed. By the way, what is DeRp?

  28. Steve says:

    Phonetics rule in nick’s. But it gets worse, Richard becomes Dick?

    “The contemporary DNC and GOP parties are one party. the DeRps.

    Ignore what they say, watch what they do!

    Your common DeRp wants government spending and lots of it. DeRps don’t care if they have to borrow it’s only important that all of their choice interest groups (hobbies) are fed at the end of the day. The only difference between the DNC and the GOP is what the spending goes toward. They’re consumers just like generation x women and no one takes their men seriously. The generation x women wear the pants in the DeRp house and they represent the marginal power of the DeRp vote.

    If you’re into programmed reality TV shows, the DeRps offer a lot of sibling rivalry intrigue for your interactive enjoyment.
    Of, consisting of, or supported by members of two parties, especially two major political parties: a DeRp resolution.

    Bipartisan is a code-word for “the kids are playing nice together.”


  29. Bill says:

    I hope that I am not too long and tedious. I really didn’t think I was writing a screed. But, let me get this straight. you say I am anti-science? Is that because I do not necessarily agree with everything you parrot about climate change? If so, then who is the rigid authoritarian fascist here? Forgive me for questioning. I have sinned. Forgive my blasphemy. Mea culpa. But before I do my penance please show me the definitive proof that man is primarily responsible for climate change.

    As for your shifting of subjects as to my comments about Ivanka’s use of a private e-mail server to conduct public business, I really haven’t thought much about it at all. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of detail about it in the media yet. I am unaware of any secrets that were disclosed by those e-mails as you have alleged. What exactly were those secrets? Relate them or retract. If Ivanka improperly used her e-mail then shame on her. If she did and is prosecuted, it will probably inure to Trump’s benefit, because of the perceived disparity of treatment between Secretary of State Clinton and the President’s daughter. So far as I know, Ivanka didn’t have a secret private server in a closet in her home to conduct public business and she hasn’t destroyed any e-mails or devices and hasn’t lied.

    Finally, I must confess, I sometimes wonder whether you used to write under the pen name, Lewis B. Carroll.

  30. Bill says:

    Thanks Steve for the translation of DeRp. Nobody can talk anymore without acronym labels. I don’t think I was ever accused of being a DeRp before nor ever ever, a rino, except maybe once in a gubernatorial race, but that is a different story of long ago.

  31. Steve says:

    My retort was primarily directed at those who insist they are somehow better than those with whom they do not agree.
    Disagreement does not designate better or worse.

  32. Anonymous says:

    Bills response reminded me of a scene from the movie “12 Monkeys” Brad Pitt, as Jeffrey Goines, is having a discussion in a mental institution with Bruce Willis playing James Cole. The scene goes like this:

    Jeffrey Goines:

    Take germs, for example.

    James Cole:


    Jeffrey Goines:

    Uh-huh. Eighteenth century: no such thing, nada, nothing. No one ever imagined such a thing. No sane person. Along comes this doctor, uh, Semmelweis, Semmelweis. Semmelweis comes along. He’s trying to convince people, other doctors mainly, that’s there’s these teeny tiny invisible bad things called germs that get into your body and make you sick. He’s trying to get doctors to wash their hands. What is this guy? Crazy? Teeny, tiny, invisible? What do they call it? Uh-uh, germs? Huh? What?

    Now, up to the 20th century – last week, as a matter of fact, before I got dragged into this hellhole – I go in to order a burger at this fast-food joint, and the guy drops it on the floor. James, he picks it up, he wipes it off, he hands it to me like it’s all OK. “What about the germs?” I say. He says “I don’t believe in germs. Germs is a plot made up so they could sell disinfectants and soaps.” Now he’s crazy, right? See? Ah! Ah! There’s no right, there’s no wrong, there’s only popular opinion. You… you… you believe in germs, right?”

    The scene perfectly describes Bills response, although without the comedic timing of Pitt and Willis; so long as Bill, and anyone else on the right “disagrees” somehow, in some strange place in the universe, this means a question, as to a fact, remains. At least in their mind which is all that counts to them.

    Seriously though Bill, you didn’t read the report did you? You don’t have the background in climate science that the guys who prepared the report do right? You don’t know the data, you have no background to use the data in a way that is rationally related to a conclusion AND YET, you, and the others here “disagreeing” pretend that somehow that disagreement “means” something.

    So yeah Bill, under these circumstances, noting that your response is baseless, and anti science is pretty much the fact. Disagree to your hearts content,doesn’t change it wit.

  33. Anonymous says:

    And as relates to Ivanka Bill, notwithstanding your “it will probably only help Trump” aside, the reason I brought this up before was because of your full throated attack on Hillary and your seeming “principled stance” regarding her heinous actions. I was hoping that your professed “bi-partisanship” would evidence itself with regards to the charges being leveled against Ivanka. Apparently though, your interest in these sorts of things stopped sometime after the last inauguration.

    Some far right wing commentators though do have some integrity.

    “Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano warned that Ivanka Trump could be “exposed to a charge of espionage” if any of the government emails she sent over a private email account contained classified information.”


  34. Bill says:

    Well, if Ivanka runs for President or is considered for Secretary of State and if her e-mails on her private server prove to contain classified information, then I will devote a little more time to looking at it. But, I said that before and until then I am not going to judge. In the case of Hillary, there was more than enough to judge and the matter should have been referred to a Federal Grand Jury.

  35. Rincon says:

    Bucking the majority is perfectly reasonable if there is robust data to support it. Basing an opinion of a scientific matter on the advice of Conservative political commentators is a bit like trusting a used car salesman. Both have great motivation to stretch the truth or lie outright, and both have previously been caught in the act.

    It is also unwise to support the status quo when the evidence to do so is scanty and far less compelling than the evidence supporting limited action, especially when this supporte is based on political theory that brings far less proof with it than the climate problem does.

  36. Steve says:

    I’ll take the advice of a former climatology professor over Hollywood script writers any day.

  37. Rincon says:

    Correction, Steve: Former Geography professor. If Conservatives want credibility, they need to quote climatologists, or at least meteorologists, preferably more than a few. Amazing that you would take the word of a nutty professor, thoroughly discredited by a court that actually found him innocent of libel because his words are too ridiculous to be taken seriously. The IPCC has hundreds or perhaps more than a thousand experts in the relevant fields, but you guys trot out a dopey professor in a field only casually related to the subject, and choose to believe him. Wow!

    I won’t comment on the absurdity of your implicitly saying that thousands of climatoIogists are Hollywood script writers.

    The embrace of ignorance by skeptics becomes more obvious when we see what the Republican government has done with climate research. If they were convinced of their view, one would think that they would fund research on the skeptical view, now that they are in total control. Instead, they cut off research. This is the position the church took with Galileo and Copernicus. They denied any kind of search for the truth, claiming that man can never know the secrets of the universe, except through the word of God. The climatologists today are in the position of Copernicus or Galileo, bringing new knowledge, while the skeptics are in the position of the medieval church – an establishment fighting the evidence on the basis of dogma (the words of their political gods), and suppressing the quest for knowledge.

  38. Steve says:

    Anonymous says:
    November 28, 2018 at 7:40 am
    Bills response reminded me of a scene from the movie “12 Monkeys”

    Got it, Rincon?

    Ball retired so no current, well sourced, data is available for him.
    However, what is posted about him claims the University of Winnipeg has no climatology department. This is also a falsehood as we can see from this current professors about page.
    Since all the available sources make claims with zero citation, Tim Ball most certainly could have and most likely was specializing in climate much the same as Danny Blair does.


    This makes the rest of your attack just silly. You need to do some due diligence and actually check the sources for your wiki articles.

  39. Steve says:

    Here is the source attack on Ball.

    “Ball was a former professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996. The University of Winnipeg never had an office of Climatology. His degree was in historical geography and not climatology. [12]”

    Danny Blair would be surprised to to discover his position is a phantom, eh?

    Making shit up to try claim others make shit up is called lying.
    I will believe the professor who actually had the position over Hollywood script writers and weak research by anonymous posters to blogs.


  40. When temps rise, it is a sure sign of global warming in perpetuity. When temps fall, it is just weather.

  41. Rincon says:

    According to NASA, “2017 Was the Second Hottest Year on Record”, making the Investor’s Daily claim bona fide fake news, since they cited NASA as their source. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/91604/2017-was-the-second-hottest-year-on-record

    Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I can only come to that conclusion with the information that I find.

  42. Rincon says:

    Thank you for making my argument, Steve. It’s hard to understand why someone so skeptical about the vast majority of the scientific community is so willing to merely assume that Ball must have some special expertise, even though you have found no solid evidence to support that assumption.

  43. Steve says:

    I showed you where they lied about two things regarding Ball and provided verification.
    Yet all you do is claim those lies prove your position.

    I bet you still swear they are right about their claim the university of Winnipeg has nothing to do with climate science.

    Your blindness is on display, Rincon.

  44. Steve says:

    Rincon’s theory.

  45. Rincon says:

    According to your link, Danny Blair says his field of expertise is in the realm of geography, although he claims no particular formal education on the subject, so Steve concludes that Timothy Ball, a completely different person who also apparently is a geography professor with an interest in climatology, must be a true expert on the subject, even though the court found him innocent precisely because no normal person would trust his words. But Steve does. Well, maybe the court has it right after all.

    Steve, you say you showed me where they lied in two places, yet you completely fail to specify those two places. I’m happy to talk about specifics, but I cannot address any comments that are so vague

  46. Steve says:

    “My area of expertise in Geography is climatology. My research interests include climate change and variability in Canada’s prairie provinces, synoptic climatology, the classification of synoptic patterns, and natural hazards.”

    EGADS, Rincon, do you EVER actually READ?

  47. Rincon says:

    Keeping in mind that you are ASSUMING that Tim Ball has credentials similar to Danny Blair, who does not appear to hold a degree in climatology or meteorology. Nevertheless, if you are so impressed with Blair that you are postulating that, gee whiz, Ball must be just like him, then you might want to explain the following statement from Climate Change Connection, an organization cochaired by Blair: “…carbon dioxide concentrations have increased approximately 30% since pre-industrial times. This has resulted in a strengthening of the greenhouse effect, which has played a critical role in warming our planet.” https://climatechangeconnection.org/science/climate_causes/

    How do you decide which of your two so called experts to believe? I choose Blair because at least he never had a judge pronounce him innocent due to professional insanity.

  48. Steve says:

    “innocent due to professional insanity”

    No citation.

    I showed you the clear lies made by those attacking Ball.
    You ignore them.

    Rincon’s theory is on full display….again

  49. Rincon says:

    Not hearing from you, Thomas, about the false assertion by Investor’s Business Daily regarding the temperature of our planet (not only false, but a huge whopper of a lie, to be exact), I assume you agree that the article was fake news. Please consider checking your sources with mediabiasfactcheck.com. They listed IBD as between right wing and extreme right wing, but, more importantly, said that their factual reporting was mixed, meaning, “…the source does not always use proper sourcing or sources to other biased/mixed sources. They may also report well sourced information as well. Mixed sources will have failed one or more fact checks and does not immediately correct false or misleading information. While the majority of the information may be factual on these sources, they need to be checked. Further, any source that does not disclose a mission or ownership information will automatically be deemed mixed.”

    On the left, MSNBC and CNN received a similar score, so I don’t trust them. NBC, on the other hand, while receiving a score of left-center bias, was rated high on factual reporting. The Economist, is called least biased with a high rating for factual reporting. That’s one reason that I often cite them.

  50. Anonymous says:

    “This year is set to be the fourth-hottest on record, according to newly released data from the United Nations’ weather body.

    The World Meteorological Organization’s State of the Global Climate report said that the average global temperature between January and October 2018 was nearly one degree celsius above the pre-industrial baseline.

    The WMO noted in the report that the 20 warmest years on record have all occurred in the past 22 years, and that the top four have been in the past four years.”


  51. Steve says:

    Mitch, that table shows the effects aerosols were having on global temperatures. Due to the dimming effects of aerosols more of the sun’s heat was reflected back into space.

    This led to the global cooling hype in the 1970’s

    just like today, with media and politicians hyping those scientists who express an opinion, those same media outlets and politicians (of the day) hyped the hell out what opinions were expressed by scientists of the time.

    The same thing is happening today, the science is good, it’s the politicians and media who insist on hyping the hell out opinions expressed by a clear minority of the whole community.

  52. Rincon says:

    Clear minority? Prove it!

  53. Steve says:

    Already had that discussion. John Cook proved it a few years ago.

  54. Anonymous says:

    Bill I just noticed that one of the regular, typically uninformed posters did what he usually does here and misinformed you about something that maybe I ought to just let you go on believing, but I just can’t so,meres the meaning of “derp” for you:

    used as a substitute for speech regarded as meaningless or stupid, or to comment on a foolish or stupid action.
    “Lower tax rates and far lower job creation. Derp”
    foolishness or stupidity.
    “the derp heard outside apparently was only the tip of the iceberg”

    You’re welcome.

  55. Steve says:

    To correct the sam plea king, I CORRECTED the post made in an effort to denigrate rather than discuss.

    As that is the typical method used by “anonymous” formerly known as Patrick. Remember “him”? He’s the one who sunk to new depths so low as to steal others identities on this site.

  56. Bill says:

    Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5.

  57. Anonymous says:

    “No good deed goes unpunished.”
    -Claire Boothe Luce

Leave a Reply

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 )

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