UK Suffers Coldest March in 50 Years, Global Warming to Blame


This is what Green Genocide looks like.

Freezing Britain’s unusually harsh winter could have cost thousands of pensioners their lives.

This month is on track to be the coldest March for 50 years – and as the bitter Arctic conditions caused blackouts and traffic chaos yesterday, experts warned of an ‘horrendous’ death toll among the elderly.

About 2,000 extra deaths were registered in just the first two weeks of March compared with the average for the same period over the past five years.

‘An increase in fuel costs and the extended winter means that more people are going to suffer, and more will be unable to afford to eat and heat their homes. It’s a scary prospect.’

This isn’t just more cold weather. It’s cold weather exacerbated by Energy Poverty caused by Green gimmicks that promised to fight Global Warming while dramatically driving up energy costs.

While the experts were claiming that science has proven that the UK was headed for a tropical paradise, it instead finds itself buried deep in winter. And the ecoscammers profit with their Green Tech ventures and their NGO awareness campaigns, with money trimmed from budgets for pensioners, and the pensioners freeze.

Today is officially the first day of spring – but it will bring little respite to freezing Britain as snow continues to fall, closing schools and causing chaos on the roads.

The country is on track to suffer its coldest March in more than 50 years. The last time March was so cold was in 1962, when the average temperature was 2.4C (36F) – or 4.1C below the norm.

Meanwhile the number of children living in Energy Poverty in the UK has risen 9 percent in 3 years up to 1.6 million and while the economy has no doubt had its impact, so has the frenzied pace of adoption of Green measures.

Greens are cruelly using these figures to push a Carbon Tax which will only increase Energy Poverty lining their own dirty pockets with money stolen from the poor. Their typical proposals of Green Energy and Energy Efficiency are code words for expensive energy and energy rationing.

The Greens have caused this with their lies and their greed and now they are exploiting the human misery that they caused for more power and profit.

After pitching Global Warming for so long, perhaps they had better go back to their 70s mantra of predicting an Ice Age.

  • Karen

    If the greenies are blaming global warming for the cold temperatures now, what was the culprit 50 years ago when temperatures dropped?

    It's called weather, it's been around for a few million years, has periods of extreme unpredictability and doesn't play favorites.

    People who are trying to stuff green energy and carbon taxes down our throats (Al Gore), should be put on whatever ice floes are available, and sent out to compete with the polar bears for food.

    • AnOrdinaryMan

      …or perhaps the Greenies ought to go for a volcano tax. This is because the coldest summer ever was suffered through in 1816; as a result of the 1815 explosion of the Tambora volcano, which threw several cubic miles of debris into the air, blocking a significant degree of sunlight. Never mind that Tambora didn't cause anything like global warming….

    • Mary Sue

      Why, Global warming, of course! They'll find a way to blame the industrial revolution.

  • Clark Banner

    I'm curious Mr. Greenfield. Do you enjoy lying to your audience and engaging in lazy "journalism"?

    This weather reinforces Climate Change. This weather is now seen only once every few decades. Before it was seen almost once every few years.

    ""As for snowfall that could actually increase in the short term because of global warming. We have all heard the expression 'too cold to sjavascript:%20showLogin();now' and we have always expected precipitation to increase. " – Dr. Myles Allen

    In contrast to now, the deep freezes of 46-47 and 62-63 were colder!

    I guess through your logic, the Sahara desert isn't a desert because it rains there sporadically.

    • Clark Banner

      * "too cold to snow"

    • ILIA TOLI

      They call it Climate Change now. It was Global Cooling first in the seventies, then Global Warming. With Climate Change you can't possibly go wrong, it changes by the hour. If they had stuck to Global Cooling they'd have had a better shot. We need to produce more carbon dioxide to avert Global Cooling, which is indeed catastrophic.

      • Clark Banner

        It was called Manic Depression then it was called Bipolar Disorder. It was called GRID then it was called AIDS. What's your point? Scientists rename things once they understand things better all the time.

        Unfortunately the planet is still warming. It's called GLOBAL warming. If some places are experiencing cold, that doesn't mean the world is getting cold as a whole. Global Cooling isn't an accurate term because long term trends for the planet indicate warming.

        • Mary Sue

          That's why they covered their asses with a meaningless, nonspecific term such as "Climate Change".

          Buddy, it ain't climate change until palm trees other than windmill and fan palms can grow in my backyard.

          • Clark Banner

            But forest fires, more severe storms, a change ocean currents, increasing sea levels, don't mean anything though? Ok.

          • Mary Sue

            Forest fires are caused by two things, generally. Lightning Strikes, which have nothing to do with global warming, or PEOPLE. (dropped cigarettes, inadequately extinguished campfires, arson, or just general negligence).

            The thing is, there are NOT more severe storms. We don't know enough about the ocean currents' past history to know what any alleged change means. Increasing sea levels could also have nothing to do with global warming. Ever heard of sea levels dropping? Land rising? Land falling? (slowly). Research what happens in the "life cycle" of an Island that has formed as a result of a coral reef. Nothing to do with Global Warming there.

          • Clark banner

            Forests Fires happen exactly for those reasons you just stated. Because of Climate Change those areas are becoming dryer and fires are more likely to occur. http://www.livescience.com/4673-global-warming-fu

            Sandy wasn't a severe storm? It was the most severe storm recorded in New Jersey's history.

            What we do know is that melting glaciers are disrupting currents like the gulf stream. All glaciers are decreasing. This is a fact. Surges of cold water from these glaciers interrupt the ocean conveyer belt. This could result in a colder Europe.

            Carbon Dioxide has been the dominant control on Sea Level for the past 40 million years. They explain it thou-roughly here. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Carbon-Dioxide-th

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Forests Fires happen exactly for those reasons you just stated. Because of Climate Change those areas are becoming dryer and fires are more likely to occur."

            Excerpt from your link:

            Is Global Warming Fueling Forest Fires?
            Andrea ThompsonDate: 24 October 2007 Time: 10:36 AM ET

            Wildfires that raged in Southern California this week and forced more than half a million people from their homes spread so rapidly in part because the landscape was parched by a hot, dry summer—conditions that may become more of a norm for the Southwest, thanks to global warming.

            But can these wildfires be attributed to a changing climate?

            This very issue was brought to light Tuesday when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters, “One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming,” according to The Hill.com, a political news Web site, though Reid later said many factors contributed to the wildfires.

            They seem a lot less certain than you are.

      • anor277

        In fact 30000 million tonnes of carbon dioxide are being pumped into the atmosphere annually. Is this not enough carbon dioxide for you?

        • Drakken

          Hmmm kinda funny when you consider that plants love co2, idiot letftys, to dumb to know their dumb.

          • Clark Banner

            Plants also need Oxygen for respiration just as much as they need C02 for photosynthesis. The rate of replacement of C02 to Oxygen is becoming less and less the more that gaseous carbon is being produced by human beings and the more trees are being cut down.

          • Drakken

            Anything you effing greeny leftys believe, you can bet it is wrong, global warming my azz, your just too stupid to understand climate weather and it changes all the time with or without man, dumbazz.

          • Clark Banner

            1) I'm not a leftist (and I'm not a conservative either precisely because of lies like this). Infact half of all republicans believe in Climate Change and 1/3 say it's because of Human Activity. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/10/15/po

            2) Yes, believing in plant respiration and seeing the correlation between less plants and less C02 conversion is so leftist! How could I have not seen this before?!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "1) I'm not a leftist (and I'm not a conservative either precisely because of lies like this)."

            How would you know whether you're a leftist? If "climate change" was not an issue what would make you conservative or "non-leftist?"

            Your lack of cynicism and enthusiastic adoption of leftist positions without any discernible uncertainty marks you as a leftist. Most leftists are in fact dupes that don't even realize they've been deceived. So this is nothing new to hear denial.

          • Clark Banner

            Is this Evan Sayet? I read his book. You seem to have the same opinions as him. He too thinks AIDS can be spread with a bee sting.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "He too thinks AIDS can be spread with a bee sting."

            You're still in troll mode. Noted.

          • Clark Banner

            Is this Evan Sayet?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Is this Evan Sayet?"

            How many times did you ask that question? And your evidence? We both use English. Wow. This projects quite a bit about how your mind works.

            I had to google his name before I even saw he has published articles on FPM. I have always hated Springsteen and I have no Jewish relatives. It's not about me you silly troll.

            Are you falling in love with me? Remember I'm not gay and I'm not a bee.

            Stick to providing evidence for your positions or just out yourself as a pure troll. It's your choice, I see you already have an alternate sock puppet created. Go for it.

            It's still a free country the last time I checked.

          • Clark Banner

            This is definitely Evan Sayet.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "This is definitely Evan Sayet."

            You lost completely. You've proved you have no clue how to develop evidence.

            I love it.

            So how about that "climate change" and your 69/70 certainty? We care. Ask Evan if he's one of the "we," assuming he reads all of the FPM comments, which I doubt but it's possible he does..in theory.

            Just keep making up your own fantasy world. Don't expect a lot of company, k?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "This is definitely Evan Sayet."

            Just like "climate change is a fact."

            Definitely.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Is this Evan Sayet?"

            I'm the bee they named BRID after.

          • Clark Banner

            You are also Evan Sayet.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You are also Evan Sayet."

            Fine. Seen Elvis lately?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Is this Evan Sayet?"

            I'm the Easter Bunny. If you expect any chocolate you'd better check your attitude.

          • Clark Banner

            Yes, you are Evan Sayet. It makes sense because he has this same sarcastic attitude.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Yes, you are Evan Sayet. It makes sense because he has this same sarcastic attitude."

            Evidence of my identity:

            I use English
            I am occasionally sarcastic
            You are completely delusional

            What's the conclusion? Global climate change must be a "scientific fact" based on that evidence.

            Don't forget this validates every observation I've made about you and I don't care about your identity. You're a delusional leftist troll in denial.

            Sorry to be brutal but if you do manage some day to wake up, you'll look back on my frankness and be grateful.

            You're entirely welcome. It's fun even though a bit of a waste of time.

          • Clark Banner

            Mr. Sayet now I know who is replying to me. Every time you reply to one of my posts I will post a quote from your book and blog about AIDS so everyone knows who this is and what he believes about this disease. That will be enough. Thank you

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Every time you reply to one of my posts I will post a quote from your book and blog about AIDS"

            Thanks to you I learned today that he has as few articles published here. Why not harass him there too?

            Carry on. Don't be surprised if the admins eventually have less tolerance for you than I do. But I don't know. Maybe it will be funny. I hope nobody complains because it could be amusing for a very long time.

            You'll become the epitome of the moronic leftists who implode proving they have no comprehension how to handle or develop evidence.

            It's friggin awesome. Thanks for coming out of the closet completely. I can't stop laughing.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Every time you reply to one of my posts I will post a quote from your book and blog about AIDS"

            Thanks to you I learned today that he has as few articles published here. Why not harass him there too?

            Carry on. Don't be surprised if the admins eventually have less tolerance for you than I do. But I don't know. Maybe it will be funny. I hope nobody complains because it could be amusing for a very long time.

            You'll become the epitome of the moronic leftists who implode proving they have no comprehension how to handle or develop evidence.

            It's friggin awesome. Thanks for coming out of the closet completely. I can't stop laughing.

          • Mary Sue

            earth to laughing boy: Younger trees absorb more CO2 than older ones.

          • Clark Banner

            Can these younger trees grow on concrete or crop fields?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Can these younger trees grow on concrete or crop fields?"

            Why would you plant any tree on concrete or crop fields? Many trees are planted on the perimeter of crop fields though. By humans. Wow. Not all human activity is evil.

            By the way that reminds me; there are plenty of things people can do to mitigate the risks you speak about without killing people today. Why not peacefully carry on doing that while you build a more convincing case for your positions?

            The answer is that you're being manipulated by enemies of Western civilization. Our enemies invest plenty of funds in to convincing "us" (you leftists) that our biggest "security risk" is "climate change" while they use the resources we turn away to build bigger economies.

            Ever seen China on the world map? How about Russia? Even the middle eastern oil monarchies have vested interests in us accepting "climate change" as an immediate existential threat. Our position in the world is damaged already between the "peace movement" (which means the West disarms while its enemies don't) and the "green movement" which means the West conserves resources our enemies want while they get to consume them for lower costs all while wrecking our economy.

            Can you at least see how crucial it is to have more certainty? And then when you can make a more compelling case, start attacking our enemies habits first since they are the worst violators of your principals.

            It's not that you have zero evidence. You just handle weak evidence so poorly and then you allow yourself to be used by enemies of Western civilization.

            Hence you are leftist.

          • Clark Banner

            Not a leftist. But hey AIDS can be spread with a bee sting right?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Not a leftist. But hey AIDS can be spread with a bee sting right?"

            If you can't make your point emotionally you go immediately to blatant troll tactics. See how far that gets you here.

            Maybe leftist thinking can be spread through bee stings. I guess we'll never know until we perform all the autopsies.

          • Mary Sue

            …are you REALLY this stupid? Or haven't you noticed that many cities and counties have taken it upon themselves to install "green spaces"?

            Crop fields in and of themselves can take in CO2.

          • Clark banner

            Is the density of trees & foliage the same in parks compared to forests? Do little children produce the same amount of C02 as larger adults. The comparison is the same for trees and crops like corn.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Is the density of trees & foliage the same in parks compared to forests? Do little children produce the same amount of C02 as larger adults. The comparison is the same for trees and crops like corn."

            The point is that there are ongoing programs to play the "better safe than sorry" angle. If you have a comprehensive set of reports that can show for example that we really don't have enough plant-life then go for it and stop playing alarmist games. The articles you point to just do more of the same.

            With all of the repetition I would think you'd realize that your time would be better spent making a quality presentation of your best case rather than taking the Al Gore approach. People respect that a lot more.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The rate of replacement of C02 to Oxygen is becoming less and less the more that gaseous carbon is being produced by human beings and the more trees are being cut down."

            Nobody is saying we don't need plants. We just want to stick to rational evidence when suggesting policies. Leave the emotional garbage out of all the propaganda we hear.

          • Clark Banner

            Debating policy and even being against carbon tax is fine.

            What you're doing is denying scientific fact. I'm not surprised from someone who's never read a peer reviewed journal in his life on the subject (You said you did, but for some reason I don't believe you. It must be my "leftist" deductive reasoning kicking in).

            Hey have you been stung by a bee lately? Someone who called me a psycho told me you could get AIDS from it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "What you're doing is denying scientific fact. "

            Uh no. We're denying that your science is pure and untainted by politics.

            "Hey have you been stung by a bee lately? Someone who called me a psycho told me you could get AIDS from it."

            Using your poor reading comprehension as a basis for troll bait is just silly. It won't work.

    • Dr. Chris Behme

      Ok climate expert. So lets force citizens to pony up trillions in carbon taxes, and then the climate will never change again. Right.
      Also I have read many of Mr. Greenfield's articles and he is a gentleman and a scholar. You are obviously neither.

      • Clark Banner

        Arguing against Carbon Taxes is something I have no problem with. Arguing that Global Warming itself is a conspiracy theory and ignoring the science is something I will stand against you with just as strongly as I will stand against liberals protecting Islam.

        Daniel Greenfield is a gentleman and a scholar. And as these articles on Climate Change show, he's also a liar.

        • Drakken

          If you believe this complete junk science based on who gets govt grants to fake this nonsense, it goes to show you that there is a sucker born every minute.

          • Clark Banner

            I'm curious. How many of these government grants consist to a worldwide concensus even to countries like India and China's scientists whose governments are going through their own industrial revolutions?

          • Drakken

            Follow the money Sparky, if the 3rd world can make us in the 1st world suffer, they will do it, global concensus my azz.

          • Clark Banner

            I wonder who has greater lobbying power? Climate Scientists or Fossil Fuel industries? Follow the money indeed

          • Drakken

            I'll take anyone who actually produces something over a bunch of enviro nazis who just take our taxes to jusify themselves.

          • Clark Banner

            Yes scientists all around the world are enviro-nazis. Do you believe the earth is 6000 years old too? Or is that an atheist conspiracy as well?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Yes scientists all around the world are enviro-nazis."

            Playing stupid just won't help your cause. It makes it look like you can't comprehend narratives that are even slightly complex, never mind understanding well enough to be useful.

            But emotional feelings can lead to 69/70 certainty in delusional people and I guess that's important to know.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I wonder who has greater lobbying power? Climate Scientists or Fossil Fuel industries? Follow the money indeed"

            The oil sellers don't mind our reaction to your activism. And even if they did want to counter the propaganda almost all of them are too busy funding professors to lie about Islam. They have bigger fish to fry…AND we're talking about our biggest enemies who have a lot to gain by having you rant as you do. China and Russia among others.

            Is this Vladimir Putin? You have the same objectives and writing style. You must be Putin.

            Love, "Evan"

          • Mary Sue

            Oh yeah, like nobody EVER lied to obtain a government grant before! [/sarcasm]

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Oh yeah, like nobody EVER lied to obtain a government grant before! [/sarcasm]"

            Hmm, do I want to take money to verify climate change? Sure. It's science after all. I just measure stuff and follow the guidelines.

            I heard Al Gore put up over a million dollars from his own pocket to see IF "climate change" was truly a crucial issue. Just kidding!

            If? No soup for you!

          • darkfire316

            You're right. But the science is solid and backed by peer reviewed data from many scientists often times with opposing viewpoints. The agendas of our government do not match that of Communist China, or India, or Sweden, and still their climate scientists have come to a concensus.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The agendas of our government do not match that of Communist China, or India, or Sweden, and still their climate scientists have come to a concensus."

            This too has been explained to you. They are our enemies and the consensus is that the USA should bear the burden. Our enemies match the agenda of our leftist domestic enemies: to cripple or destroy the US economy and achieve 'social justice" by letting the US pay for anything they can get away with assigned to US taxpayers.

            These things are true whether or not climate change is something we need to worry about. That's yet another thing that pisses me off. I won't cooperate with any of you until you stop handing political weapons to our enemies. Even if climate change is a valid concern, it is the green leftists who are destroying the world as we know it. Of course you have consensus when every leftist wants the USA to revise it's energy policies to favor our enemies and the general idea of "social justice."

            Stop playing dumb.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I'm curious. How many of these government grants consist to a worldwide concensus even to countries like India and China's scientists whose governments are going through their own industrial revolutions?"

            The "world wide consensus" is that the USA (and Western Europe to a degree) needs to pay for it all. With this "consensus" there's plenty of reason to suspect bias and ulterior motive.

          • Mary Sue

            Oh yeah, like I'm going to believe a COMMIE scientist from China.

            Commie China and India just wants to milk USA of money.

          • darkfire316

            The US is China's biggest buyer. If the US goes under so does China. India also has huge investments in America's infrastructure. If the US goes, so does these countries.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The US is China's biggest buyer. If the US goes under so does China."

            They don't want to "obliterate" the USA. They want to dominate it you simpleton.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Arguing that Global Warming itself is a conspiracy theory and ignoring the science…"

          You're over-simplifying. There is no single coherent conspiracy and there are lots of sincere scientist producing interesting data that might turn out to be useful. It's all the rest that we have a problem with.

          And the point is that there are many conspiracies built on the maniacal fear induced by alarmist liars. That doesn't mean that none of the data is based on scientific methods. It just means the conclusions are unreliable. If you think there is a single global "green conspiracy" you are delusional. If you think there are zero conspiracies based on manipulating "climate science" that threaten our civilization you are equally delusional.

          • Clark Banner

            Lol I'm sorry. I can't take someone who thinks AIDs is can be spread by a bee sting seriously when he's talking about science.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Lol I'm sorry. I can't take someone who thinks AIDs is can be spread by a bee sting seriously when he's talking about science."

            We don't care how serious trolls are. A troll is a troll.

          • Clark Banner

            I'm curious. Is this Evan Sayet? Your writing style is very similar to that which is in his book.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I'm curious."

            Satan installed wireless web connections. It's Sam Kinison. And kid, you've got talent.

            See you soon troll boy.

          • Clark Banner

            Lol it is Evan Sayet isn't it. Wow…..

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Lol it is Evan Sayet isn't it. Wow….."

            I'm the Grinch who stole Christmas.

            It's awesome that you show all over this page how you draw conclusions from mere accusations derived from your "stellar" intuition.

            Now we know what you mean when you talk about "facts."

          • Clark Banner

            This is Evan Sayet.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "This is Evan Sayet."

            Whatever you say Vlad.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "This is Evan Sayet."

            Are you 69/70 certain?

          • Mary Sue

            who the f*** is "Evan Sayet"?

          • objectivefactsmatter
          • Mary Sue

            This is CNN.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "So lets force citizens to pony up trillions in carbon taxes, and then the climate will never change again. Right. "

        Actually what happens is that no matter how much we give, the fact that "climate change is still a reality and an existential threat" will prove that we haven't paid enough yet. We never will. It will be like Affirmative Action. The fact that we have the program will be proof of the need, and the fact that people are still unhappy will be proof we haven't paid enough yet. Or ever will.

    • Eugene ickes

      Which lie(s) was that Clark???
      All i read was some quoted stats. & some educated opinion.
      BTW—Dr Myles , I'll come by the clinic next week for that procto-exam.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "I guess through your logic, the Sahara desert isn't a desert because it rains there sporadically."

      I think what you don't understand is that we're mocking the evidence presented by greenies. You're literally correct that these stories don't prove anything and neither do yours. Yet people are dying due to policy changes that take your evidence seriously.

      Now I can understand that because a lot of money has been spent producing data, and whenever it supports the "climate change" theory it gets published far and wide. What we never see is a comprehensive analysis that is significant enough for the stated conclusions.

      Or simply, the burden of proof is on your team and we're just laughing at the fact that none of you have met the burden of mustering a convincing case even as you kill people with the results of your policy influence.

      You may be convinced emotionally, but calling that "69/70" certainty is still irrational.

      • Clark Banner

        Where did you read the data about AIDS being spread through bee stings? That's what I want to know.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Where did you read the data about AIDS being spread through bee stings? That's what I want to know."

          Keeping digging yourself in to a deep hole. It's funny when trolls implode. There might have been a time when you would have had a chance to present your case but I think your potential audience is extremely small already.

          • Clark Banner

            Do you really think I'm here to convince anybody when everyone here has made up their minds?

            No. I'm calling Daniel Greenfield out on his lies. That's it. And if someone responds. I'll answer. Occasionally I come across people like you who think AIDS is a gay liberal conspiracy and I remember why I'm not a liberal or conservative despite how much I agree with the right on some issues.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I'm not a liberal or conservative despite how much I agree with the right on some issues."

            You don't see yourself that way. You don't know what you are. We do.

          • Clark Banner

            Does we include Evan Sayet?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Does we include Evan Sayet?"

            There is no way for me to know that. You'll have to ask him yourself. I doubt FPM would allow their contributors to use anonymous accounts. All I know for sure though is I never heard his name before today.

            Let me know if you get an answer, but don't be surprised when I am skeptical given the way you handle evidence. Which is to say, you create your own out of your personal delusions.

            Imagine me laughing at you too. Or just avoid reality completely and keep up with your silly riffs.

          • Clark Banner

            Why don't you simply say no this isn't? This is definitely Evan Sayet.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Why don't you simply say no this isn't? This is definitely Evan Sayet."

            Vlad, I already told you. K?

            My comment stream is public so anyone can see. They can see everything you wrote too when they follow the URL for your silly comments that I reply to.

            I actually feel sorry for you. But your sacrifices may help a lot of leftist trolls-in-denial seeing how foolish it is to behave as you do. Just like those bees that gave their lives for the gay disease. But not exactly.

          • Mary Sue

            Oh, so you're a moderate. Not much different from a liberal.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Oh, so you're a moderate. Not much different from a liberal."

            A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

    • jay

      Temp goes up? Global Warming
      Temp goes down? Global Warming
      Temp stays the same? Global Warming
      It rains a lot? Global Warming
      It rains too little? Global Warming
      It rains just right? Global Warming
      It snows too much? Global Warming
      It snows too little? Global Warming
      It snows just right? Global Warming
      Fewer tornados than average? Global Warming
      Too many tornados? Global Warming
      Average tornados? Global Warming

      You get the picture.

  • κατεργάζομαι

    RE: Global Warming-

    What would we say if First Lady MOOchelle Obama was lifted into the air by a tornado?

    WHAT an Udder disaster!

  • http://twitter.com/scotsrenewables @scotsrenewables

    The current cold spell in the UK is a direct result of the unprecedented melting of arctic ice.

    • Mary Sue

      Melting Ice causes coldness? MELTING ICE?

      ROFLMAO!

    • John

      Evidence please? Or do we just take your opinion as gospel.

  • anor277

    And in the southern hemisphere there have lately been unprecedented heat waves. Mr Greenfield is at least consistent in his misrepresentation. But despite Mr G's position, local weather is not indicative of climate change. Of course, during the northern hemisphere summer, should there be a cold snap, this will also be evidence against climate change.

  • Toni_Pereira

    The climate is cyclical, with or without AGW.Resorting to the myth of the hockey stick graph, like you people always do, is an invitation to be mocked.

    • anor277

      Then make mock. This is your choice, to ignore reasoned and rational scientific data or not. And you should be aware that the hockey stick graph has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Its data are good and robust; it has been replicated by a variety of means; it is not a myth.

      • Dr. Chris Behme

        I am a scientist. The hockey stick was manufactured by mixing tree ring data and other proxy methods. Do your homework. This was a farce and no one has reproduced it. Climate change is a hoax used to justify a massive tax increase and to enrich charlatans like Al Gore. Nothing more. Head back to Huffpo where even a run-of-the-mill leftist like you can feel smart about yourself with your global warming hokum.

        • Mary Sue

          Don't forget the ice core data (particularly the CO2 levels measured in the pockets in the ice)! Some people seem to think that ice is a closed system when in fact it is not.

        • anor277

          Please don't be personal Dr, I don't know you. And my homework has been done.

      • Drakken

        Your so called scientific data is complete bunk and false to the bloody core, but your too effing stupid to get it because you want to believe it.

      • Mary Sue

        further to tree ring data: Many trees can have multiple rings per year. All depends on the conditions. If the tree is dead, you have to calculate "when did the tree die", and that isn't 100% accurate. Tree rings don't record temperature per se, they record favorable or unfavorable growing conditions.

  • Joyannah Lonnes

    Even with climate change, it still gets cold. But, statistically speaking, hot days are happening more often. Have you notice the glaciers melting at super speed? Yep. It's true. And the atmospheric CO2 is up to almost 400 PPM. From the study of core samples from the rapidly melting glaciers, scientists know that it's never been that high before. http://clmtr.lt/cb/qm40Xj

    • Mary Sue

      I'll tell you what I told the other idiots that think that ice is a closed system.

      ICE IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM. YOU CANNOT MEASURE CO2 LEVELS IN THE PAST. You can only measure what CO2 is left in the ice that hasn't diffused out of the bubble.

      There is paleontological evidence that CO2 levels were much higher when the Dinosaurs were just getting started.

    • ozzymandius

      Why is Greenland called Greenland?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Why is Greenland called Greenland?"

        It was named because they knew some day that the industrial revolution would lead to climate change and when it finally turns green we'll know that the USA failed to pay enough money to third-world nations when they had the chance.

    • Auntigreen

      7000 ppm when the Dino's were here. They didn't have cars or planes. It was just nature doing her thing. Just like today. End of

  • slider 96

    The Gulfstream is what keeps weather in Britain from becoming frigid , this current can be diverted southward if enough Arctic ice melts and changes the salinity of waters in the upper North Atlantic .Britain would infact get colder in a scenario of global warming .
    Most people here know only to repeat talking points , most of which are unfounded and are more opinionated than scientific . " It's snowing , so how can there be global warming " ? Riiiight .

    • Mary Sue

      Um, are you retarded? Most ARCTIC ICE is already saline! It's frozen seawater! It's floating IN the ocean.

    • tagalog

      The last time the Gulf Steam was "turned off" was during the melting of the glaciers at the beginning of the present interglacial, when the ice block damming the half-continent-sized Lake Agassiz melted and trillions of gallons of ice water poured into the Atlantic. Today, we don't have any large body of ice to match that, except in Antarctica, where there is melting along the Antarctic Peninsula and a buildup of ice elsewhere on that continent.

  • slider 96

    The deaths of the elderly , or those you chose to say are living in 'energy poverty " is most likely right .But that is a strawman no matter who is using it . The fact remains Polar ice is melting , Ocean salinity is falling , Ocean temperatures are rising , Glaciers are disappearing and global air temperature is rising . Ocean currents have a profound effect on lands . They drive climate and temperatures . The trans-Oceanic Conveyor is driven by the exchange of waters of greater saline content interacting with colder less saline water -look it up .

    • Mary Sue

      So old people have to die to save the planet?

      • slider 96

        Watch it mary sue , you IQ is showing . Its too bad , you won a computer but dont have the capability of understanding a written sentence . I said the arguments a straw man , since if the elderly are dieing due to "energy poverty" , that has little to do with any argument over climate change , and everything to do with the price of oil . But if you insist on displaying your childish ignorance , please feel free to continue . So far everything you have blurted out on this thread is nothing more than silly childish nonsense and memorized ,parroted talking points .

        • Mary Sue

          The price of energy from fossil fuels isn't the problem. It's the price of "ALTERNATIVE" fuels, which is directly related to the green craze, you idiot.

    • tagalog

      Well yes, it's warmer now than it was 100 years ago. It's a LOT warmer now than it was 10,000 years ago, when the ice sheets covered most of the Northern Hemisphere to a depth of several miles.

      We ARE, after all, in an interglacial period.

      You can take solace, however, from the fact that, given that interglacial periods generally last about 15,000 to 20,000 years, we're close to the mid-point of the warming period (maybe past it) and it's going to start getting colder at some point in the next 1000 years or so.

  • Epsilon

    Global warming in a nutshell… A scam by some countries to undermine economical development in China, India, and other rising powers. It's a sort of economical NPT.

    Is GW real? Maybe, but it is HIGHLY unlikely to be caused by human activities. Earth's orbit around the sun is much and far more complex than just going in almost 0 eccentricity; it has its own subtle wobble, thus the variation in climatic change through the last 100,000 years.

    Remember the Earth once was a ''snow ball'', thanks to global volcanic eruptions (on grand scale) which lasted anything between 7-20 million years, finally saved life from frosty oblivion; the GW crowd telling us simpletons that 100 plus years of industrial activities by humans, caused the GW, that would out do the ancient volcanoes of the ''snow ball'' Earth….Right.

    Go figure.

    • tagalog

      Some people think that Snowball Earth lasted for about 600 million years and that it was a rise in the CO2 concentration in the atomsphere (from volcanic action – see the Deccan Traps and the Siberian Traps) that warmed things up enough for that particular set of circumstances to pass.

      Some people think that there has been more than one Snowball Earth period in Earth's history.

  • Geoff

    I get completely confused with all these extremes having lived in the coldest recorded temperature in England Shropshire -26 deg c something in the 80s including blizzards on my 21st there on April 6 1988 and then experiencing the hottest recorded day in Perth Western Australia Feb 26 1991 46.9 deg c ,why do the experts say its global warming I am sure they will still be saying this when the sun eventually reaches earth I think it's called evolution not global warming??? Ps it's raining here in Perth today and temp is to reach 31deg c on Easter Sunday.

  • tagalog

    As I watch the TV news "journalists" get all fluttery over how Spring arrived 4 days ago and it's -gasp!- still snowy and cold, I wonder how many years it's been since they were told by some responsible adult that sometimes winter hangs on into the first days of Spring. Farmers have always understood this; that's why they paid a lot of attention to when to plant their seeds, so a late cold snap wouldn't cripple the crop.

    Are there really people who are wililng to complain publicly that the clock reached the Spring minute, and now it's supposed to be warmer, but instead there's snow and cold weather? How dumb do they have to be?

  • Loyal Achates

    You know that the UK is not the whole world, right? And that the global temperature keeps rising? And one effect of climate change is more extreme weather generally?

    • tagalog

      Why should people who are NOT catastrophic global warming/climate change believers act any differenlty from those who say that because we had Hurrican Katrina a few years ago, that's the harbinger of permanent catastrophic climate change?

      • Loyal Achates

        Was that meant to be a sentence?

        • tagalog

          Yes, and it expresses a complete thought grammatically. Your inability to make sense of it must be explained by other means.

  • tagalog

    And while we're on the subject, where does the NOAA get the knowledge to predict that the present drought in the U.S. will continue through the summer? Isn't that unpredictable weather forecasting?

    Or is it a climate prognosis, except it's just for the next three months?

    Maybe we should just read the Farmer's Almanac; after all, it's frequently correct in ITS predictions.

  • Brujo Blanco

    Where is Al Gore's global warming when it is really need it?

  • Raymond in DC

    All I can sayis that, as I was completing my preparations for the springtime festival of Passover here in DC, I noticed light snow flurries! In several decades here I've never seen that. Yes, it's expected to turn to rain later, but folks farther north will be heading for their Seders with snow on the ground.

  • Lenny

    We have had six or seven ice ages that are known of in the history's of earth's evolution. How come these ice ages disappeared BEFORE INDUSTRIALISATION? What caused the ice to retreat?

    If current temperatures are outside of the range of natural variability and yet all of these ice ages melted away without the influence of human beings around – then logic strongly suggests to me that current temperatures are NOT UNUSUAL and that NATURAL VARIABILITY in the likely explanation.

    Humankind is a new factor in the equation since then, however, but the fact that all these ice ages have come and gone so frequently with sharp rises and drops in temperatures, I would still argue that natural variability in the climate system is the probable and most likely explanation.

    As for glaciers melting away, please come on. Think about it logically; glaciers either retreat or advance, they are never stable. You go to Antartica or Greenland, etc., at any given point in the year – you will always find evidence of some glaciers receding and others gaining volume or mass.

    The climate system is governed by thousands of factors – many of which are poorly understood – and to claim that among this vast number – human emissions of Carbon Dioxide are altering the earth's climate – not only represents a high degree of ignorance, but the award of 'extreme arrogance' should also be credited to the claim.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "We have had six or seven ice ages that are known of in the history's of earth's evolution. How come these ice ages disappeared BEFORE INDUSTRIALISATION? What caused the ice to retreat?"

      I can't tell you how many times I've had that question ignored.

    • Sarah Goodwich

      "How come these ice ages disappeared BEFORE INDUSTRIALISATION? What caused the ice to retreat?"

      Because of

      1. The asymmetrical nature of the sun;
      2. The rotation of the sun,
      3. The 11-year sunspot cycle,
      4. The asymmetrical nature of the earth, and
      5. The Earth's 26,000 year precession cycle;

      ALL of which global warming nuts IGNORE in their running in circles like Chicken Little with his head cut off.

  • Loyal Achates

    Part of the global warming 'agenda' is to make our economy more efficient and free us from dependence on fossil fuels…so naturally the patriots here at FPM think it's a terrible idea.

    • tagalog

      If we stop using fossil fuels, how will our economy become more efficient?

      Will someone suddenly invent or discover some hitherto unheard-of energy source? Oh yeah, I forgot about nuclear…wait, no, nuclear power is a no-no. Maybe it'll be Mister Fusion.

      Or are we going to run on wind and solar power?

    • Mary Sue

      It's a terrible idea because in order to "compete", the price of fossil fuels is artificially raised so that people have no choice but to pay a gazillion more dollars per year for pipe-dream energy like wind and solar. As a result everybody's energy bill goes so high that people have to choose between heating their house, or EATING.

      Wanna rethink your position?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Part of the global warming 'agenda' is to make our economy more efficient and free us from dependence on fossil fuels…so naturally the patriots here at FPM think it's a terrible idea."

      We don't mind efficiency. In fact most of us welcome that. Just stop the lying and stealing with the climate change nut shell games. Then we'll all get along much better. Can you manage that?

    • Sarah Goodwich

      And Marx's agenda was to make the world a better place for everyone, we see how that worked out– and for the same reasons, i.e. there is no such thing as benevolent dictatorship since there's neither choice nor accountability.

  • slider 96

    No , you have just expressed YOUR arrogance and ignorance ….why don't you apply for a PR job with the fossil fuel companies , they are the ones dictating their litany to little parrots like you and mary sue .

    • Mary Sue

      I WISH I was being paid by the oil companies! :p

  • Susan

    Even with climate change, it still gets cold sometimes. But hot days are happening more often. http://clmtr.lt/cb/qm40fx

    • Sarah Goodwich

      Yes, if you ignore the cold ones. For every "record-high temperature," there's at least one record-LOW one that gets conveniently omitted since it's filtered out the global-warming panic.

      The fact is that there are ALWAYS going to be record-high temperatures in some place or another, since you're not going to have the same temperature every year in every place; it's just the law of probability in a random weather-pattern– but the same goes for record LOW temperatures, too.

      So if you only notice when there's a record high, and not a record low, then naturally it's going to present a distorted picture.

      Such is the nature of anxiety and panic, as seen in standard psychology regarding such disorders; this is the same thing on a global scale.

  • Bewildered

    So the melting arctic icecap, is causing the gulf stream to not reach Britain, bringing down the arctic cold making Britain colder. So if Britain is already colder because of the Arctic cold, is the heat jumping past Britain to melt the ice? But if that was true, then where is the Arctic cold coming from, if the warm air is up there melting the ice? Anybody see a problem here? LOL The globe was ice free before, and covered in ice before, long before man was here. So if the warming back then was normal, why do we suddenly think its a huge crisis this time? I can tell you. Because somebody is making boatloads of money somewhere and taking it from suckers. As has been done through the centuries … sigh.

    • Sarah Goodwich

      "So the melting arctic icecap, is causing the gulf stream to not reach Britain, bringing down the arctic cold making Britain colder."

      In the house that Jack built… i.e. an absurd chain of absurd causation.

      Except that a MELTING icecap wouldn't block a gulf stream. Only an INCREASING one would.

  • http://twitter.com/James_Samworth @James_Samworth

    I don't get it. The UK's had a cold month and so the entire output of decades of science is wrong?

    • Sarah Goodwich

      "The UK's had a cold month and so the entire output of decades of science is wrong?"

      JUNK science born of conflicted interests.

  • Guest

    Thank you for this revealing article, Daniel Greenfield. I am looking forward to the day when James Hansen, Michael Mann and Bill McKibben are all charged with fraud for claiming that record cold weather is really global warming!

    • Clark Banner

      I think you're confused about the terminology. The term Climate Change is used much more because warming causes different changes in ocean current (sometimes causing cold in places like Europe), increased forest fires, more severe storms, etc. This is more relevant to the weather patterns being discussed. The term Climate Change has been around in one form or another since the 30s. Now as we gain more cumulative data on the subject, Climate Change is more of an appropriate term at least when dealing with weather patterns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqMunulJU7w&fe

      I myself thought they changed the name, and scientists consciously started to use one term over the other more. But as users questioned me I did some more research. I realized the name was never changed. It just seemed that way, because one term was more popular than the other at one point in time. http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-gl

    • Sarah Goodwich

      It's like the movie "Day After Tomorrow" where the earth FROZE due to GLOBAL WARMING lol

  • http://twitter.com/5neadster @5neadster

    Here's the thing … these global warming scientists are on Government payroll … if they prove there is no global warming then they are unemployed. The CO2 levels are actually lower than they should be to sustain vibrant plant life . The current levels are at about .039445 ppmv (parts per million by volume)

  • http://twitter.com/5neadster @5neadster

    Greenhouse farmers have to pump CO2 into the greenhouses to get the levels up to about 1100 to 1300 ppmv. Humans only produce 7% of the CO2 produced. the ocean and soil produce 97%.

  • alnero

    I wonder why 'Greenland' is so called, maybe once it was green.
    All this 'end of the world is nigh' thing has to be given up.
    The global cooling, warming and the 'I have lost my way' or as they
    Call it now, climate change are used by people who are drunk on
    science, but with little wisdom choking on money dished up by corrupt
    bureaucrats/conglomerates to keep people in fear. And as we
    know fear pays handsomely.
    We can have all the 24 hour global news and Internet we can eat,
    but, we are STILL like mushrooms ie all kept in the dark and fed a load
    of s***.
    We could all go out tomorrow and buy electric cars and be nice and green or
    naive or both. Problems then would arise with the national grid shutting down
    and all the car pollution coming out of power station chimneys.
    Why isn't the research into nuclear fusion being driven along
    at the same manic pace and with the trillions of £'s, $'s, €'s that
    are being chucked at the climate change industries.
    The reason is after a huge outlay something that tends towards
    free energy and that is TRULY dangerous.
    As for the climate, it has, is and always will change.