Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

CLIMATE: Minnesota temperatures are trending downward

Letter by Ken A. Schlichte, Tumwater on Feb. 24, 2012 at 4:05 pm with 60 Comments »
February 24, 2012 4:05 pm

Minnesota lost 14 percent of its moose population last year and it may not have moose for much longer because of disease, parasites and a warming climate, according to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources wildlife researcher Mark Lenarz (TNT, 2-23).

The suggestion that a warming climate is responsible for the recent decline in and potential elimination of the Minnesota moose population is highly questionable because the NOAA National Climatic Data Center reports that Minnesota’s annual temperatures have actually been trending downward at a rate of 1.75 degrees F per decade during the 14 years since 1998 and that Minnesota’s winter temperatures have been trending downward even more rapidly at a rate of 5.94 degrees F per decade since 1998.

Leave a comment Comments → 60
  1. SandHills says:

    Add the trend of hybrid bears (product of Polar and Grizzly matings), as well as uptick in shark attacks (depletion of food sources in the ocean may have driven them to adapt to the taste of humans in shallow water) – well these are also hints that will be argued away as well by those who just see some sort of socialist conspiracy in the global warming/ climate change warnings.

    I hear the train coming down the tracks – and I can understand how most conservatives who argue against climate change are basically opposed to any actions that give more government oversight into our daily lives when they can’t actually see that train coming.

    The sad fact is that by the time it becomes crystal clear that the train is about to hit us it will be too late, and we won’t be able to simply jump off the tracks – ain’t no other Mother Earth than the one we have.

  2. Fibonacci says:

    So what? One state is not the planet. Just because doing something about it would be inconvenient for business does not mean it it not true.

  3. bobcat1a says:

    For 20 years the climate scientists have been (accurately) predicting that some places will get colder as a result of global climate change. But then, who needs science?

  4. Dave98373 says:

    So many factors influence climate change that even the experts disagree. Yet, there are still vultures (Al Gore) that prey and profit off the uninformed.

  5. Climatologists look at trends over decades and centuries, not 14 years. It just so happens that Minnesota had the hottest three years on record in 1997-1999. Starting with 1998 is a very convenient way to say that temperatures are going down.

    Here is the real story: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/janfeb01/warming.html

    “During the past two decades, most springs in Minnesota have arrived earlier than usual–sometimes by a week or more. Eight of the 20 warmest years in Minnesota have been recorded since 1981.”

    …”average winter temperatures in northern Minnesota have gone up 3 to 5 F in the past century…”

  6. tuddo, you are just confusing Mr. Schlichte. Now he will have to make something else up to fit his denier’s agenda.
    It will be a good exercise for him and who knows, he might actually learn something of value by accident.
    My advice, don’t hold your breath. He writes this nonsense about once a month.

  7. took14theteam says:

    Hey Publiko, they are predicting a national average gas price of $5 a gallon by summer, which means at least $6 a gallon in the Soviet of Washington. Are you happy now?

    It should send the minimal economic recovery back to a depression and send the unemployment back to 12% or higher. Are you happy now?

    It will hurt the 99% the most (is OWS still around?) Are you happy now?

    At least it will reflect badly on BHO and the Democrats, because they are on record for wanting high gas prices. And they are the ones that refuse to allow the US to achieve energy independence.

    Why do the Democrats hate America?

  8. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Great question.

    An why have climate scientists been jumping ship from the SS Global Warming? Because it is a scam.

    We went from a cyclical global cooling period in the 19th century to a natural warming period in the 20th. The earth is now cooling and the bearded ones protecting their jobs moved the goal post to ‘climate change’. No crap the climate is changing, it always is. But what is man’s effect? Science has proven nothing to justify the wasted money. The UN and other leftist organizations are simply trying to re-distribute wealth to themselves and 3rd world nations. Travel to anywhere outside America, Europe, and Canada and you can see where the true problem lies.

    Yet the left ensures we cannot drill at home. Ignorant fools prefer us getting oil from Iraq or the Muslim Brotherhood. Chavez. Great environmental, fiscal, and moral solution.

  9. Good. Then the north pole is moving towards Russia!!!

  10. BLBeamer says:

    Stupid Minnesota. Hasn’t it heard that the science is settled?

  11. concernedtacpma7, you have any climatologists in mind? Any scientific evidence that “the earth is now cooling”, as in the climate, not as in the core of the planet? NASA just came out with a report that the earth should be in a cooling trend, possibly leading to an ice age, but is warming instead.

    There are a few who disagree, 3% at latest count. That means 97% of climatologists agree that glonbal warming is real and humans play a part in it.

    90% of all scientists who have a role in geophysics agree, and that includes meteorologists, geologists and others. Petroleum geologists, most of them working for big oil companies, are the smallest group at only 47% (any surprise?).


  12. took1, I believe the topic is global warming. Higher gas prices might slow it some, but that is a long way to get to the topic.
    There will be no recession and no jump in unemployment unless Iran goes nuts and President Obama cannot stop that.

  13. ItalianSpring says:

    The global warming continues…
    Tomorrow morning temperatures in balmy WA state are predicted to be 27 degrees fahrenheit, not celsius. Libs, I recommend you bring your petunias in tonight.

  14. Pacman33 says:

    “Any scientific evidence that ‘the earth is now cooling”

    Where have you been?
    Among the most prominent of the scientists is Professor Mojib Latif, a leading member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
    He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva.

    “A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.

    They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.

    The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.”




  15. Pacman33 says:

    Prof Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, has recently shown that these MDOs move together in a synchronised way across the globe, abruptly flipping the world’s climate from a ‘warm mode’ to a ‘cold mode’ and back again in 20 to 30-year cycles.

    “We have such a change now and can therefore expect 20 or 30 years of cooler temperatures.”

    Prof Tsonis said that the period from 1915 to 1940 saw a strong warm mode, reflected in rising temperatures. But from 1940 until the late Seventies, the last MDO cold-mode era, the world cooled, despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continued to rise.

    1882 – 1915 Cooling
    1915 – 1940 Warming
    1940 – 1979 Cooling
    1979 – 2001 Warming
    2001 -(~2030?)Cooling

    “I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount. These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years.”



  16. nwcolorist says:

    Now let’s see… We’re basing these theories on 14 years of data in Minnesota?

    As Charlie Brown would say, Good Grief.

  17. concernedtacoma7 says:


    Yet another scientist gets busted in the scam of climate change/global warming.

  18. Dave98373 – Funny that most dissenting climate change scientists are not specialists in climatology and or work for energy companies who are the true vultures preying and profiting off all of us.

    Took14 – the price of gas is controlled by big oil, US’s exports gasoline at a rate of 600,000 gallons per day compared to 200,000 barrels a day a year ago.

  19. napoleonxv says:

    You know, since Mr. Schlichte didn’t cite a specific reference to back his claim, somebody could try to verify it. But as John Belushi would have said, “But N-O-O-O-O”. Here people who reject a report written by 1000s of scientists the world over (the IPCC report) accept the words of a letter to the editor at face value. Why? Because they WANT global warming to be a myth, because they see global warming as an excuse for those “knee-jerk liberals” to impose government restrictions on their God-given right to do things like driving large SUVs.

    I CHALLENGE Mr. Schlichte to provide a SPECIFIC reference supporting his claim. For if you go to the the Minnesota State Climatology Office/Climatology Working Group web page at http://climate.umn.edu/climateChange/climateChangeObservedNu.htm, you will see that the data there CONTRADICTS what Mr. Schlichte claims. For example, the page says “Since the early 1980s, the temperature has risen slightly over 1°F in the south to a little over 2°F in much of the north; the trend has been upward.” Or note the map labeled “Temperature 1997-2006″ which shows that while temperatures have decreased in a few isolated regions, they have increased in the vast majority of the state. And NOWHERE does the map show a temperature decrease at the rate of 5.94 degrees per decade.

    This wouldn’t be the first time I’ve seen someone falsely claim that a recognized authority’s information supports climate-change denial. Conservative columnist John Carlson claimed that the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK disagreed with the climate change hypothesis, when in fact their web site said “Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it”.

  20. Professor Mojib Latif has asserted that he has been widely misquoted by some scientists who are trying to misrepresent what he had written and enter into the public record that there is no global warming caused by human activities.

    What he actually said was there is considerable disagreement as to the amount of warming that the various models predict, but gthere is no doubt at all about global warming caused by humans. He went on to say:

    “Yet we all agree that in the long run, say by 2050 and thereafter, the earth will considerably warm, if we do not considerably reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.”


    The anti-global warming folks certainly are deperate to make a failed argument.

  21. concernedtacoma7 says:

    The IPCC report has been shown to have cherry picked data based on a political agenda, not science (ref climategate).

    Al Gore sold a bunch of BS to a bunch of suckers.

  22. The facts are out there, the evidence is in. Climatologists agree that global warming is real, with a tiny, tiny miniscule fraction saying that it is not. The huge majority of scientists that deal with any earth-related and atmosphere-related science agree that global warming is real and humans are one major cause.

    Looks like Al Gore was teling it exactly like it is.

    The suckers are the grandchildren of the far right who will have to live with decisions made by politicians who thought that the rapture would come before their grandchildren would have to deal with the consequences.

    I guess Gingrich is correct that we need that moon colony, just to keep our species alive.

  23. @tuddo
    As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts. For facts on your supposed “97%”, read:


  24. sevenstrokeroll says:

    What this debate makes clear is that American “Christians” lack the ideals of their very own religious convictions. What I am hearing is a rhetoric from American “Christians” that echos that of the Taliban and Al Queda. Religion, as Christpher Hitchens loved to say…poisons everything.

  25. Pac, you do understand the meaning of the word, “may,” right. May and might are nearly the same. And you also noted that the quote included the phrase, “anthropogenic warming,” which is an indication that he recognizes it as a factor.
    So his comments mean nothing as a detractor for the premise that global warming is happening and that there is an anthropogenic factor involved.
    What’s your point big boy? That there is a diference among scientists about the degree is a given. That is is happening as they predict within their limits is also a given. We might have a few surprises that change timelines a little or minor outcomes by a fraction of a degree, but that it completely normal if you have any understanding of science at all.

  26. The anti-global warming folks certainly are deperate to make a failed argument.

    They don’t even realize the quotes they use prove the opposite of what they are asserting.

  27. Pacman33 says:

    tuddo desperately fails to make an argument –
    “NASA just came out with a report that the earth should be in a cooling trend, possibly leading to an ice age, but is warming instead.”
    Data showing cooling.
    Short-Term Ocean Cooling Suggests Global Warming ‘Speed Bump’

    “The recent changes in ocean temperature run deep. A small amount of cooling was detected at the ocean’s surface, consistent with global measurements of sea-surface temperature. The maximum amount of cooling was at a depth of 400 meters (about 1,300 feet), but substantial cooling was still observed at 2,500 feet, and the cooling appears to extend deeper.”

    Oh no, D.C. going is to cut funding. That’s gonna have to be “Corrected”! What a bunch of crap.
    Correcting Ocean Cooling

    “On a Thursday evening in February 2007, Josh Willis stood in front of his laptop, his wife cajoling him to get ready to go out to dinner. He looked with a sinking feeling at the map he had just made.”

    You don’t even realize what you regurgitate from mediamatters and thedailykos is complete garbage do you? Of coarse not, how else could you spew such nonsense as this :
    “Looks like Al Gore was teling it exactly like it is.”

    “Exactly”? There have been so many falsehoods in his mock-umentary that simply time alone has disproved, even leading climatologists distance themselves from him. That fat, bloviating fraud knew better to show his face in Copenhagen. It figures the likes of you are his last fan. I’m convinced you two are one in the same after watching him call skeptics the equivalent of racists in this YouTube video :


  28. Pacman33 says:

    Pub, you do understand the the benefit of following the conversation right? I know it’s hard when tuddo intentionally attempts to obscure the conversation in an attempt elude backing up remarks with facts.

    (Q) tuddo said –
    “you have any climatologists in mind? Any scientific evidence that “the earth is now cooling”

    Did tuddo mention anything pertaining to the anthropogenic aspect in this query? No. Did tuddo, in fact, use the term “now” regarding time frame? Yes. Then what the eff are you blabbing about?

    (A) A leading member of the UN’s IPCC, Professor Mojib Latif said –
    “A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.

    They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.

    The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.”

    Latif uses the term “may” when referencing forecasts and only when referencing forecasts, as any legitimate scientist should. He leaves no question of certainty when speaking of the current reality that earth has already entered the cooling transition of the same natural cycle as observed last century. Nor does he when addressing the reversal of the trend in arctic ice retreat or the fact that “For the time being, global warming has paused”. The fact is there is no scientist, or any informed individual that denies the fact that the earth’s temperature peaked in 1998 and has not experienced warmer temperatures since.

    It is likely a lost cause for you to ever have an understanding of science, but I see hope for your reading and comprehension disability.

  29. hensandducks says:

    Global climate change! Not global warming! We are facing more extremes everywhere. Already Alaska and island nations are enduring rising sea waters. The polar ice caps are melting!

  30. Once again a constant denier (gotta wonder if Ken Schlichte is garnering some compensation related to his p.r. campaign) confuses global climate with local weather.

  31. scooter6139 says:

    Tuddo – The anti-climate change fanatics on here are just parroting what they find on the right-wing Internet. They fail to realize your very salient point that what they are using to back up their claims does the opposite. It’s like they didn’t bother to read the links and their source material. Why some people are so adverse to very idea of human affected climate change is very confusing to me. I’m not sure what they have to gain but I don’t think they realize what they have to lose in the long term.

  32. How about this data for people who think I just make things up:


    “The five warmest years over the last century occurred in the last eight years,” said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS. They stack up as follows: the warmest was 2005, then 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

    And this one that says 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest year on record for global temps, and that 2000-2010 was the warmest decade on record.


    Where is all that evidence that the earth is cooling down since 2008, again?

  33. I meant 1998, not 2008, sorry.

  34. Pacman33 says:

    “We are facing more extremes everywhere. Already Alaska and island nations are enduring rising sea waters. The polar ice caps are melting!”


  35. MarksonofDarwin says:


    Mr. Schlichte is referring to an article written by a Mr. Lenarz, a wildlife researcher who apparently is the one who claims the recent warm weather in MN is to blame for a moose decline in that state. (Or something like that….I didn’t actually read the article!) He is refuting the article by using *decades* of temperature data, and not simply the “weather” this year.

    What does that mean? To me, it means that we simply don’t know for certain why the moose population is dwindling.

    And that’s the crux of the argument. Both sides are talking past each other, and nobody wants to objectively study anything beyond what they **believe** to be true. As we have seen throughout history, many commonly held “beliefs” about the world around us are turned on its head by scientific experiments and discovery. Anytime someone has to invoke faith in a certain outcome….they are definitely not speaking in scientific terms.

    Bottom line for me:
    We are nowhere near done with the experiments, let alone at the stage to declare that the science is settled.

  36. The temperature in Minnesota goes through radical changes whenever Michele Bachmann is back in her home district making a speech. Lot’s of extra Hot Air they can’t account for, don’t ya know?

  37. As written above – many factors influence climate change that even the experts disagree. Yet, there are still vultures (Al Gore) that prey and profit off the uninformed. Do you know how much he profits from “green energy”?

    Did you know that the earth absorbs more energy from the sun in 1 hour than all the energy produced by man in a whole year? Hmmm….Maybe this might have something to do with all the recent solar flares!

  38. Pacman33 says:

    “Maybe this might have something to do with all the recent solar flares!”

    LOL, don’t overwhelm them, they get confused enough already. The alarmists might blow a gasket. I do think the odds for proof of solar activity being a factor in climate change will happen before they can prove CO2 from human activity is.


  39. Pacman, since you continue to present that same image as evidence that disproves the consensus of nearly the entire scientific community regarding global climate change, I’ll ask you once more to provide a brief overview of what evidence that comparison provides.

    I know, I know, it has a scale and pretty colors, but just humor me for a second and give us all a quick 3-sentence lesson on what the comparison indicates.

    Oh, and before you give it a shot I’ll help you out by providing figures gathered from the same website on ice pack areas for years 1980 and 2011.

    Day 248, 1980: Northern Hemisphere ice pack – 5.5 million square kilometers
    Day 248, 2011: Northern Hemisphere ice pack – 2.9 million square kilometers

  40. The same people who say not to worry about global climate change think our civilization will be destroyed by gay marriage, so I guess no one needs to worry about it anyway.

  41. Pacman33 says:

    Tuddo didn’t you just say?: “They don’t even realize the quotes they use prove the opposite of what they are asserting.”
    “And this one that says …….”
    They are both NASA records. What do you mean ‘And this one..’? They are the SAME one ……. hahahaha. Doesn’t that tell you anything? How did you choose which record to go with? Close your eyes and point?
    NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years

    “The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years –1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 — for the second warmest on record.”
    NASA Finds 2011 Ninth-Warmest Year on Record

    “The warmest years on record were 2005 and 2010, in a virtual tie.”
    2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade

    “The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years — 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 — as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began.”
    eeenny meeeny miney moe
    NASA Research Finds 2010 Tied for Warmest Year on Record

    “The two years differed by less than 0.018 degrees Fahrenheit. The difference is smaller than the uncertainty in comparing the temperatures of recent years, putting them into a statistical tie. In the new analysis, the next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009, which are statistically tied for third warmest year.”
    2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century

    “2005 was the warmest year since the late 1800s, according to NASA scientists. 1998, 2002 and 2003 and 2004 followed as the next four warmest years.”
    What is the deal with NASA’s “Warmest Year on Record” Melodrama?
    It seems they recycle the script and just change the date every year.
    I didn’t see one about the historic 2008, coolest year for over a century?

    Reason NASA is …. Right or Different?
    “Some other research groups that study climate change rank 2005 as the second warmest year, based on comparisons through November. The primary difference among the analyses, according to the NASA scientists, is the inclusion of the Arctic in the NASA analysis.”
    So NASA gets a different result than the rest while using a different analysis …… What is the deal with that? Maybe I’ll click on this “Global Temperature Trends: 2005 Summation”?

    “The ranking of individual years, however, depends upon differences of only a few hundredths of a degree, which is finer than the accuracy that any method can achieve given observational limitations.
    One large source of differences is the attempt in the GISS method to estimate the temperature anomaly for all areas that have at least one station located within 1200 km, using weights for these stations that decrease linearly with distance from the station. At any given point the temperature anomaly estimated in this way can be substantially in error, but the increased coverage usually allows an improved estimate of the global temperature anomaly, as judged from tests made with spatially and temporally complete data sets generated by a general circulation model. However, in some cases this method can increase error by giving undue weight to one isolated station with anomalous temperature.
    Another source of difference is the method of averaging over the world, given the fact that data is not available everywhere. In the GISS method, we divide the Earth in four latitude belts. Within each belt the region with data is weighted by area. The anomaly for the entire belt is then taken as the anomaly for the portion of the belt that has data. The global anomaly is then the area-weighted mean of the four belts. This method gives equal weight to the hemispheres, but if one of the belts has little data that is not actually representative of the entire belt, substantial error can occur.”
    Ridiculous. Wow, I’m speechless. I guess that removes the question to why NASA is different.

    ~ “… estimated in this way can be substantially in error”

    ~ “However, in some cases this method can increase error …”

    ~ ” .. actually representative of the entire belt, substantial error can occur.”

  42. Let’s see, someone posted that the earth was in a cooling period and had been cooling since 1998 and claimed 1998 was the hottest year on record. I posted factual evidence from NASA that stated the decade of 2000-2010 was the hottest on record and 2010 was tied with 2005 as the hottest year in over a century.

    Then some poster goes nuts posting the same information as I did and claiming I was somehow wrong. NASA posts an analysis every year, in fact, monthly. I picked two posts showing what has happened since 1998, the year in question, the second one showing an analysis of a decade of record warming.

    Somehow, the poster thinks it disproves my point because, as NASA explains, one group excludes data from the Arctic and NASA includes it. Both groups say that global warming is occurring using the data they found in their results, they just have slightly fractional temperature differences in their results. NASA explains why they think their data is more inclusive and why they think it is more accurate, while realizing the reasons for other groups’ methodologies.

    In weather, it is important to look at individual trends; even daily and hourly trends have meaning. In climatology, looking at long-term data is the norm. It hardly matters whether one group says 2005 is tied with 2010 or slightly less.

    What matters is that every scientific evaluation shows that decade after decade, the earth is warming during a time when the normal cycles would have the earth in a cooling trend.

    NASA explains that some systems use substantially more reporting stations than other methodologies. The different methodologies have different ways that errors can present themselves, and that is one reason why NASA, along with every other reputable source of data, revises its past data as more information is accrued and the models are fine-tuned.

    The NASA information as quoted at length by this poster says that fractional differences in temperature increases mean little in a short-term period. However, as they build up to three or four degrees, over the decades, it makes a big difference in climate zones, habitability, sea heighth, ice coverage, etc.

    The poster just keeps building the evidence that global warming is occurring while thinking he is somehow refuting it. Its fun to watch. At least he didn’t resort to calling names and making personal attacks this time which caused his post to be removed last time.

  43. took14theteam says:

    let’s just give all our money to the Democrats, and then the earth will cool and glow ball warming will be no more….

  44. Pacman33 says:

    Thus the year 2005, with no El Niño, was about as warm globally as 1998 with its major El Niño effects. The GISS analysis of 2005 interpolated the exceptionally warm conditions in the extreme north of Eurasia and North America over the Arctic Ocean (see Figure 3.5). If the GISS data for 2005 are averaged only south of 75°N, then 2005 is cooler than 1998.


    The Met Office and the University of East Anglia have today released provisional global temperature figures for 2010, which show the year to be the second warmest on record.

    With a mean temperature of 14.50 °C, 2010 becomes the second warmest year on record, after 1998. The record is maintained by the Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit at UEA.


    RSS: 2010 was the second warmest after 1998
    It was the 12th year in a row that wasn’t able to surpass 1998 so the lukewarm year 1998 remains the “hottest one”, or the “least cold year”, depending on your preferences, on the RSS AMSU record.

    2010: 0.510 °C
    2005: 0.374 °C
    2003: 0.358 °C
    2002: 0.334 °C


    University of Alabama, Huntsville’s UAH.
    The temperature anomaly for 2010 was +0.411C compared with +0.424C for 1998

  45. Pacman33 says:

    Oh no tuddo looks dumb again.

    I’m glad I got busy and couldn’t post this right after my last one.

    tuddo is so lost.
    ” … along with every other reputable source of data, revises its past data as more information is accrued and the models are fine-tuned.”

    Just classic.

  46. Pacman33
    @ Feb. 27, 2012 at 6:14 pm

    2008 as the coolest year in over a Century? Not even close.
    If you look at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/Fig2.gif
    you’ll see that it’s not even the coolest year in the 21st century.

    You have the right to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
    As for which year is the hottest, you are correct that the uncertainty in measurements is more than the differences between the years. But, the uncertainty is much less than the difference between the temperature now and twenty-five years ago.

    Your focusing on a few years temperatures and calling the climate cooling is like someone comparing the the temperatures in the NW the first of week in february with the temperature now, and declaring that it proved that the ‘theory of seasonal warming’ is disproved.

  47. took14theteam says:

    Like I said above:

    let’s just give all our money to the Democrats, and then the earth will cool and glow ball warming will be no more….

  48. tellnolies says:

    Repeating yourself means nothing took14. Maybe take another, lol

  49. I see that the same people that have no knowledge about climate change are still insulting those that accept what scientists tell us.

  50. took14theteam says:

    Well since the “moniker” was created to celebrate the demise of another moniker, I only “took1″ for the team.

    But since said “moniker” has returned with multiple monikers since that joyous day, I think it is time to retire took14theteam and return with something new.

    Stay tuned……

  51. that motis.blogspot.com is a real good source, I’ll bet.

    A google blog like ThurstonBlog.

    Makes me wanna create a story about climate change

    Oh and a wordpress blog also??? Now I’m really impressed.

  52. I guess I spoke too soon and complimented too soon about the absence of personal attacks. Why can’t some people just state their point and move on without calling other people names and taking cheap shots?

  53. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5YSgPZ-OK4 Forgive me I just couldnt help it! :D

  54. Dcr….LOL…Good one!

  55. Pacman, since it looks like you are doing quite a bit of real thorough research from recognized scientific sources, I wonder if you could answer my question regarding the satellite image comparison that you have posted multiple times and avoided explaining every time I have asked.

    All I would like is just a tiny bit of your own personal analysis and understanding of what the image comparison is telling us and why you are using it as support for the denial of global climate change, a concept that over 97% of the recognized scientific community is in consensus regarding.

    Again, I have gone ahead and used the same website from which that image originated from to gather Northern Hemisphere ice pack data from 1980 and 2012, roughly the same time period indicated on the images.

    Day 248, 1980: Northern Hemisphere ice pack – 5.5 million square kilometers
    Day 248, 2011: Northern Hemisphere ice pack – 2.9 million square kilometers

    I thank you in advance for your diligent research, I know that you’re a very busy man.

  56. I highly recommend to ALL other legitimate posters on these blogs to completely ignore ImLarry, Cardinous and Anothermoniker who is the same person formerly known as ManuelMartini. It is totally pointless to engage in discussion with a person whose ONLY purpose here is to antagonize others.

    Read more here: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/letters/2012/02/22/afghan-culture-is-just-too-different/#comment-205985#storylink=cpy

  57. muckibr…..you wanted to start something with me and now you don’t want to play anymore? What did I say about “can of worms”?

    Why does this not surprise me?

    I think the readers are grown up enough that they don’t need your childish advise.

    I told you, I will not be bullied. Don’t try. I fight back.

  58. Larry, remind me again how old you are? Come on man, you can be seriously trying to threaten to “fight back” over the internet right? Make your point or response and get on with it but enough with the e-tough guy stuff.

  59. I gotta say…..re-listening to that silly Bullwinkle youtube, I closed my eyes and had great imagery of that music as a “soundtrack” to the “visual” I was having of everyone on these comment threads chasing each other in circles and biting each other on the tookus! :D

  60. I credit many hours as a child absorbing Rocket J. Squirrel and Friends as the source of much of my sense of humor. I do a fairly good impression of Dudley DooRight…..”It’s Snidely Whiplash!”

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0