CLIMATE scientists yesterday stunned Britons suffering the coldest winter for 30 years by claiming last month was the ­hottest January the world has ever seen. The remarkable claim, based on global satellite data, follows Arctic temperatures that brought snow, ice and travel chaos to millions in the UK.

At the height of the big freeze, the entire country was blanketed in snow. But Australian weather expert Professor Neville Nicholls, of Monash University in Melbourne, said yesterday: “January, according to satellite data, was the hottest January we’ve ever seen.

“Last November was the hottest November we’ve ever seen. November-January as a whole is the hottest November-January the world has seen.” Veteran ­climatologist Professor Nicholls was speaking at an online climate change briefing, added: “It’s not warming the same everywhere but it is really quite challenging to find places that haven’t warmed in the past 50 years.”

His extraordinary claims came after the World Meteorological Organisation revealed 2000 to 2009 was the hottest decade since records began in 1850. But UK forecaster Jonathan Powell, of Positive Weather Solutions, said: “If it is the case and it is borne out that January was the hottest on record, it is still no marker towards climate change.

“It’s all part of a cyclical issue and nothing should be read too deeply into that.

“It’s been the coldest for 30 years in Britain but we predicted that and climate change always tends t o throw up anomalies. It’s all in line with predictions and I won’t be sold on climate change at all. The data is either faulty or manufactured to make it look like it shouldn’t.”

Cripes! My head hurts.

  1. Buzz says:

    How dare those asswhole scientists measure the total calorie count of Earth’s atmosphere to come up with a “heat number!”

    Don’t they KNOW that the right way to do scientific research is to measure the snow depth in Central Park?!?


  2. MikeN says:

    >No, I’m not going to read some opinion piece that assembled a bunch of exaggerated instances.

    That seems to be what you did.

    >BTW, Phil Jones had nothing to do with the “hockey stick”.

    Actually he cowrote a paper in 2003 with Mann which had a hockey stick shape. But yes, he wasn’t involved with THE hockey stick from MBH1998 and 1999. Though all three of them together authored a paper with Jones in 1998 called Global Temperature patterns, and with some more CRU folks in another paper called the Scope of Medieval Warming.

    Perhaps you should learn some of the science rather than repeating talking points.

  3. soundwash says:

    Wow…i guess the carbon derivative scandal must really be a major key to the success of the whole NWO / Global Government scam if they are still trying to convince the masses this BS science is legit..


    All Western Science is a fraud.

    It’s only purpose is to keep your mind and soul chained to the idea, the illusion that in order to produce energy, you must consume a physical and finite fuel source. -and believe that this is the only way. -to freedom.

    We live in an Electric Universe governed by the physics of Plasma, Electromagnetics Torsion and Resonance. Consciousness is the glue that holds it all together.

    As you begin to learn the true nature of the Universe, the illusion of the Mirror Image Reality you have been tricked into thinking is real, will shatter. You can begin to shatter the illusion of your current false reality by first understanding the truth and true nature of how the Universe really works.

    Watch this video which explains in layman’s terms, the true nature of the Electric Universe:


    -then, everyday spend 5 minutes and read the daily Thunderbolt Picture of The Day.

    TPOD first explains a common picture via science’s consensus view, then explains the same phenomena via the simple, Electric model of the Universe. -no theoretical math or “theory as fact” trickery is required to explain what today’s science still wishes you to think is a great “mystery”.

    Only you can shatter the illusion in which you have been tricked into living. Only you can teach yourself the true nature of the universe. Embrace the truth, the true reality, and you will never fear the unknown again.


  4. Somebody says:

    What some real scientists said about the “climatologists”.

  5. Glenn E. says:

    #97- exactly. This “we should trust all scientists” mantra, is nonsense. A year ago, hardly anyone would have believe that Toyota was making killer cars, and trying to cover it up by paying victims off. But now, the worm has turned. And all those vague reports, over the past few years, of out of control cars. Doesn’t seem so far fetched anymore. And Toyota execs have reluctantly “come clean”. Or at least as clean as they’ve been force into coming. So it may just be a matter of time now, before a few AGW spoutin climatologists defect to the “deniers” side. And the news media actually gives the the time of day, to speak their conscience.

    After the Enron debacle. The Dot Com collapse. The L&S scandal. The Subprime Mortgage collapse. And the Bernie Madoff scandal. We ought to have learned something VERY FUNDAMENTAL. The “experts” can, and do, LIE! So why should some scientists be any different? They’re not Gods. Many don’t even believe in one. So what’s to keep them honest? It’s all situation ethics, with them. If their careers or favorite cause, calls for a good lie, to keep it going. They’ll lie. Or at least fudge the results enough to favor the desired conclusion.

    Remember, it wasn’t too many decades ago that there was something called scientific racism. Very leaned men were convinced that whites were of superior intelligence to all other races. And they usually had some data to prove it. Tests engineered to yield results that proved their point. As we now all know, they were totally full of crap! But I guess they felt they were “savin the world”, too.

  6. Glenn E. says:

    The things that are most overlooked are these. Records and measurements of temperature changes, does not prove its cause. Coincidental correlations between perceived climatic trends, and increased human activity. Is not prima facie evidence that mankind is responsible for negatively effecting the world’s climate. Nor is there the slightest proof that anything can be done, that would reverse any such trend, regardless of who or what is to blame.

    The mantra of “let’s do something, ANYTHING, before it’s too late”. Is basically what the Nazis used to justify exterminating the Jews. I can well imagine a future when desperate and unchallenged climatologists begin suggesting we depopulate the earth a bit, and quickly, in order to save the rest of us. And I’m sure they’ll have the scientific data to prove they’re right. And then, maybe only after a 3rd world war, we’ll realize we’ve been had.

  7. Glenn E. says:

    BTW, remember the Ozone Hole? Well here’s an interesting possible result of doing anything, before it’s too late.

    It sounds like maybe the scientists screwed up in reverse. So you may not get skin cancer living at the south pole. But there also might not be any of it left to stand on. Way to go.

  8. NelsonOH says:

    I’m amazed at how many people believe that science is a purely altruistic endeavor that is incapable of being compromised by corruption. C’mon people, just look at the folks who are itching to get this cap and trade exchange in place. There some who stand to gain a great deal at our expense. Are we really that naive?

  9. Mr. Fusion says:

    #97, Somebody,

    It doesn’t matter what you call Sara Palin, a pig is a pig. McIntyre is NOT a scientist. He is a geologist with a BA that works for large mining companies that emit a lot of CO2. His blog is not SCIENTIFIC.

    When you have those who would profit the most from continuing high CO2 emissions supporting these pseudo legitimate sites, you do your side no good.

    The simple fact is the denier crowd has resorted to lying about what the facts are. They have NOT provided any evidence to refute climate change.

  10. MikeN says:

    Steve McIntyre pointed out how Tiljander proxy was used upside down. His blog ran someone else’s pointing out another error about improper calibration in the Kaufman Arctic warming paper.

    But of course there is no science going on there.

  11. MikeN says:

    Submission by an editor of Energy and the Environment.

  12. smartalix says:

    Didn’t they have problems getting enough snow for the Olympics?

  13. Lee Sstevens says:

    LOOK AT THIS TALK WITH PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE if you believe Global Warming is a Hoax.

    If you are still going to claim such absurdities you must be a left over flat Earther. Yes we are going threw a very harsh winter that doesn’t mean that the claims do not have to be taken very seriously.

  14. Greg Allen says:

    Just because it snowed a lot where you live, doesn’t disprove global warming.

    I swear, the conservatives’ obsession to de-fund public education was a conspiracy to create low information voters.

    And it worked.

  15. Chilisize says:

    “My head hurts.”

    Put down the glue…

  16. Serious says:

    #113 Uncle Patso

    Think you got it twisted.. more like the alarmist’s trying to make the sceptic believe in their religion at all cost. It is the burden of the salesman to make the sale, especially when the sale that they are trying to make comes at a cost for all and influences public policy

  17. Serious says:

    [b]#80, Mr.Fusion[/b]

    [blockquote]Can you provide some evidence that all the data is false? Not some right wing nut blog, some honest evidence.[/blockquote]

    I admit i generalized, since we’ve seen over 19 severe “mistakes” thus far in their data. I will ask you to go look up the evidence yourself – I gave you multiple sources above for only one of the cases. The IPCC has admitted that some reports and data have not been peer reviewed (pretty darn major), example: taken from a mountaineering magazine and from a student’s report. Some of these “mistakes” have been so scandalous some of them are facing criminal charges. Rajendra’s cover-up of the Glacier-Gate has resulted in him being repeatedly asked to step down and India establishing its own independent climate research unit. Check everything from the washington post, to NYT to herald tribune etc..

    [blockquote]BTW, Phil Jones had nothing to do with the “hockey stick”. It was Michael Mann and associates that published the data.[/blockquote]

    Yes indeed it was Michael Mann who did the hockey stick – hiding the temperature decrease. My bad, mixed the two up when writing quickly, similarly to how you forgot to finish you sentence above. It was Phil Jones who admitted that there had been no statistically significant warming in the last 10 years (this was the correct part and the most important part of what i said), but avoiding that argument was probably necessary for you – both of these guys are major contributors to the IPCC report.. Mann referenced over 60 times.

    [blockquote]The term “hockey stick” was coined by a BBC reporter. [/blockquote]

    The term hockey stick was coined by the head of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Jerry Mahlman, to describe the pattern, envisaging the a graph that is relatively flat to 1900 as forming the hockey stick’s “shaft”, followed by a sharp increase, corresponding to the “blade”.

    [blockquote]So if you can’t get that part correct, what faith can we have in the rest of your blather?[/blockquote]

    Doesn’t seem like you got that part correct – so i guess we can’t have any faith in the rest of your blather either?

  18. Serious says:

    [b]#82 Bobbo[/b]

    [blockquote] #79–Serious==the defects and short comings of one theory do not “prove” the correctness of any other theory.[/blockquote]

    FALLACY (putting words in my mouth?): Never said that or assumed it. The burden of proof is on the individual that develops a theory and claims it to be scientific, not for the sceptic to prove otherwise. It is similar as me saying: “prove to me that God does not exist”. I don’t have a theory, I am a sceptic of your theory. If you tell people that the earth revolves around the sun, you have to prove it to the people – this is as your statements have effect on public policy. This is important.


    I don’t disagree with you it is self evident. That is why I am wondering as to where i had stated that a theory being wrong proved the correctness of another theory.. this is taking something waaay out of context – or should i say, putting words in my mouth that I have not said.

    [blockquote]If I take everything you have posted as “the truth” you have not provided any scientific data in support of any other theory.[/blockquote]

    Because i don’t have any other theory, i am a sceptic. It means that I think the equation of global warming and cooling is far more complex than what we humans have simplified it as and given credit to (aka AGW). I don’t need to provide scientific data for that. You only need to look at the amount of variables that play a part in “heat” to grasp that concept. As I said, pro-AGW are issuing a theory that effect public policy, it is their burden to show proof and thus far the “gates” have shown us that the “science” is far from conclusive.


    Not quite.

  19. Somebody says:

    The corruption of science is an existential threat to civilization.

    A greater threat than climate change by far.

    It will probably be true of this century as it was of the last. More people will die as a result of government action than the weather.


Bad Behavior has blocked 5522 access attempts in the last 7 days.